M2TW, does anyone like the original better

[Martok]

Bearing in mind that I don't really recall any specifics at this point (it's been a month or two since I played), my opinion of the AI in Medieval 2 is that while it's somewhat better at assaulting cities than in Rome, it's still not what I would define as truly competent.

There's less aimless milling about of troops and the computer is more decisive in its actions, but it doesn't utilize its artillery that well and sometimes employs units ill-suited to attacking fortifications. (I do remember defending one city where the emeny attempted to storm over the walls with some crossbowmen, even though they had a number of swordsmen and spearmen at their disposal. )

[Caerfanan]

(I do remember defending one city where the emeny attempted to storm over the walls with some crossbowmen, even though they had a number of swordsmen and spearmen at their disposal. )

Well, not the first time I read someone reporting a stupid "charge" with crossbowmen. Could it be that the decision comes from te high defense and armor levels? Making them "falsely" the ones most likely to survive long enough to wait for reinforcements without routing?




Are the crossbowmen a low intelligence and brash unit?

[Martok]

Well, not the first time I read someone reporting a stupid "charge" with crossbowmen. Could it be that the decision comes from te high defense and armor levels? Making them "falsely" the ones most likely to survive long enough to wait for reinforcements without routing?

Now that I think about it, it's entirely possible that crossbowmen are -- for the moment, at least -- the better choice for storming fortifications. Due to the well-known shield bug, many swordsmen and spearmen in Medieval 2 suffer penalties to their melee abilities, and it's entirely possible that units (such as x-bows) without shields are actually superior to them at the moment. The problem is that the AI isn't aware of the shield bug, and should therefore still be selecting medium/heavy infantry over missile troops when assaulting cities/castles.

EDIT: In fairness, however, I should add that I only defended a couple of siege battles; so the enemy using crossbows for taking the walls may have only been an anomaly.

[Caerfanan]

EDIT: In fairness, however, I should add that I only defended a couple of siege battles; so the enemy using crossbows for taking the walls may have only been an anomaly.

Was your enemy the French? I read somewhere else in the forum something about a french general sending his xbowmen charging in a bridge battle!

What is the shield bug? I don't play M2 yet

[BlackKnight1234]

I have medieval 2 total war rome total war empire total war and medieval total war and all of them work very well

[oz_wwjd]

the first one is and will always be my favourite. It's only due to the fact that it refuses to work with Nividia series 8 cards that prevents me from playing it.

[Kaidonni]

I no longer have MTW Gold on the computer, owing to the battle mouse-over bug (fine, I did find a somewhat effective way to improvise, but wasn't motivated enough to play that way). Can't play M2TW because the disc drive doesn't recognise it (we have another disc drive that does, but it isn't connected). RTW...not bothering at the moment, might try some of the updated mod releases, but last time around I just didn't feel like playing it. Didn't feel like it had the correct variety. I am now a Stalker and a Civ III Complete player. Of course, should I get my own computer one day...I wonder, can you have two graphics cards? Because if so...

EDIT: Although, heh, talk about necroposting...meh, seen threads older than this reinvigorated.

[King Kurt]

Ah - so nice to be back in the Main hall

I have recently started playing MTW2 after a daliance with RTW and I must say I quite enjoy it. I like the range of things you can do - diplomacy, religion, trade, the castle/ town split etc. Unlike Martok, it does feel more like being in control of a Medieval Kingdom - especially if you play the short campaign. that gives you historic oppolents and you do not have to conquer the world.

As old lags of the Main Hall will know, I loved MTW and VI and was active here for several years before a change of PC moved mr on. I thought RTW was OK, but did not like the micro management of the settlements and loads of other things. However having moved on to MTW2 my enthusiasm is rekindled - I really want to play whenever I can and spend time reading the guides on the forum. I feel I have a lot to learn before I master the game. With MTW I did feel I had mastered the game - once you got beyond about a dozen moves you were always likely to win - I don't feel that yet with MTW2 - but it may come with time. Where RTW and MTW2 win out is the realistic move distance - no longer an army from Norway poping up in Egypt - you have to plan and you can use the terrian so much more - a recent RTW game had my small force guarding a river crossing and it driving back sucessive attacks as the only way to my city was over the river.

So - just my 2 pennyworth - and, as always, good to visit the haunts of my old friend Martok

Oh - and Martok - is Brett going to be a Viking????

[BlackKnight1234]

I can tell you that campaign is better than all
But battels! Battels suckkkkkkkkkk!