The campaign map is just too confusing - curses!

**timoth** · 11-11-2006, 21:40

Well bought this game as I wanted to like it

I used to play Shogun Total War which was a classic in terms of atmosphere and battles and simplicty

So playing the new Medieval Total War 2 - I really want to like it in terms of getting into the battles and the great graphics it has

But the campaign map is just confusing the hell out of me

I can't remember from turn to turn what 1 city is trying to produce, also I lose track of army movements and in some turns I forget to move an army in to attack

Things are disabled sometimes and I don't know why?

Some cities start revolting and I haven't a clue how to stop it

Also all cities need a General in them so you can specify what to build manually - whats that about? Surely a Generals place is on the battlefield, not in a silly town so you can specify a build order? And you can't just make Generals which is another problem

I think this is going to be the killer reason to stop playing it - its just too hard to keep track of everything in every new turn

The campaign map is just too confusing, and there is too much management of the campaign map that just gets in the way of wanting to play the battles out

Why can't the developers keep things simple? They seem to pander to reviewers as they think the more complex a game is, the more depth it has. But this is exactly opposite what the average gamer wants - too much complexity is a turn off

Well if I go back to the game, I will have to figure out what each city is doing, whats been produced where and why, and what figures need moving and where to, and if I can't remember then I won't play the game again

What a waste as the battles seem quite fun - and thats what I want from the game fun, not complexity rubbish

**Gampie** · 11-11-2006, 22:06

Also all cities need a General in them so you can specify what to build manually - whats that about?

No, your cities don't need a general to do that. You must unlock the option "Manage all settlements". I think it's somewhere in the Game Options. That way you can choose what your cities have to produce.
I had the same problem as you when I first played Rome: Total War. You gotta read the manual. ;-)

The jump from Shogun to Medieval 2 might be too much at first. If you would have played RTW you would have an easy time since M2TW is sooooo much like RTW. But the campaign map is indeed more cluttered up. I would say, give it a go. Even though the map is more complex than Shogun, it does offer you much more possibilities (bridge battles, ambushes, forts, watchtowers, roads, ... all these things are not available in Shogun/Medieval 1 TW).

**Silver Rusher** · 11-11-2006, 22:06

Don't worry, you will get the hang of it eventually. I felt the same way when I first started playing Rome. But after my first Julii campaign I had pretty much everything sussed.

**Incongruous** · 11-11-2006, 22:16

Yeah Don't Worry about it.
I was the same in my first Shogun Campaign, it scared the stuffing out of me.

Just remember to keep a load of cheap units in you're settlements.

I bet in a couple of week you'll be showing us pics of you're empire!

**timoth** · 11-11-2006, 23:03

Thanks for the kind replies

Perhaps I can get to grips with it eventually

But another example of the complexity is the Cities/Castles options. There are a myriad of different buildings that can be built - loads of different types that make the process of choosing what to build next too complicated

I just want to build infantry men - so build a barracks right?

No, not that simple! You have to build other weird buildings that can eventually transform into a barracks after goodness knows what upgrading!!!!!! Help!

There must be something like 50 buildings you can make. Why make it so complicated. Is this fun? I don't think so

Rome Total War turned me off because there were so many different unit types you had to get to know - skirmishers, special skirmishers, special arab skirmishers with special fire arms, special Pope Skirmishers that are uber special, special infantry only found in Africa that if you confront them with normal infantry counters, doesn't work and you get decimated. Special units with silly names that have great hit factors, 10 different cavalry types for use in different situations etc - What do I build???

Shogun was great because there was a simple distinction between the units - light cavalry, heavy cavalry, peasants, spearmen, elite infantry and archers - simple and great

Here is to complex gaming that is too complicated and not fun!

**Aquitaine** · 11-11-2006, 23:43

Well....yeah. It's a little complex. Not extraordinarily so (even with all the different units, there are still only a handful of basic types) but it's not your basic, straightforward game. I don't think it even tries to be.

With all due respect, if you don't have the patience to either read the manual or figure it out, then yeah, you probably won't like the game. Nothing wrong with that though, doesn't mean you're a bad person. :)

**IceTorque** · 11-12-2006, 00:23

I too dislike micro-manageing settlement build/recruit queues and prefer simple and clear cut troop types, and I positively hate tech trees, I just want to role play my generals and army and make decisions similar to what a general in command of an army would make. Decisions like how many men to allocate to gather supplies and/or guard my supply lines, which route to take and choosing where to fight my next battle etc.

Alas, the mass market requires nay demands much more than this, they demand the large unit rosters and complicated tech trees that CA provide.
As already suggested you will soon get used to the game and will realize that the tech tree is really not too complicated and that the recruitment rosters are fairly simple once you get to know each factions good and not so good units. The auto-manage settlement for me is a must and really reduces the amount of work the campaign map at first seems to demand.

Also, as soon as we can access the required files, it really is a simple thing to customize the game to your own unique version of TW.

**Quickening** · 11-12-2006, 00:55

Reading this forum I sometimes wonder if some people have played any other games aside from the Total War series. They aren't complicated or especially confusing after a bit of play. Try playing something fast and frantic like Warcraft 3. Now those kind of games will give you a real stressful time! Trying to micromanage everything whilst your opponent destroys you.
In the Total War games the campain map is turn based which means you can take as long as you need to. There's no rush. Even the battles themselves can be paused and orders given. I actually find it very relaxing after a frantic battle to peacefully check out all my settlements. But that's me.

As someone who played Rome before any other Total War, I found the number of buildings in Medieval 1 overwhelming and exactly as you say Medieval 2 is. So I really don't think it's a case of complexity for complexities sake. Also if Creative Assembly had decided to stick with Shogun's style then we simply would never have seen a Medieval 2. Games need to evolve or they slip into obscurity amongst the myriad of other clones. Games need to compete technically and they need like I said to evolve and this means giving the gamers more. Not less or the same. Not that there isn't features in Medieval that I would have liked to have seen in Rome.
I wouldn't trade the campain style maps of Rome and MTW2 for the Shogun and Medieval ones in a million years. I have noticed that some people see such an opinion as heresy but it's the truth. Nor do I want to lose the thunderous battles or the cinematic feel of it all and go back to the frankly sometimes dull pace of the prequels. But again that is just my opinion and I do admit that the battles in Medieval 1 can be much more enjoyable and tactical than those in Rome.

Anyway, I really hope you stick at Medieval 2. Im sure that you'll soon be at ease with it all and enjoy it. Good luck and have fun!

**AlJabberwock** · 11-12-2006, 04:34

Timoth, its really a Tale of Two Games
(or Cities if you think of the two genres of players who play the games).

[sigh]

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...

I hate to join a bandwagon even though I really really really want to. But I do not think I can anyway...

You see, I know I will LOVE the complications of the modelling of trade, economy, production, and religion. I NEVER turned on auto anything in RTW. I still play it and still do it all. It is true I also started with STW, moved to MTW and thence to RTW, and I missed the clarity of unit differentiation of STW when MTW came out, but didn't think a thing about it when the number of unit types soared with RTW and BI. Rather I liked the fact as it seemed more realistic that a vast stage would have a large variance in warfare concept and implementation.

What I am trying to say is, I just love the campaign aspect of the game - just as I did when I first played STW. It hooked me. The tactical battles were simply dessert, since I love them too. I would, however, miss the campaign if it were done away with, and would rarely play only custom or set piece battles. This makes me a rather poor choice for clan member.

I suspect you, Timoth, and some of the other posters here are the opposite. You prefer the battle and perhaps the military, but only the military portion of the grand strategy represented in the campaign map. You would be, or are, a great candidate for one of those clans out there...

As has been mentioned above, you should turn all or most of the auto manage on, but if you do, you should also read the manual or you will never know why you are not able to build those dismounted chivaric knights that the neighbors have.

I would also say, the game appeals to two definite threads of gamer: Non Military and Military Grand Strategy as well as Tactical Military Strategy adherents. CA started the mess, but by making two games in every one of their titles, they have managed to make it financially reliable - like "Pirates of the Carribbean 2" (or "3", or "46"). Its a cheap trick, but they made it work and since they're not stupid, they aren't going to stop.

Now, as posted by someone above, just like the action/tactical "clickers" want better gore, more "head butting" and flowers on the grass, better tactical AI, realistic looking armor, play balance, right fire rates and god knows what to upgrade the tactical action portion of the game, boring egghead types like me want more control, more sophistication in the campaign aspect of the game where modelling really makes for strategies that may not be all military at the campaign level.

You can click on auto manage everything, and I can click on auto resolve when I don't feel like squashing one of the unending hapless bands of pantless peasants painting pernicious propaganda, precipitating pogromatic pursuit. We'll both be decried by purists on the other side of the table, but what of it?

No, Timoth, I think you would be losing a very good opportunity to deal with a great great game in the areas you are interested in if you just chucked both games out with the box... If he doesn't mind me calling him this, I would agree rather heartily with ICE 'T' below. Hang with us a bit and whatever you want, if you don't suss it, someone here will and show you how to rig it so it doesn't bother you!

Al "Dumb*ss" Jabberwock

**Emperor Aurelius** · 11-12-2006, 14:36

I agree. I too started with Shogun, Medeival, Rome, and am going to get MTW2.

Truth is that complexity is more fun in my opinion. Someone earlier said that MTW2 and RTW are more relaxing than many of the RTS games out there. You can pause, take your time on a turn, and actually use strategy. Besides the reason there are so many troop types is because ancient and medieval armies had a wide variation of troops they deployed. So if the only types of troops in MTW2 were light cav, heavy cav, inf, heavy inf, archers, gunners, it would get boring pretty quickly and not even be close to historically accurate.

MTW2 got rid of some of the stuff I liked from MTW: titles, starting eras, civil wars...etc...
But I am going to get it anyway because despite teh fact those features were taken out there were many other fun features included.

STW was marketed for more its military. There wasn't alot of economic developement in the game. Right now the totalwar fans are demanding more historic accuracy. Alot of the complex features in the game are historically accurate. Earlier empires and nations had to cope with that stuff. Plus I got bored of Shogun after a while (yes I know I'm an evil heretic).

Why did I get bored with Shogun? Because I got MTW1 and alot of the new economics and features seemed exciting. STW was more geared towrd military but MTW and RTW added on whole new features of diplomacy, economics, and religion.

**scourgeofrome** · 11-12-2006, 14:40

I started backwards in the series.Started with RTW,went to MTW,and the STW.I found Shogun to be fun,but after awhile got boring.No major different types of units,minimal diplomacy,and uninteresting tech trees kindo of turned me off after awhile.