How would you rate Mideaval 2: Total War?

[Ozzfest20]

I have nearly gone mad waiting till New Years (when I celebrate christmas with my grandparents) for this game.

How would you rate it?

[Zeth]

9.6 out of 10.0 Its amazing

[Filipe24]

10 out of 10, its in a world of its own. Even with some bugs its a one of a kind

[Lord Condormanius]

How would you rate it?

I give it an A ...for Awesome.

[Aenlic]

I'll give it a 7 out of 10. It loses 2 points for being based on RTW instead of the better (in my opinion) MTW. It loses another point for being released with too many bugs.

[Lord Godfrey]

Based on my high expectations I give it an 8 out of 10. I have only played about 6 hours and the battles are impressive and the AI in greatly improved. I am disappointed with the use of some of the RTW features instead of the original MTW such as titles and determination of the faction heir. I need to better understand the economic drivers (merchants) as I never had a problem amassing enough florins in the original and I am having issues with my current campaign.

[econ21]

Orgahs' initial ratings from the first week are polled here:

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

The initial impressions sticky will give you more detailed feedback.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

At the moment I would give it 7 out of 10. I am not seeing the improved AI...not yet anyway..

Not sure why everyone says RTW was bad..?? I think I prefer the original MTW over MTW2 at the moment..gameplay wise anyway.

With some serious tweaking and patches...it could get a 9.

[Martok]

I was able to play it for a couple hours at a friend's house this weekend, and right now I would probably rate it a 7.0-7.5 (out of 10). Overall, my impression of Medieval 2 is fairly positive. I can tell that the AI is definitely better than it was in Rome, although I haven't played it enough yet to really tell whether it's comparable to that of MTW or Shogun.

Units seem to be fairly well-balanced, at least the lower-level ones. (Archers *finally* seem to be balanced for the first time since Shogun. ) The notable exception to this is General's Bodyguards, which are horribly overpowered in my experience. Their 2 hit points per man is really too much--they should have just 1 hit point per man like everyone else. Most of the other units seem to be pretty good, though (stat-wise), and one can find a use for almost all of them. (I still don't train many peasants, though .)

I've knocked off points for various design decisions that I've disagreed with from the beginning--no Eras, only 5 factions to choose from in the beginning, battles still somewhat too fast, etc. (The pace of battles has improved, however.) Also, assassins are strangely underpowered--except for emissaries and princesses, they don't seem to have a decent chance of killing anyone, no matter how many stars an assassin may have. Didn't notice any real bugs, but again I didn't play the game for that long.

I think I prefer the original MTW over MTW2 at the moment..gameplay wise anyway.

I concur. Medieval 2 seems to be a decent game, and will probably be even more so with some patching and rebalancing (assassins and inquisitors especially). That said, it didn't "grab" me the way Shogun and MTW did, and for now I don't mind that my computer is too old to run it. I think the odds are I'll pick up the game eventually, but at this point I'm in no hurry.

[EnemyOfTheState]

i would give an 8 out of 10, mainly because of the bugs it has. It gets old having the computer just sit there while you pummel them to death with archers.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

[QUOTE=Martok]

I've knocked off points for various design decisions that I've disagreed with from the beginning--no Eras, only 5 factions to choose from in the beginning, battles still somewhat too fast, etc. (The pace of battles has improved, however.) Also, assassins are strangely underpowered--except for emissaries and princesses, they don't seem to have a decent chance of killing anyone, no matter how many stars an assassin may have. Didn't notice any real bugs, but again I didn't play the game for that long.


I find the lack of eras strange...was a good MTW feature, and 5 factions to start with is odd also.

I just don't seem to get those classic MTW battles I used to, ok so this looks way way better..but looks is only part of it.

Still not convinced on AI...seems asleep most of the time..then it wakes up..and does ok. Playing as england on medium it is a complete cakewalk..I have crushed the french..they put up very little serious resistance. I only lost one battle to them, and that was sheer weight of numbers really. Still will see how it goes over the next few days. Delays on the patch suggest some serious work going on over at CA.

If CA had just taken MTW and updated the graphics and tweaked it I wouldnt be moaning...still probably the best TW game to date.

[Rpkmann]

9.0/10

The game's great but the bugs are rather annoying...especialy the passive A.I. OTher than that great and amazing game.

[Lord Condormanius]

[QUOTE=Barry Fitzgerald]

Also, assassins are strangely underpowered.

I haven't noticed that they are any less effective than in Rome: Total War. My assassins work great. They just have to start small and work their way up.

[Reapz]

9/10 that with tweaking and patches could be 10/10.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Assassins only seem to work killing merchants and the odd princess..maybe diplomats. But they are useless at killing inquisitors..you get like a 5% chance or something..even more experienced assasins. I have not managed to kill one yet.

[Lord Condormanius]

I have killed one inquisitor and my Assassin had a 95% chance. That was the highest I had ever seen, so I had to pull the trigger. I have also seen as high as 72% on inquisitors, but felt the risk was still too great. I have killed at least a baker's dozen family members, many of which had high success percentages. I have also had a lot of assassins die, but no more than in Rome.

[RussianWinter]

6.5/10

Definitely better then Rome, but I still get bothered by similar things in these two games.

Like someone mentioned below, certain design decisions are forever going to bother me. I miss the risk-style tile map and am still not convinced the new map adds any real gameplay value. The borders are too porous and aren't honored, and owners of large regions get screwed just trying to transport troops (think North Africa). The end game is unmanageable. Besides, the AI doesn't make as obvious mistakes on the tile maps.

The battles - amazing from what I've seen so far. Still not the epic hour long gore-fests from MTW, but better then Rome.

Not a *bad* game, kept me entertained for a good week so far.

[Bullethead]

It's hard for me to rate M2TW. OT1H, I'm extremely disappointed in the very poor quality control shown in several key areas--I've come to expect much better from CA. Not to mention the fact that no patch has yet appeared. OTOH, I still really enjoy playing the game because despite these flaws, it's engrossing, challenging, and fun. But OTGH, maybe that's because I just like TW-style games so much and haven't played one in a long time.

So strictly speaking, I should blast M2TW with like a 5 out of 10 rating for the following problems alone (and I could go further if I wanted to nitpick):

-1 for numerous excruciating problems fighting out siege/assault battles. You can avoid these by auto-resolving, but that's bugged, too, with both sides getting off much lighter than they should, as if the fight was in the field.

-2 for some horrific unit bugs: 2-handed infantry unable to attack cav, special formations (schiltrom, wedge) being suicidal to use, apparent backfiring of spearman combat bonuses, loose formations being better at cav defense than tight formations, etc.

-1 for missing features from MTW: no eras, no GA campaign, inability to dismount cav prior to battle so you have to buy separate mounted and dismounted units

-1 for releasing the game in this condition (at least as to the actual bugs, not the design decisions) and for not having the promised "day 0" patch out YET.

However, like I said, for some reason I still enjoy playing the game very much. This makes me want to give M2TW a few bonus points for the "yet, but.." factor, in which case I'd rate M2TW as a 7 or 8 out of 10.

BUT, this is contingent on CA providing us a patch forthwith, immediately if not sooner. The longer we go without a patch for at least some of the worst problems, the more disillusioned I'll become with the game.

[The Shadow]

OK guys... you'll have to forgive me for this... but I haven't bought and played a game on the computer since Tomb Raider (the original game) was a year old... 1999 I believe.

So when I saw this and got it I was blown away. Let me tell ya, it's ALMOST better than Lara Croft's digital boobs... ALMOST

You may have guessed but I'm old (is considered 31 old in gaming? Especially a 31 year old who hasn't played a new game since 1999!)

Anyway... you guys all say it's got bugs... what the hell are you talking about???

I'm just trying to win some battles! LOL

[Lord Condormanius]

31 is not old. If it is, I'm going to pretty ticked in another few months.

[IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer]

8/10, once they fix the passive AI I'll give it a 9/10 though.

[Apoc]

A week ago on TWC I rated it 7/10 - I'll have to downgrade that to 6.5/10. With a patch that may change.

[Lord Trassald of Flanders]

8.8

Already had a LOT of fun with it. With a good patch could go up to 9.5

[Prodigal]

8/10 now, if they sort out some of the worse bugs in the patch, then 10/10 really blows away the previous TW's.

[Chrisky]

Playing the 2nd campaign on VH/VH now and must say once you really depend on the game mechanics working in a battle the bugs really start p*ssing you off big time.

It is a great game, however as has been said the graphics isn't all.
At first, I'd have given it a 9/10, like most magazines, but now having bugs numerous times almost loosing important battles because of it, I can't help but seriously downgrade it.

It still rocks and is a league of it's own, but I'm seriously thinking of reinstalling MTW as the feel of that was more realistic and in battles more immediate.
Especially because it looks so great and is so much fun when working the bugs make me all the more furious.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

This is a funny game...since I posted last night, I spend some serious hours playing. And amazingly the AI has really started to kick in a bit, and battles are getting good. Then is kinda drops off and you wonder what is going on!

Hard to explain really, hence I think this is why so many have very mixed feelings about it. It is a game you can really get into and enjoy, on the other hand you cannot help but feel certain parts could and should have been better. I might even load up the original MTW and have a play, been a long time, just to make some comparisons on AI and strategy.

Leaving aside the bugs..just lots of little things where MTW really stood out, that didnt make it over to this one. Very hard game to rate, changes all the time. I wonder just how much of all this CA are taking in, and to what extent they will change the game with patches. It is close to brilliance at times, and other times it just racks you with silly things. Inquisitors are driving me nuts...

[Lorenzo_H]

Bugs aside, 10 out of 10 i love the graphics.

[Sir Moody]

7 out 10 (i would have rated vanilla RTW 6 so it is an improvment)

my real problem with the game is the lackluster unit choices (they went overboard trying to make the european factions play a little different and so you end up with the speerless brits etc) and the awful trait system... i dont know if ive been spoiled by the wonderful traits and ancillary system some of the Rome mods had but the m2tw system leaves me cold - its very difficult to improve you characters pious in fact id say its easier to lose what little you start with - as soon as they release the unpacker i intend to completely overhaul the conditions for getting traits i nan attmept to fix it


still better than Vanilla rome tho

[Sir SillyDuck]

I would give it a 9.3. It aint perfect, sometimes the AI stayes a bit inactive, and there are a few minor bugs.
At first I was dissappointed. I thought this was RTW in a new jacket. However, after playing, the game has a definite own atmosphere. Also, while STW and MTW were brilliant, the strategic Map that RTW begun with is a fundamental better feature. It may not be perfect, but it has much more potential then just a single province move.

And better than RTW, it just seems to better tweaked. Allthough the AI still is a bit inactive at specific moments, they will wake up as soon as the fighting starts and then you still can lose very much.. And at other times it is very active and defenitely capabale of suprises AND beating you. If they fix the inactivity a bit, this game will be a solid 10 (well, 9.9.. It aint Close combat 2, nor is it Shogun TW at the time of release, with that patch that solved the suicidal general)

[JeffLynne30]

I've had the game since the release. I got the limited edition. Played a few campaigns. There is a few bugs, however it can be easily fixed with a patch. A few minor complaints I have, is names of royalty(I played the english) I had a King Howard and a King Davy. Not what i call regal names in the timeframe. I'm assured it can be modded. Lack of Regnal numbers after the King's name is a bit annoying. If there is a way to fix that, I would do it.

The graphics of the battle is outstanding. The movies and speeches is quite something. In the next release, I hope they would have more executions movies like hanging the rebel general or beheading a royal traitor (like the old war of the roses game back in 1994)

Overall this is a great game, I would give it a 8.5 out of 10.