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.

[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 ...

[Kraggenmor]

Thanks for all the replies so far, I appreciate them!

Everything I'd read with any kind of comparison was comparing M2 to RTW which is, it having be the more recent game in the series, completely understandable.

What I was wanting to hear is how it stacks up mechanically to the game it is (imo) actually suceeding.

With some of the recent comments here I'm starting to get a feel for that.

Thanks again!

[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).

[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!!

[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.

[Lord Condormanius]

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!!

I don't know about this. I am in turn 139 of my first campaign as the English (0.50 timescale). I am holding 11 regions, 5 of which I have only gained in the past ten years, mostly through diplomacy. I have had and lost, or given away, four others along the way. Only 2 factions have been eliminated. AI seems pretty good. I am getting attacked by large armies. I don't see myself gaining 24 more regions in the next 61 turns, but who knows. I like the 0.50 timescale. Plus the characters age correctly.

[CaptainSolo]

Everything I'd read with any kind of comparison was comparing M2 to RTW which is, it having be the more recent game in the series, completely understandable.
What I was wanting to hear is how it stacks up mechanically to the game it is (imo) actually suceeding

I get the impression Kraggenmor that you much prefer MTW to RTW.If thats the case then i can reassure you further.Many of my friends who disliked RTW and carried on playing Medieval have now returned to this latest installment in the series and absolutely love it to bits.
Now the reasons for them disliking RTW were quite varied (eg) They didnt like the period,Map,diplomacy,senate missions etc the list goes on but all are unanimous in their liking for MTW2.

There was no bigger critic than me when RTW was first released but if you like Medieval you will love the second installment.

[Bob the Insane]

I don't know about this. I am in turn 139 of my first campaign as the English (0.50 timescale). I am holding 11 regions, 5 of which I have only gained in the past ten years, mostly through diplomacy. I have had and lost, or given away, four others along the way. Only 2 factions have been eliminated. AI seems pretty good. I am getting attacked by large armies. I don't see myself gaining 24 more regions in the next 61 turns, but who knows. I like the 0.50 timescale. Plus the characters age correctly.

You know I really, really felt that way and I am still a little conflicted...

900 turns makes the game feel truely epic but I found that superpowers where starting to form (Denmark, Spain, Milan and the Turks) and I need to grow myself least I not have sufficient reasours to resist the others. The fighting was pretty extreme with the Dane's and dispite my capture of France and Denmark's homelands (then now occupy the Polish lands and have turned the Russains into a Vassel state). I am at war with everyone on my borders and I am the only large Catholic faction which has not been continously excommunicated. What I am trying to say is that I have not made a concious effort to expand outside of the British Isles and north coast of France (plus the Holy Land) but constant attacks have lead me to try and weaken or seek more easily securable borders with my enemies.

Money is sufficiently hard to come by so that things are never eay and there are never enough troops for every threat (thus the need to castrate one enemy before moving your troops on to deal with the next).

I am still not sure about the build times for the buildings, but I think increases them but x4 might help. BUt I am not sure how you can deal with the population growth which I am positive is by turn rather than year so you get very large cities and castles.

You will however spend a lot of turns not doing that much, just shuffling agents and troops around and adjusting your spending.

Sorry for going so off topic...

[Lord Condormanius]

Money is sufficiently hard to come by so that things are never eay and there are never enough troops for every threat (thus the need to castrate one enemy before moving your troops on to deal with the next).

I am still not sure about the build times for the buildings, but I think increases them but x4 might help. BUt I am not sure how you can deal with the population growth which I am positive is by turn rather than year so you get very large cities and castles.

You will however spend a lot of turns not doing that much, just shuffling agents and troops around and adjusting your spending.

Yes, this is true. money is in very short supply and I find the population growth to be pretty heavy. the biggest downside to these two factors seems to be that the AI upgrades cities and castles as soon as they have the resources and pop. I guess that keeps the balance somewhat intact, as they don't spend on other things like military, economy, etc. (can you tell I don't know what I'm talking about here). There is also the squalor factor. At least in RTW you could somewhat control your population through recruitment.

...and Bob, you may have the pointiest helmet in the land, but have you seen that hats that some of those Slav Merenaries are wearing? Sharp!

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Maybe TW veterans are pretty fussy. I think it is wrong to suggest that bug reports and gameplay issues are overstated..they are not IMO. Currently I find my normal campaign spoilt by these isssues:

Inquisitors: They kill faction leaders/heirs, your priests..and generals on crusades...madness. It ruins your game at times.

Units hanging back when you charge..only the front line engages...leaving you strung out..and sometimes losing due to this bug.

Insane campaign AI...just no reason behind many countries actions..and diplomacy is a bit dodgy too.

Unit balance issues..cavalry are more bugged than they were in RTW....you just cannot control them sometimes. Billmen are useless...a major issue if you play as england...lots more to mention..but I wont.

For my money a few areas got my goat up in RTW...fantasy units didnt appeal...and some problems with units/AI etc..but I have to say at present RTW is the better more playable/fun game. I think that era worked well for this type of game.

If the issues are fixed then we have a very good game..but questions remain about areas that could and should have been better..sure some are minor..but this is the 4th total war game.

Why no years? turns mean nothing
Why no moats? This was a crucial part of this era
How did the dodgy AI get past playtesting?
Why can't you target buildings in seiges?
Why can't you pick you faction heir? You sometimes get stuffed with a loopy leader.
Why do spear units die horribly in shiltron formation when the shouldn't?

Not to be too critical...I am 31..been playing games since they came out...and being honest I am hard to please...I am also a TW fan..I think they are very good games..but at this stage I have seen everything before..not just in the TW sense..but in general. Sure some may say TW fans are too harsh on this one...but I know some of the best ever games I have played have had little to do with really nice graphics..that is as another poster put it a side issue. What concerns is gameplay. And MTW 2 needs some work.

[Lord Condormanius]

Why no moats? This was a crucial part of this era

Moats were probably as crucial as dragons...or maybe wizards.

[Doug-Thompson]

If the bug debate keeps sidetracking this thread, I'll either stop replying or ask those who want to argue the point to open another thread.

Maybe TW veterans are pretty fussy. I think it is wrong to suggest that bug reports and gameplay issues are overstated..they are not IMO.

We have an honest difference of opinion, then.

Currently I find my normal campaign spoilt by these isssues:

Inquisitors: They kill faction leaders/heirs, your priests..and generals on crusades...madness. It ruins your game at times.

As I noted in an earlier reply, the "surround and squash" workaround is available until a permanent solution is found or patched in.

Units hanging back when you charge..only the front line engages...leaving you strung out..and sometimes losing due to this bug.

In the first place, the only time I've had some units hold back is when I order their group to charge. Selecting that unit individually and specifically ordering it to attack has solved that problem for me every time.

While that could be more micromanagment than many players enjoy, I've found the game's tactical "autopilot" features to be the best by far of any TW game, reducing this kind of direct intervention to easily manageable levels. Compared to the micromanagement needed just to use horse archers, for instance, in MTW1, this game is a snap.

Furthermore, I'm not at all convinced that hanging back isn't a morale issue. Ordering men to walk into a fight, especially when arrows are flying in their face, was never automatic.

Insane campaign AI...just no reason behind many countries actions..and diplomacy is a bit dodgy too.

I found the desperate Moorish attempts to make peace with me and the backstabbing by Portugal and France in my Spanish campaign to be quite sane. Likewise, the coalition of allied Catholic powers who pummelled me to defeat in my Russian campaign also behaved quite rationally to my sweeping destruction of Poland. The anger and suspicion of my Turkish allies after I won the race to Edessa in my current Egyptian campaign is completely understandable.

Whenever you take a province that is on another faction's list of victory conditions, you make them an enemy. Note that Jerusalem is on a lot of factions' lists. Whenever you become the #1 power on the map, you make enemies of everybody.

Unit balance issues..cavalry are more bugged than they were in RTW....you just cannot control them sometimes.

I absolutely and flatly disagree with that, and I'm a cavalry player.

Almost all issues with moving cavalry around are fixed by one simple rule: "Move loose, melee closed." Cavalry units are very hard to move in closed formation, in part because the leader has to wind through the crowd and everybody has to line up behind him if there is any significant change of direction. Moving in loose formation fixes that problem. Put cavalry in loose formation in deployment and close them with the "c" hotkey as you order a melee attack. Open them back up to chase routers.

"Fire and forget" cavalry is boring.

Billmen are useless...a major issue if you play as england...lots more to mention..but I wont.

I put a unit of Irish mercenary skirmishers in front of my a unit of billmen last night. The Irish Kerns hit the approaching feudal knights with javelins and the billmen charged in during the melee after the knights had a good, solid lances-down charge. The knights were massacred, and more than half the English and Irish survived.

[Doug-Thompson]

Moats were probably as crucial as dragons...or maybe wizards.

To be fair, moats were a very effective anti-mining technique. They prevented sappers from undermining the walls.

[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.

[Doug-Thompson]

As I said in the post you quote:

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.

[Lord Condormanius]

To be fair, moats were a very effective anti-mining technique. They prevented sappers from undermining the walls.

Ok, fine. Maybe I went a little bit over board with the dragons and wizards. My point is that they weren't everywhere. Yes there were many, many castles across Europe (far more than can be represented in this game) and some of them had moats...but I'm pretty sure that none of them had crocodiles.

[BigTex]

The game is solid, and far far better then RTW.

M2TW has a much better campaign map. The risk style board was nice but it got old after awhile.

It has much better battles, much better, and shorter. If any of you can recall playing on large+ unit scale, playing on hard. Those couple of 30,000+ battles against the 2 biggest countries, that literrally lasted for over 2 hours on occasion. They became pointless after the initial engagement and sluaghter in the first 20-25 minutes and just kept on going and going. Indeed far better and a little more realistic battles this go.

The trade is better, you can't just roll in the money by staying nuetral with sea trade. Which brings another point. You can trade with other people without requiring huge navy trains.

The cavalry isnt insanely overpowered. They don't have that awful "irressistable charge" stat that meant they could go through a unit of men at arms in a heart beat.

Gothic Knights actually have a lance. They also even kept the armor peircing mace too, much better.

Crusade's are more fun. Their far more indepth you can't just build your own crusade. A crusade is now something all catholic factions participate in. They also now involve the pope, something the original didn't bother with.

There's a long list that keeps on going about whats been improved. M2tw is a solid improvement and a great game when compared to MTW.

It hardly has any bugs, and I've only ran across a couple, the passive AI, billmen/2haxes inability to attacl cavalry, and that awful one were the army gets stuck in the ocean after a battle across a land bridge. The AI is far better then in RTW. Expecially on the campaign map were it builds well rounded armies. But it also does that without completely bankrupting itself and depleting the populations of its citizens. In battles on VH it is actually more intelligent, and doesnt require a stat bonus for it at harder levels.

Solid game, can't wait for the patch though, the passivity kinda blows when your the russians.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

In response to doug...yes you raise some fair points..and no I don't want fire and forget cav...though I think they do need some work.


I still cannot accept that campaign or battle AI is good. At times it is ok..sometimes slightly clever, but often left wanting. Counrtries declaring war, and the making a slightly pathetic attack..which fails..isnt my idea of making sense..sure it does gear up ok at times. It does need a lot of work though.

I am currently heavily into the english campaign..and I have to say I have had a couple of good battles..but a lot of easy ones too...where the AI was simply devoid of a strategy or plan..and crushed easily. Not all the time..but it is worrying to a point.

I have not once had to defend a city or fortress/citadel from a seige..aka on the battle map..the attacking army hangs about for too long after it has built its siege equipment, allowing me to counter attack and wipe them out. This is very different to RTW..and I have to say not a welcome sign. Maybe this is a fluke campaign..but I have to wonder what is going on. The AI missed some great chances to win in this way..and it didnt even try.

To Lord Condormanius...sure I will say the moat part is a pretty minor area..and not a deal breaker in itself...but it would have been nice to see...not all castles had moats..but many did, and for good reasons we all know why. It is a shame that CA didn't push the boat out a little more in areas such as this..I don't expect or ask for a military medieval simulator..I am happy to have some areas looked over to enhance player fun..but surely you cannot ignore an important tactical part of the era such as this.

But in response to the wow it gets 10/10 because it looks good..well that is your own personal view..I am more concerned about playing good myself.

Not all the issues are bugs..many areas are in need of serious adjustment though..and tweaking. As ever the more you play the more you change views..its a rollercoaster so far with MTW 2...some great stuff..and some let downs.