What does MTW:2 do better?

[Kraggenmor]

Like many of you I've been playing the TW series for years and I am still playing MTW: VI.

I have been planning to get MTW2 as my Christmas present to me (if Mr. Claus doesn't deem me worthy of it ;) ) and having read the patch wish list here and various other bug reports I'm left wondering:

Just what does MTW2 actually do better than MTW? What makes going to 2 from the original "worth it"?

[Kommodus]

Without going into specifics, to me the overall "feel" of the game is much more epic and immersive. I feel less like a strategy gamer playing Risk and more like an actual ruler of a Medieval kingdom.

Here's a few of the main reasons for this, in brief:

1. The strategy map is more interesting, diverse, and realistic.
2. Battles look a whole lot cooler, and IMO offer slightly more tactical depth.
3. Sieges are much improved, with the addition of archers on walls, siege towers, and battering rams.
4. Diplomacy, while sometimes problematic, offers more variety. It's harder to simply "take on the world."

I could go on, but those are the main points I'd make.

[chunkynut]

Adding to Kommodus's I'd say the castle/city settlement differences impact greatly on your campaign, also the papal elections and the college of cardinals also change your relationship amoungst catholic factions (no longer just threats of excommunication).

Obviously as with all TW games the inevitable patch waiting happens but its perfectly playable, no matter what some whingers say.

[econ21]

I agree with Kommodus's points - the strategy map is a biggie, IMO. The Risk style strategy map gave you a good challenge, but it lacked immersion and realism - in stark contrast to the great tactical battles. Now, with M2TW, it feels like a historical wargame on both the campaign and battle maps.

Of course, RTW introduced the open campaign map. But M2TW has managed to use it in a way that still keeps the campaign challenging. All the time, I've been reminded of MTW, the way if you move an army one place, you expose the territory you have vacated to possible counter-attack.

The point I would add to Kommodus's list is challenge and balance in the campaign map. In MTW, my two bug bears were peasant armies and trade. The former made the early campaigns sometimes too easy; the latter made the end-games rather broken (get a sea trade network and you are rolling in money). In M2TW, the AI tends to field more worthy armies - as England, the Danes, for example, have been pretty hardcore. The faction rosters are also more varied and interesting than MTW, by and large. And the economy is much tighter. I usually can't afford to build in all settlements. (This is VH/VH). The AI contests the seas pretty well, and sea trade is not nearly so lucrative.

To be honest, I think M2TW combines some of the best of RTW (graphics, open map) and MTW (tactical battles, challenging campaigns).

[Veresov]

I can't honestly recommend MTW2 in its current state. While there are some improvements there is a significant amount of bugs that affect gameplay. Yeah, I know, the patch will fix it all, but until the patch is out my opinion is that the game isn't worth buying.

[Lord Condormanius]

I can't honestly recommend MTW2 in its current state. While there are some improvements there is a significant amount of bugs that affect gameplay. Yeah, I know, the patch will fix it all, but until the patch is out my opinion is that the game isn't worth buying.

Blasphemy!

[Doug-Thompson]

After long consideration and a lot of deference to fellow forum members, I must say this:

Many of the complaints of bugs are groundless.

I've waited a long time to say that. The final blow for me came when somebody posted a complaint that the Black Death was overmoddeled, far more devestating than plagues of RTW. That idea was quickly but politely shot down by people who'd actually read about the Great Plague as an historical event.

It's hard to give examples without sounding like I'm picking on people who posted specific complaints. Also, there are some significant things that do need to be fixed. The AI is too passive under missile fire, for instance, and there is a legitimate "crowd at the ladder" problem in sieges.

However, the majority of threads about bugs are really threads about how the game does not play out according to preconceived notions of medieval warfare — notions that are inaccurate, sometimes wildly so.

The bottom line is the poll by this forum of veteran players who have made significant contributions to this forum over the years. They are the hard-to-please hard core. Of those, a little less than 75 percent give this game at least an 8 on a scale of 10.

Another good indicator of quality is the life of the forum itself. I haven't seen this many threads on strategy, tactics and war stories — as opposed to kill rates and unit speed — since "Viking Invasion" came out.

[Daveybaby]

After long consideration and a lot of deference to fellow forum members, I must say this:

Many of the complaints of bugs are groundless.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Yes there are a couple of serious bugs, a couple of medium ones, and a fairly large number of minor ones. In a game of this complexity this is inevitable, and anyone who thinks otherwise doesnt understand the software development process and the concept of deadlines, or just isnt living in the real world.

The game is miles better than either MTW1 and RTW. If you feel you cant live with (what is, IMO) the one really serious bug (the passive AI bug, in my experience the siege lag bug is very annoying but doesnt occur often enough to be considered a game breaker at this stage) then hold off to see if the patch fixes it (which will hopefully be before christmas anyway).

[Lord Condormanius]

After long consideration and a lot of deference to fellow forum members, I must say this:

Many of the complaints of bugs are groundless.

I could not agree more. I don't doubt that the people that are complaining actually believe that the game is buggy, but most of the complaints seem to be about things that aren't working out for them (assassins, inability to counter certain units, etc.). The two most common characteristics about complaints that I have seen have been:

1. I have not had any similar experience.

2. they all seem to be of this nature: my assassins aren't good enough, I can't kill these horses, my horses get killed It's hard to hold the Holy Land, the inquisitors are impossible to handle.

I may be oversimplifying, but these problems don't sound like bugs to me. Especially since I have experienced none of these issues as being unmanageable.

*I find that keeping in good favor with the Pope keeps inquisitors away; Build Churches.

...and they can be killed.

[Veresov]

After long consideration and a lot of deference to fellow forum members, I must say this:

Many of the complaints of bugs are groundless.

I've waited a long time to say that. The final blow for me came when somebody posted a complaint that the Black Death was overmoddeled, far more devestating than plagues of RTW. That idea was quickly but politely shot down by people who'd actually read about the Great Plague as an historical event.

It's hard to give examples without sounding like I'm picking on people who posted specific complaints. Also, there are some significant things that do need to be fixed. The AI is too passive under missile fire, for instance, and there is a legitimate "crowd at the ladder" problem in sieges.

However, the majority of threads about bugs are really threads about how the game does not play out according to preconceived notions of medieval warfare — notions that are inaccurate, sometimes wildly so.

The bottom line is the poll by this forum of veteran players who have made significant contributions to this forum over the years. They are the hard-to-please hard core. Of those, a little less than 75 percent give this game at least an 8 on a scale of 10.

Another good indicator of quality is the life of the forum itself. I haven't seen this many threads on strategy, tactics and war stories — as opposed to kill rates and unit speed — since "Viking Invasion" came out.

Doug,

Why don't you run a poll that asks people whether or not MTW2 needs to be patched? How about one that asks the users how many bugs they have experienced during play? I think that will give you a bit clearer picture of what is going on in people's mind.

I am sure that if you tell the same voters on your poll that the game will not be patched, that the results of that poll would drop significantly. People are counting on the patch to make this the game it should be, not the game it is in its current form.

[CaptainSolo]

Everything is the simple answer.

I think a lot of lessons were learned from RTW and much has been polished and improved upon immensely for this game.
As Econ21 has said trade and Ai army composition has been much approved upon,no longer will you be fighting against Egypts full stack peasent armies in the Sinai.

A couple of big improvements for me have been:

1)Increased involvement and power of the Pope.
2)Better implementation of Crusades and Jihads.
3)Better faction balance across the board.
4)More varied unit roster.
5)The creation of various Guild houses in your cities.
6)Council of Nobles missions.
7)Much better siege warfare.
8)Much improved battlemap and battle AI.
9)Excellent graphics and sounds.
10)More challenging grand campaign.

A big plus for me was the fact they have retained the Charm of MTW whilst improving upon everything else.

I cannot recommend it highly enough.

While everyone is entitled to their opinion i just cannot agree with your post Veresov,in fact i think it's a load of old cobblers.

[Rameusb5]

Without going into specifics, to me the overall "feel" of the game is much more epic and immersive. I feel less like a strategy gamer playing Risk and more like an actual ruler of a Medieval kingdom.

Here's a few of the main reasons for this, in brief:

1. The strategy map is more interesting, diverse, and realistic.
2. Battles look a whole lot cooler, and IMO offer slightly more tactical depth.
3. Sieges are much improved, with the addition of archers on walls, siege towers, and battering rams.
4. Diplomacy, while sometimes problematic, offers more variety. It's harder to simply "take on the world."

I could go on, but those are the main points I'd make.

I'll agree with his points here. These are the big improvements. Of course, the graphics are better as well, but for me (someone who's be PC gaming since the 80's), good graphics is really a side consideration...

Many of the complaints of bugs are groundless.

Just because there are SOME unreasonable complaints, that doesn't mean they are ALL groundless.

The biggest one for me is the inquisitors. The way they work now is ridiculous. They attack characters that are hidden, as well as characters that don't even have a piety score. The only defense against them is to bribe the hell out of the pope (which I'm not even sure works 100%), or simply block them off with military units. Neither is historically accurate. The inquisitor behavior in game is completely and totally killing the immersion for me.


Another valid bug is that troops with 2 handed weapons can't seem to engage cavalry models. This is due to their "animation" driven kill system. The animation for these troops seems to be broken, and thus they don't get many kills because of it. That seems to be a rather severe bug, considering most of the 2 handed troops in game are SUPPOSED to have a bonus against cavalry!!!

Those are the two big bugs that need to be addressed in the patch.

The lack of the ability to dismount your cavalry before a battle (particularly sieges) is something I also miss from the MTW (since I ususally play as France).

These above issues make me want to consider NOT playing any Catholic nation until a patch comes out to fix them...



I will say that even the first MTW required some changes (Mods) for me to REALLY like it. As someone who has read a great deal on the time period, I find historical innaccuracies in the game to be an annoyance at best, or at worst, make me extremely frustrated. For example, in the original MTW, there was a land bridge between England and Flanders. That, for me, was extremly annoying.

[Doug-Thompson]

Just because there are SOME unreasonable complaints, that doesn't mean they are ALL groundless.

And by precisely the same logic, Rameusb5: Just because there are some reasonable complaints, that doesn't mean all are reasonable.

Did I not say?

It's hard to give examples without sounding like I'm picking on people who posted specific complaints. Also, there are some significant things that do need to be fixed. The AI is too passive under missile fire, for instance, and there is a legitimate "crowd at the ladder" problem in sieges.

I'm also the forum member who coined the term "psycho inquisitors" on other threads.

Inquisitors can be killed by the "surround and squat" method. It's clumsy and an obvious workaround, but it works.

Any game this complex will have exploits and glitches that need ironing out. No amount of quality assurance beats sustained, widescale game play. Players who shelve the game out of frustration over some points, admittedly key points, are doing themselves a disservice. They are going to get that bug fixed by the next patch. Then they'll play the game some more and find some other bug they didn't see the first time and get frustrated by that.

[Rameusb5]

Fair enough. I read your post as "The game is fine... all the whining is baseless..."

In my defense, tone is difficult to read on the internet.

[CaptainSolo]

We can debate MTW2 as a seperate entity in other threads.The question posed by the original poster was 'what does it do better than MTW'.

With that in mind i find it hard to believe even the most outspoken critic of MTW2 would deny it's superiority.

[Doug-Thompson]

Yes, thanks for clearing that up, Rameusb5.

We can debate MTW2 as a seperate entity in other threads.The question posed by the original poster was 'what does it do better than MTW'.

With that in mind i find it hard to believe even the most outspoken critic of MTW2 would deny it's superiority.

Point well taken, CS.

The strategy game is head and shoulders above MTW1 as Kommodus has described.

This is what RTW should have been like. I've been far less able to race around the map, beating little groupings of trash units at will. The AI puts together stacks now.

Crusades and Jihads are much better now. To cite just one example, a Muslim player in the late game who spammed Jihad markers and who had control of the sea was invincible. All you had to do was declare Jihad from each of those provinces and move them together by sea. The Mongol horde was puny by comparison.

Crusades get whole units through a system similar to mercenary hiring. There's no bits and pieces of different units that you can't merge together. You also don't have to build up religious buildings to get one.

Naval combat is still crude, but a vast improvement over MTW1. For instance, I have to keep fleets at see to prevent a landing by Crusades, and could lose. A few ships in "sea zones" don't make my whole coast safe any more. I'm considering invading Cyprus, for instance, just so I can put a watchtower there.

Diplomacy still disappoints many players, but I get what I want out of it.

City management is much less of a hassle.

Tactically, combat is improved on a number of levels compared to MTW1. To cite one small example, the AI can use javelins now. In MTW1, as you may recall, AI javelin troops skirmished all the way out of range, making them useless.

There's more to tactics now that setting up a spear wall to guard your archers. Skirmishing is more important, since the goal is to get your opponents into disarray before the main lines hit.

I could go on, but I'm rambling ...

[Bob the Insane]

Map is better, battles are better, though they can be a little overly complicated on mountainous terrain...

Diplomacy is way better, though there is still an obvious constant downward sprial of relations into all out war at least it is visible now...

Castle and city battles are really cool now (of course there where no city battles in MTW) but the difference is amazing...

The Pope is more interesting and the mission add a little extra depth...

I hate to say it but I think the turn length balancing was a good thing, as the 225 turns level seems just right... My English Campaign with the Timescale set to 0.5 has had near 200 turns and dispite playing fairy unaggressively I have 35 Provinces plus Jerusalem and all my castles and cities are max sized... And due to the timescale it is all by 1180!!