The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - initial impressions from an English campaign

[econ21]

I've played a few hours of M2TW, running through a couple of dozen turns of a VH/VH English campaign.

The good:

1) The battles do seem more challenging than RTW and in a good, fair, way, not because the stats are skewed. So far, I am always getting significant casualties in battles - as I did in MTW and STW - not the minimal ones I tend to get even in RTR. I'm not quite sure what's caused this - a combination of the higher morale, the vulnerable cav, slow firing missiles and the AI not doing dumb things, I guess.

2) So far, I like the battlefield AI. I've heard about the passive AI bug, but I've not experienced it. So far, the AI comes on seriously, as if it means business.

A highlight so far was my abortive attempt to storm Caernarvon. First, the Welsh set fire to my ram and siege tower; then they rushed reinforcements from the ground to break my spears climbing the ladders; all the time, raining bodkin arrows down on me. A very active, effective defense and an ignominious defeat. Yay!

But more generally, the AI seems to use it missiles and cavalry cannily; and to go for good unit match ups. It is almost as if I am fighting an equal opponent. The only time I felt I outsmarted the AI was when I recklessly besieged some Flemish rebels, only to find they had a strong garrison that promptly sortied against me. Their armoured spears and pikes outclassed my spears and billmen, so I had to rely on cavalry and missile tactics to best them. It was fun giving pikemen the run around with cav, while shooting them down. But not particularly unrealistic and even then, I only won by a whisker (a general + 2 archers were all that was left of a half stack army).

3) The campaign also seems more challenging. That old feeling of threat that was so present in the STW/MTW risk maps may be back. I feel as if moving a defending army away from a frontier may induce the Scots or the French to strike.

4) The missions are decent - I like the Nobles telling me to boost border defences and the Pope telling me to build churches.

5) Graphically, the game is of course gorgeous on the battlemap - we've seen that in the demo. And with an upgraded video card, I can enjoy it.


The bad:

1) I still find the move speeds a little frenetic, as I did in the demo. I don't feel I am in control as much as I am in the RTW realism mods, let along STW/MTW.

2) The kill rates are sometimes very high: a unit of Flemish knights charging a unit of English spear militia led to the destruction of almost all the latter in a few seconds. I guess I goofed - the spears were not braced. Used properly, spears can mess up knights (e.g. if they catch them at rest).

3) Maybe I am dumb, but I hate the building browser - I can't get it to tell me anything I want to know (e.g. what to build to get assassins). RTWs was perfect - why change it?

4) I like the unit caps, but they seem so generous, they are not really binding. Gold is the constraint, not the caps.

5) Move speeds on the campaign map seem a little low - it's hard to get much done in a turn. It starts resembling Civ - endlessly clicking end-turn after a lot of little micromanagement.


The ugly:

1) I don't find the campaign map that great to look at. For some reason, I prefer that in RTR PE. Maybe I'm too zoomed in or something.

2) Some of the stats seem strange: the differences seem extremely large. Why is a billman attack 13 and total defence 3; a spear militia attack 5 and total defence 7; an armoured swordsman attack 13 and defence 22? Why does a crossbow have twice the missile attack of a longbow? I preferred the small range of stats in STW/MTW. But I guess the formula for kill rates has changed, as the units don't seem as extremely differentiated as the stats would suggest.

3) Archers shoot really slowly and cavalry die really easily. It seems a slight overcorrection for RTW. Archers often seem to get off only one volley before melee. A unit of hobilars lost half its men during a pursuit of some routers in a town (maybe they rallied, I don't know - that's the fast paced thing again). Knights seem to have paper armour, unless they are the general's (presumably 2HP) bodyguards, in which case they perform in a way I feel about right.

4) I've noticed the apparent bug whereby opposing units don't quickly connect, perhaps because they are trying to maintain some kind of unit cohesion. It can be frustrating, as it means a charge may not strike home with full impact.

5) Not really ugly, but M2TW does not blow me away in the way that RTW initially did (the one campaign I finished, before I got disillusioned and put it away until I found RTR). I guess that's a personal thing - I've played an awful lot of RTW mods and M2TW feels like more of the same. Plus I found the ancient setting more exotic (I had never even heard of Seleucia, for example.)


Bottomline: M2TW is a game that plays well out of the box. It probably is like MTW with RTW graphics. But somehow I feel a little underwhelmed - perhaps because I've experienced MTW and I've experienced RTW graphics. Perhaps because I've been spoilt by RTW mods such as RTR PE, EB and Goth's All factions BI mod.

[AlJabberwock]

Thanks for the review Econ. That was interesting and well said. Of course we all hate you who have yet to get the game, but, I wouldn't be here reading your review otherwise would I... !

Cheers,
Al Jabberwock

[screwtype]

I like the unit caps, but they seem so generous, they are not really binding. Gold is the constraint, not the caps.

Yeah, I tried to tell you guys the new recruitment system would probably make little if any difference. But you wouldn't listen to me back then...

Move speeds on the campaign map seem a little low - it's hard to get much done in a turn. It starts resembling Civ - endlessly clicking end-turn after a lot of little micromanagement.

That's very discouraging. I've long argued that the slow movement rates on the campaign map are one of the worst, most unrealistic features of the TW series. And it sounds as though the problem is getting worse rather than better! I'm disappointed to hear this, I hoped they had done at least something to improve it a little.

Archers shoot really slowly and cavalry die really easily.

Don't like the sound of these changes either, especially the slow shooting rate. I hope that turns out to be moddable.

[Monarch]

"3) Maybe I am dumb, but I hate the building browser - I can't get it to tell me anything I want to know (e.g. what to build to get assassins). RTWs was perfect - why change it?"

I can't really remember the RTW way of doing things but I think its Brothels that let you train assassins in m2.

[hoetje]

I thought brothels were for spy's?

[Emperor Aurelius]

Excuse me but would you guys mind explaining this unit cap thing as this is news to me? Since when does CA put a stupid unit cap in their games! Don't tell me this is gonna be like all the other strategy games now:gets boring cuz you can't build any more units.

[Lusted]

Say for instance you can recruit peasants, spear militia, peasant archers, billmen and longbowmen in a settlement. You have a unit cap of 6 for the first lot, and 3/4 for the others, but once you've recruited those units, the unit replenishes so you can recruit them again.

3) Maybe I am dumb, but I hate the building browser - I can't get it to tell me anything I want to know (e.g. what to build to get assassins). RTWs was perfect - why change it?

I think the City/Castle system resulted in the change. I find it very good to use, just select what kind of settlement you have(city or castle), then select the type of building and you'll see the different levels of that type of building on the left.

4) I like the unit caps, but they seem so generous, they are not really binding. Gold is the constraint, not the caps.

They could do with being reduced a bit, as the Sicilans i have no problems fielding armies with large numbers of Norman Knights or Dismounted Norman Knights in them.

[Drake]

The trick to it I think is building up as many recruitment slots as possible, once you get it up a bit then you can start fielding big armies fast enough to not notice any real cap. The agent cap though is smart, makes sense in that how could there be more agents then facilities allow.

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

Excuse me but would you guys mind explaining this unit cap thing as this is news to me? Since when does CA put a stupid unit cap in their games! Don't tell me this is gonna be like all the other strategy games now:gets boring cuz you can't build any more units.

Doubt it. The more and better settlements you have, the higher your cap goes. There is no "upper pop limit" on the cap, except when you have all the cities fully upgraded, and by then you've won.

[Mahrabals apprentice]

So far I have only been playing custom battles, and I am dissapointed with the English.
Billmen are seriously weak. Their Defence is 5 and they die in droves and run away very easily. And the longbow men are useless for me so far. They shoot slowly and cause few casualties against any foe (so far they have failed dismally against heavy infantry, light infantry and fellow archers, 10 casulaties from a unit seems to be all I can expect). The only thing they have done for me is kill a French General is melee

[eefums]

About your calv dying fast..it's probably a very early year and you're in the crappiest of armor. you need to upgrade and later in the game when you get plated lance type knights they'll be a bull dozer.

[castle]

I find you have to fight battles as the auto resolve ends in a loss every time.

[Emperor Aurelius]

Ah I see. So it isn't like "since you got 1 city you can have a max of 1000 soldiers" or anything stupid like that.

One more question:

In MTW 1 you could choose to play in early, mid, or high starting points. Depending on which you palyed as each empire would have different boundaries for each age. Can you choose which age you want to start at anymore or (like civil wars and titles) has this too been denied?

[Dutch_guy]

Ah I see. So it isn't like "since you got 1 city you can have a max of 1000 soldiers" or anything stupid like that.

One more question:

In MTW 1 you could choose to play in early, mid, or high starting points. Depending on which you palyed as each empire would have different boundaries for each age. Can you choose which age you want to start at anymore or (like civil wars and titles) has this too been denied?

The Era's aren't in the campaign. You can, however, select an era for MP or for a custom battle.

[Basileus]

Archers shoot slow? dont know man but my longbows are owning evrything against the french and the scots, my yeoman are winning me the battles right now on my campaing. I agree with the movement speeds and kill rates though still a bit to fast and high.

[econ21]

I just encountered the passive AI bug. I thought the bug was when the AI is out-gunned, but in this case, we had 700 men a piece but the Danes were definitely superior as they were almost all dismounted Feudals and Huscarls. I had a balanced force of spears, billmen, longbows and cav. The Danes just stood there and my 3 longbows, 1 archer + 1 crossbowmen killed 90% of them. Bows are definitely not underpowered, but the trick is getting the enemy to stand there and get shot. Their rate of fire is so slow, I am pretty sure they will only get a volley or two off before the enemy close. Thankfully, the AI obliged in that battle but am not confident it will in others (or after a patch).

[IceTorque]

I just encountered the passive AI bug. I thought the bug was when the AI is out-gunned, but in this case, we had 700 men a piece but the Danes were definitely superior as they were almost all dismounted Feudals and Huscarls. I had a balanced force of spears, billmen, longbows and cav. The Danes just stood there and my 3 longbows, 1 archer + 1 crossbowmen killed 90% of them. Bows are definitely not underpowered, but the trick is getting the enemy to stand there and get shot. Their rate of fire is so slow, I am pretty sure they will only get a volley or two off before the enemy close. Thankfully, the AI obliged in that battle but am not confident it will in others (or after a patch).

Would you really prefer turkey shoots with missiles virtually winning the battles and melee type troops relegated to auxillaries?
Is it not more realistic and maybe more challenging for the emphasis to be placed on melee units to decide a battles out-come?
I know which I prefer, perhaps the rate of fire will be moddable so those that prefer arrow rain can play the game that way too.

In STW and MTW I relied on my archers to soften/decimate a large part of the AI's soldiers before they reached my battle line. This made most battles a bit too easy, repetetive and boring. Considering that many complaints were about the battles being too easy, I suggest that the slow rate of fire is not an oversight but is an intended design decision to make TW battles more challenging. Seems as though archers would be best used to skirmish on the flanks, and positioned to fire on the flanks and rear of pinned AI units. For those factions and players that rely on and/or prefer missile heavy armies, imo the slow rate of fire combined with the large battlefields does'nt create any problems, but merely sets the conditions for some very interesting, challenging and dare I say memorable battles.

As for the passive AI bug, that was also evident in RTW. {maybe because I modded missiles to fire from their max range) I hope the patch returns things to how the AI reacted in the original MTW, which if I remember correctly, the response was an immediate charge en masse. That required I drastically reduce the number of missile units in my attacking army and usually resulted in a very bloody and costly battle.

As I don't yet have the game, there are a couple of things I am keen to know. Does the AI still show their back sides to reform it's battle line? and What is the average ratio of inf/cav/missiles per AI stack?

[econ21]

I'm a little further with the campaign and am coming round to the archers. They remind me of MTW arbalesters - they seem slow firing, but they do kill. Playing as England they are my main edge over the AI. Cavalry can also provide another edge, although it's not something I rely on much. On reflection, I am happy with the balancing of cavalry and missiles.

Does the AI still show their back sides to reform it's battle line?

Occaisionally, yes. But it's not so common, it bothers me.

What is the average ratio of inf/cav/missiles per AI stack?

It varies a lot by faction and by army within a faction. The Danes came at me with an army almost exclusively made up of heavy inf (FK and Huscarls), and more generally tend to be almost all inf. I fought a French stack that was almost all cav, more often they are a mix. The Scots were also mixed. But in most cases, inf are the bulk of the mix.

To generalise, AI stacks seem mainly inf but with some cav and archers. Typically I'm fighting half stacks or so. They usually have one or two cav, and one or two missiles, sometimes more. They seem reasonable. I'm not seeing the "all archers" or "all peasant" type armies I recall from early France in MTW.

**********************************************************************

EDIT: Martok asked me how immersive M2TW was - whether it come match the atmosphere of STW; and whether you felt you were just playing a game. This is my reply:

M2TW has a bit more chrome than RTW and MTW, but does not have the striking style of STW. Some of the voicework on the campaign map is nice - the prisoners begging for their lives; even the cheesy foreign diplomatic voices are fine by me. The music does not grab me as much as any of the earlier titles. I identify a bit more with the characters than in earlier titles, but they still don't have distinctive "characters" in an RPG sense. The pre-battle speeches don't do much for me.

I think it's pretty close to MTW in the "feel". The campaign seems pretty tense and cerebral, so presently I am caught up in stuff like (a) trying to get my crusade to the Levant before it deserts or another faction; (b) trying to fend off all three neighbouring factions who are all out to get me;(c) trying to understand why the Pope hates me when I show him nothing but love; etc etc. It's very close to MTW, so far, to be honest. Not so immersive you forget you are playing a game (I'd need to play System Shock 2 or something for that); but a good game nonetheless.

[blahblahblah]

so Econ, bottom line is, is STW better or M2TW better so far in your opinion?

[dar25]

Based on the dev blog, the pacing of battle now heavily depends on unit size selection. Normal sizes (40-70) the pacing feels similiar to RTW, but on Large (60-110) the pace feels quite a bit slower and positioning matters more as you cant get away with quick troop redeployements particularily in tight quarters on city streets.

[Gustav II Adolf]

Heres my good, bad, ugly

Good
I really like allot of the new features.
1. Castles and cities gives very interesting strategic implications. If you take a settlement far away with heavy units you will have difficulties retraining and defending if it remains a city. A castle will give you little money for it.

2. The ai are much better in both campaign and battle. This game is harder then all previous games, at least for me.

3. Allot more campignmap units. merchants give new dimensions to the game and needs to be handled with care. A merchant cost 550 and will generate 5-20 per turn. This can grow over time if he is kept alive. If you start loosing your merchants from competition it will be more costly to build than what they earn. Get a trained assassin in to help you.

4. sound and graphics is wonderful.

5. Killrates are perfect for me. they can be very high in a perfect charge and fairly slow in a head on infantry engagement.

6. Gunpowder from both canon and infantry is wonderfully to use (and look at) without being overpowered.

Bad
1. Cavalry! My greatest disappointment. Whats up with it. It is very difficult to perform a good charge even of you pull your horses away and reform. Often the animations look poor with twitching and slowmoving men. In close engagements you will lose many men against everyone. I charged a unit of rebel peasant archers with feudal knights and didnt lose any in arrowfire because the enemy unit was reforming and couldnt shoot. My knights didn't really charge but wandered in and started melee. I lost six knights before enemy routed.

2. sieges are better and worse. I got smacked really hard by a rebelsettlement in my first mtw2 battle. I was expecting rtwtactics to work but lost hard. You cant capture towers anymore and they can shoot fast in all directions. In the early game you must capture the only building you can, the gatehouse. Since ai have all infantry on walls you will suffer heavy casualties when on walls from towers. They say towers dont shoot when no ai units are near but they can be far away still the unstoppable towers machinegun you to death. Sieges are almost too hard. At least we should be able to stop the towers by conquest. This make me autoresolve most sieges.

3. placing units in cities is almost not possible. This is almost like a bug. The game wont allow you to place units around in streets. You can only place them in wide areas. This almost made me stop playing the game.

Ugly
1. I agree with econ21 that the campignmap doesnt look as good as the battlemap.

2. Twiching animations reduces the great feeling.

My bottom line is that even if the game have some problems it is a wonderful game that is a good mix from previous games and also new at the same time. I got blown away and will play it, mod it and enjoy it.

G

[Zatoichi]

3. placing units in cities is almost not possible. This is almost like a bug. The game wont allow you to place units around in streets. You can only place them in wide areas. This almost made me stop playing the game.

G

This can be annoying, but you can use hold down the rght mouse button to stretch the units out to 'fit' on the paved streets - it takes getting used to as there is a buffer zone that wasn't there in RTW. Admittedly, I've had some issues with placing cavalry units where I want them, but 99% of the time I can get them there or thereabouts.

One feature I really like in the new sieges is that routing infantry actually run away off the walls rather than standing there waiting to get whacked! This alone has improved my enjoyment of the game.

I also prefer the new system for towers and the town centre, where it seems to be based on the number of soldiers contesting the area as to who is deemed to be in control.

[Gustav II Adolf]

This can be annoying, but you can use hold down the rght mouse button to stretch the units out to 'fit' on the paved streets - it takes getting used to as there is a buffer zone that wasn't there in RTW. Admittedly, I've had some issues with placing cavalry units where I want them, but 99% of the time I can get them there or thereabouts.

One feature I really like in the new sieges is that routing infantry actually run away off the walls rather than standing there waiting to get whacked! This alone has improved my enjoyment of the game.

I also prefer the new system for towers and the town centre, where it seems to be based on the number of soldiers contesting the area as to who is deemed to be in control.

I have had some real troubles with placing and find maneuvering very difficult. cant place them 90% of the time. Its huge difference compared with RTW.

G

[Lusted]

1. Cavalry! My greatest disappointment. Whats up with it. It is very difficult to perform a good charge even of you pull your horses away and reform. Often the animations look poor with twitching and slowmoving men. In close engagements you will lose many men against everyone. I charged a unit of rebel peasant archers with feudal knights and didnt lose any in arrowfire because the enemy unit was reforming and couldnt shoot. My knights didn't really charge but wandered in and started melee. I lost six knights before enemy routed.

You cannot use cavalry like you would in RTW. Do not double click to charge, single click so the cavalry advances to charging speed in its own time and it will lower its lances and keep formation much better.

[econ21]

so Econ, bottom line is, is STW better or M2TW better so far in your opinion?

STW was never really "my thing" so I am not sure that's a suitable benchmark for me. I've never tried MP - which seems to be the focus of STWs greatest fans. And the SP game had a lot of charm, but was a little too battle-heavy for me. I preferred the variety and freedom of later TW titles.

So far, I'd say M2TW successfully combines many of the best things about MTW and RTW.

[Zatoichi]

I have had some real troubles with placing and find maneuvering very difficult. cant place them 90% of the time. Its huge difference compared with RTW.

G

Hmmm, what unit size are you using? I have to play on medium at the moment due to my PC being less than stellar, so maybe it's worse for larger unit sizes?

[Biggus Diccus]

After installing the game and playing casually for a an hour, just getting the feel of the game I'd like to add my initial impression of ugly:

The family member cards: seriously, after the great art in RTW (and MTW!) I just can't believe what CA thought when they made this. Come on, couldn't you do just a little better? I like to nurse and keep track of my family members and I didn't know if I should laugh or cry when I saw the the cards for the first time.

I even showed it to my wife, and she said like 'is that from your new game???'

There, now I said it. Now I'm back to playing this great game.

[edyzmedieval]

After installing the game and playing casually for a an hour, just getting the feel of the game I'd like to add my initial impression of ugly:

The family member cards: seriously, after the great art in RTW (and MTW!) I just can't believe what CA thought when they made this. Come on, couldn't you do just a little better? I like to nurse and keep track of my family members and I didn't know if I should laugh or cry when I saw the the cards for the first time.

I even showed it to my wife, and she said like 'is that from your new game???'

There, now I said it. Now I'm back to playing this great game.

I somehow like the campaign map(I played it at someone, before I get my copy) but those characters on the map are ENORMOUS!!! Castles, armies, diplomats...everything. HUGE.

[AussieGiant]

Just randonm thoughts based around Econ's comments mainly.

I get the impression guy's that the Unit size we play with will affect our preception of kill rates.

I know this was confirmed in a very technical post by one of the CA guy's some months ago...but I'd really like to find our what CA recommends as the default unit size to play with.

As for the unit capping comment Econ made ...could it be that at the moment in your early campaign when units are "cheaper" that this will rectify itself as base unit costs increase when the mid and later stages come around??

You could also be winning the *econ*omic war at the moment...terrible joke sorry.

[econ21]

...I'd really like to find our what CA recommends as the default unit size to play with.

I'm playing with the default size and it is 75 for fodder infantry; 60 for the better stuff and missiles; I forget the cavalry - maybe 40? (Playing as English, I'm going light on cav. - trying to be economical. ) It feels like RTW on "large" - maybe I should try upping it next time, but I like the feel. I'm getting used to the kill rates - they seem fine.

As for the unit capping comment Econ made ...could it be that at the moment in your early campaign when units are "cheaper" that this will rectify itself as base unit costs increase when the mid and later stages come around??

I'm still not sure what the function of the unit caps is. I really like them as a realism and disciplining device, but don't tend to bang my head against their limits. I guess I'm not playing in a blitzing style - after 3 days, I'm still just outside Paris.