An island of satisfaction in a sea of the opposite

[Nakraal]

I don't know if this is true, but the impression which this board radiates is that people are disapointed with M2 TW, while IMO the game surpasses every one of its three prequells in three major categories A.I. - Balance - Atmosphere, not to mention graphics, although I think that the later are underestimated. IMO the difference between M2 graphics and RTW is almost that of RTW and MTW.

A.I. : Now V.H. battles have a superior A.I. over the H and M settings not a stat boost for the opposiotion. For many players this "unlocks" the higher difficulty settings. I am 90 turns with my M/VH HRE campaign with 71 battles won and 34 lost, only 4-5 of them being naval or automaticaly resolved defeats. In RTW in aproximatly 100 battles I would have 10-12 losses most of them naval...
In RTW when I encountered a battle with 1/2 odds against me I was frustrated that I was forced to play it as automaticly resolving it would be a lost battle while playing it would be a victory and a lost of time. In M2 now a 1/2 or 2/3 odds means that I will take the battle if I try hard.

The A.I. seems not too smart but certainly not stupid. Elementary tactics and counter tactics are taking place and thats a big improvement from the mob-oriented dumkopf generals of RTW. There is something else that makes battles harder in M2. Quality is more important than tactics. In V.H. moral drops harder, the kill rate is lower and units get routed much more harder (bothways). So When the human player flanks an enemy unit it tends to hold long enough for the computer to react. So a unit of Dismounted Feudal Knights will take many losses from a rear attack from Militia, but they will hold and posibly win, when in Rome a Heavy Hoplite unit would immidietly rout from a rear charge of peasants.

In general the feeling of the computer opponent in M2 TW is that it is atop of that in MTW where the player had some losses but only when tragicaly outnumbered (there the A.I. used quantity).

Where the AI was the major issue of RTW balance was in MTW. I can remember every one campaign of mine to ending up with the whoooole map divided in two : mine empire and the Almohads or the French.

Now this is not the case. The feel of the map is more historical and you must straggle to cap[ture and most importantly keep provinces.

The only problem that still haunts and I am afraid that it will eternaly haunt th TW series is diplomacy. A so complicated game so well done, cannot manipulate what more simplier games did. Diplomacy still seems ... pointless.

[OMGLAZERS]

MTW2 is a lot of improvement, and more bugs than you can shake a stick at.

If they fix the bugs ASAP, the game is gold. If not, then, well, i'll be autoresolving till Patch version 2.whatever because all of the massive battle bugs make it nearly unbearable to siege or conduct a proper fight.

[Akka]

I'm all for loving the game, but for now the battles are excruciating (because of unresponsiveness of units, the fact that only ten men out of the whole unit actually fight while the others idly watch, the fact that charges are bugged to oblivion...), which kills the interest in the game.

As soon as the battles become furious and enjoyable, I'll like the game a lot more.

[sapi]

I'm with the op - i haven't yet experienced anything that seriously ruins my enjoyment of the battles or the game.

[monkian]

The only thing that bothers me is Inquisitors, unresponsive units and bugged Pope.

All of these things can be easily patched though.

[econ21]

...the impression which this board radiates is that people are disapointed with M2 TW, ...

That impression dos not really square with our first impressions poll results so far:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=72443

Most people rating it 9 or 8 implies they think it is a good game, IMO. I guess people with problems or complaints may post more. People who are happily playing may just keep happily playing.

I suspect Orgahs are a tough crowd to please - veteran wargamers are not called "grognards" or grumblers for nothing. You should have been here when RTW was out (or any of the two years since, for that matter. ). This board radiates warmth and love by comparison.

[Daveybaby]

I don't know if this is true, but the impression which this board radiates is that people are disapointed with M2 TW

Vocal minority. Axes to grind. Stuck records. You get the idea.

;-)

[Chrisky]

Well I've been playing the game for a week. First I was really happy about it, but now I find my self quit the game disappointedly because I can hardly win a fight thanks to the battle bugs.

At this point, I will not play the game anymore until the patch is released, as there's a situation where Denmark keeps starting siege battles for Hamburg and the passive AI bug strikes every single time. Basically it's turning on x3 speed and waiting for like 10 minutes until the timer runs through.

But I'm also disappointed about the lack of retinue transferrability and that you can't choose your heirs, something that reduces the management options considerably. I mean, seriously, why am I unable to transfer the "famous blade"? Also the retinue portraits look like they had them done in a "Photoshop for beginners" class.

I played the first campaign until I went to the Americas and found the Aztecs were using Islam faction lingo. Plus my german version desription of the funtion of their great pyramid reads "DO NOT TRANSLATE - NOT MEANT FOR THIS FACTION"... This just gives me a feeling of a total rush job on this game. I followed the developer blogs and all, and they invoked a lot of high hopes, most of them i find disappointed now.

Something I must say though that impressed me as a big enhancement is unit behaviour on walls. Other than that it was mostly "Why doesn't it look and feel like in the trailers?" especially when trying to hunt down routers with cavalry... It's just a terrible waste of time that found me cursing at the game a number of times.

What really pisses me off too is that artillery is undestructible by infantry or cavalry, leaving it possible to leave your artillery uncovered. Totally unreal. If I can guard my walls and sally my cavalry, I should be able to destroy artillery if it's unguarded. Now the only reason you can't really do it is because cavalry doesn't find its way around the artillery pieces and gets cut to pieces by the artillery crews' swiss army knives. All just totally out of whack stuff that should have been fixed in internal testing. Even more stuff that makes it feel like a rush job, I can't help it.

I won't touch it until the patch arrives and I can hopefully stop cursing because my units follow the orders given properly. IMO the game should not have received such high scores given the tremendous impact of bugs on the gameplay. Shows just how mags were rushing to be the first to put out their test of this great game.

[Doug-Thompson]

Most people rating it 9 or 8 implies they think it is a good game, IMO. I guess people with problems or complaints may post more. People who are happily playing may just keep happily playing.

[Scottn72]

Been playing every night for almost 2 weeks and I'm still thoroughly absorbed, there are one or two niggles, but I still have to force myself to stop and go to bed.

So far so good, but still waiting to see what's in the patch.

[Whacker]

Vocal minority. Axes to grind. Stuck records. You get the idea.

;-)

And of course there's a fair share of the natural counterpart, some rabid fanboyism.

[Jagger]

Been playing every night for almost 2 weeks and I'm still thoroughly absorbed, there are one or two niggles, but I still have to force myself to stop and go to bed.

So far so good, but still waiting to see what's in the patch.

I remember my severe disappointment with RTW. After a week of MTW, I am very pleased. There are a few problems but the whole of the game is very good and I think, very strong. Biggest problems I have encountered are the frozen AI when I sally out of a fortified city and the ultra mobile, death dealing siege artillery in field battles.

Overall, I am very happy with the game and see the patches as icing on the cake. IMO, the team did a very good job on MTW2. 4.5 Stars!!!

[lars573]

I don't mind the new charge system. Sure it's different, maybe even bugged. But the whole couching lances and spurring horses action is really cool! Plus with proper timing and some luck they can still be devastating.

[SigniferOne]

"An island of satisfaction in a sea of the opposite"

Not such a small island, a lot of us are included on it. Now once the unpacker and the access to models/textures are released, the game will just go through the roof.

[chunkynut]

I have generally found that all forums dissolve into madness as soon as some troll comes along and kicks the nest ... never to be seen again to respond to the 'What exactly were you doing? What's your difficulty setting? Who were you fighting? etc etc'.

Some people can't deal with realism, some people seem to get some of the issues I have seen all the time (I presume these are whingers as the issues only occur infrequently (the charging front line while the rest of the unit remains defensive)).

I'd like for everyone who complains to tell us what other games are better (so I can buy them :) ) and if they can't why they are so rabid about it. This isn't fanboyism as someone mentioned it's (for me anyway) an apprieciation of a great game, I agree with peoples complaints about diplomacy but thats been an issue with every game so I use it as I can. Work with the game as it is, AI will back stab or be opportunistic so be prepared.

I've not found a better strategy/tactical game series yet.

[TinCow]

Actually, I think the Orgs response has been pretty good. However, to know that you need to know how the Org has reacted previously. After RTW came out, the complaints were vastly more numerous than they are for MTW2. Yes, people complain about bugs, but that is natural. It is also actively helpful to CA, as long as the criticisms remain constructive.

I think the most signficant change in opinion at the Org about MTW2 over RTW is that almost all of the complaints are about actual bugs. People like the game and the game mechanics at their fundamental level. This is the area where many people felt letdown by the previous games. Bugs can be fixed, but game mechanics are almost always there to stay. In general, I think the Org considers MTW2 a major step in the right direction. I have often seen people rate MTW2 in two ways: compared to other TW games and compared to games in general. That is telling in and of itself. TW is in a class of its own.

[Kommodus]

Don't worry if you sense disappointment by reading these boards. We all have a tendency to focus on the negative - after all, if something's satisfactory, why mention it at all? Also, I think some people here may be a little too willing to call something a "bug" when it's simply behavior or balance that they don't understand.

I bought the game two days ago and love it. I haven't fought any "huge" battles yet as it's still relatively early in my campaign, but I've fought my share of medium-sized battles and sieges. Everything works just about as I'd expect it to. The game hasn't crashed. The AI hasn't done anything terribly stupid. There are a few things I might've balanced differently, but hey, I'm not the game designer.

The only thing I've encountered that feels like it might be a bug is the way cavalry pursues routers, running in a curious zigzag pattern behind them and therefore catching them much slower than they could. But this is minor - it doesn't affect the outcome of battles and the routers usually get caught eventually.

[Steinfeld]

I played the first campaign until I went to the Americas and found the Aztecs were using Islam faction lingo. Plus my german version desription of the funtion of their great pyramid reads "DO NOT TRANSLATE - NOT MEANT FOR THIS FACTION"... This just gives me a feeling of a total rush job on this game. I followed the developer blogs and all, and they invoked a lot of high hopes, most of them i find disappointed now.

Not to forget the fact that the goods which are currently sold by a merchant are not translated but appear in English. This might not be a serious bug but it gives the whole thing a sense of being rushed.

Anyway, I am still quite pleased with the game (except the known AI bugs in battles). Compared to the Hojo-Horde this is all bearable.

[Doug-Thompson]

The only thing I've encountered that feels like it might be a bug is the way cavalry pursues routers, running in a curious zigzag pattern behind them and therefore catching them much slower than they could. But this is minor - it doesn't affect the outcome of battles and the routers usually get caught eventually.

Try putting your cavalry into loose formation when you're chasing down routers, Kommodus. Apparently, units will stop and try and reform into a tight formation every once in a while if you keep in on close formation.

[Whacker]

Bah, I'm none of the above, neither a fanboy or a "hater". I've seen copious amounts of both over the years on the org for the games, M2TW is no different. You've got the folks who do nothing but talk negatively about bugs and problems, and you've got the folks who do nothing but laud the game and essentially dismiss major problems, while at the same time dismissing those would would point out any kind of flaw in the game.

I gave the game 7 out of 10 at launch. It's fun and a worthy successor to the TW series.. On the other hand, it's got some terrible game breaking bugs that vexed me to no end, at least in my experience, and it's missing a number of much needed features. At this point, I've set the game aside until the first patch because the issues I experienced in the campaign I was playing were literally starting to ruin the game for me, and I definitely do not want that. Someone mentioned chasing down routers not being that big of a problem... I've lost 3 siege battles because my units refused to kill routers fleeing into a city square to rally, when I otherwise should have annihilated the reinforcing armies. My opinion hasn't changed that this game was rushed out the door too soon, the fact that there's a "launch day patch" coming out just cements this idea more.

Kommodus had an excellent point, people do tend to focus on negative aspects. The trick is can we be critical of a game in a positive, constructive manner that doesn't sound like pure negativism, and at the same time conveys very real displeasure and concern. One can still enjoy a game and be very critical of it, that's the whole point of being both a customer and a gamer. If I get a product or service that I feel is substandard or not up to my expectations, I'm not going to sit back and stay idle, I'm going to engage the vendor to address my concerns in a polite and professional manner.

Cheers

[Husar]

I am quite happy with the game, but I have to say the passive AI is starting to annoy me. In each and every battle where I or they have ranged fighters they seem to just stand around and wait until they got shot to pieces.
Here a unit of peasant archers annihilated one of two units of feudal knights and then the remaining knights took the place of the annihilated unit but all in all they did not even attempt to charge at my archers. The same thing happens over and over in my french campaign, an army consisting only of arquebusiers will beat everything.
Only battle I can remember where the AI charged was one against the Mongols, apart from that it feels a lot like a tactical target practice game.
I just hope this will be fixed in the first patch and then I am happy.

[Flavius Gonzo]

I agree, I think the game is terrific. I think a lot of the "bugs" are actually user error: the cavalry thing is a good case in point. Once I figured out the differences in charge from RTW and the importance of keeping formation (the thread from Hashashayyin was really helpful), I have little complaints about this point.

The campaign game is radically different with the new elements like priests and mechants, I like the new diplomacy, the new units and battle tactics are super fun, and most importantly, the game is the most incredible looking strategy game I've ever played.

Passive AI is slightly annoying in some cases. In others, this is a good AI strategy, like when they have a good defensive position at the top of a hill. In the few battles where this is very much to my advantage, I can deal. I'd rather be playing the game now, then play another campaign later with a new patch vs. be still waiting anxiously for the launch.

So overall, I'd say this game is excellent, good show on CA.

[Joba]

I think the bugs of the game kinda let people down. One of the things that made RTW so revoultionary was the AI, when M2TW came out I think everyone expected the AI to be just as revolutionary.

The problem is that there are a couple of bugs with the AI that didn't happen in RTW. Infantry Spacing, Passive AI, etc. I was slightly disapointed by these things.

Also, I think CA could have benifited from explaining the changes to the game to the RTW crowd a little better. There are a lot of little details that have changed from RTW, and I think everyone is going in thinking this is going to behave just like RTW. I still don't understand how the whole walls/towers thing works compared to RTW.

All this being said, I still think M2TW is awesome. These are just minor flaws on an very sweet game. It sounds like CA is trying to address the problem and that means something. I just think once they patch the bugs this game will be even more awesome.

[Spino]

The passive AI bug is extremely annoying if you field missile heavy armies or are defending a city/castle with superior numbers of missile troops.

My English campaign is currently on hold because of the passive AI bug and its attempt to dissuade me from emulating history. I prefer to field armies comparable in composition to what the English of that period fielded so I rarely ever have less than 5-6 archer units (no more than 8, typically Longbows or better) in a given field army. The overwhelming majority of the time I find myself facing an enemy army that freezes in place while I massacre it with arrows and it eventually decides to retreat or once my archers are out of ammo I attack it with the rest of my army and finish it off. While it can be fun to see several units of Longbowmen make it rain arrows and transform an enemy army into walking pincushions this quickly loses its wow factor after several battles.

[Jacque Schtrapp]

The only problem that still haunts and I am afraid that it will eternaly haunt th TW series is diplomacy. A so complicated game so well done, cannot manipulate what more simplier games did. Diplomacy still seems ... pointless.

While it is hardly the "only" problem with the game, it is by far the most poignant one. I really really want to love this game... however every campaing attempt simply degenerates into a backstab fest. The only redeeming feature at this point is the Pope (MTW vets should be laughing right now). If it weren't for him threatening to excom me and actually excoming other factions... I would have shelved this game after about 12 hours of gameplay in. As it is, I am left struggling to find enough good to offset the attrocious performance of the diplomacy and keep me interested in playing.

[MrWhipple]

I think that the "island" is more like Greenland! IMHO there are a whole bunch of folks busy playing thier hearts out out and don't have time to post. Heck I'm an old timer and I just got around to it.

I think that if one was to do an honest exit poll one would find out that most of the complainers are:

a) long time TW players that had preconcieved notions on how the game "should" look rather than how it came out. Just because the "Heavens didn't open and the Angels sing" don't mean its broke.

b) full time trolls that you find on any board regardless of topic.

c) less mature individuals who have no idea how much work goes into a game of Tetris: let alone something with the number of lines of code in MTW (I shudder to think how big that number actually is).

d) a few peps who have real complaints. (and the same complaints get voiced over and over)

And last but not least -one man's bug is another man's feature-. I too was frustrated by cav charges until it was explained to me that theese big stick jocks are not as suicidal as we would like them to be. They now won't just go bashing into a bunch of inf with a double click and on to the next unit. You actually have to form them up and then charge.

I actually played the game before dropping in here first, because I didn't want a bunch of hype (positive or negitive) messing up my experience.

[Akka]

Some people can't deal with such a lack of realism

Fixed.

[big_boss120]

I wish I could quit this game for a while....but I couldn't

I agree w/ the op, M2TW is indeed a blast to play despite some of the bugs etc(I havent experiece much of it for some reason). I will even go as far as saying it's the ebst strategy game I played in a while

[Veresov]

The mind boggles over how such a promising game was released with such annoying bugs. Instead of uniting their fanbase and getting accolades from most of the community, CA's lousy QA testing divided the community again.

After the disasterous boycott over the load/save bug, you would think that they would go to great lengths to ensure that the game was released in good shape. It is a pity to see them continue to stumble.

Imagine how many additional games could be sold if the vast majority of the people were pleased and the game got rave reviews from its fanbase!