Latest info on M2 add-on

[Shigawire]

Nonono, its based on the Dune 2 Deviator

Most def.

omg, WOLOLO!! that reminds me of AOE, I think it was.. and some unit in this game, funniest sound ever. I need to have that as a messenger alert so my parents can kill me.

Glad you liked it. The voice actor King_Azzole also especially likes this one.

[The Celtic Viking]

omg, WOLOLO!! that reminds me of AOE, I think it was.. and some unit in this game, funniest sound ever. I need to have that as a messenger alert so my parents can kill me.

Yes, it was Age of Empires. The priest said so every time he converted an enemy soldier, which is how I got to think about it. It could also heal friendly units, so that answers a question someone else posted in the other thread: Manuel of Byzanz will be the healing unit, too.

Seriously all of this pessimistic crap is getting ridiculous.
TW is not going to be Warcraft 3 for christs sake.

Eh, if we can't have fun playing the game, let us at least have fun whining about it.

[Shigawire]

I wonder where AOE got it from, since it's a genuine Gallic utterance.

charge = (Unintelligible roar/shout) - WOH-loh-loh! x3 (drag out the final 'loh') - Ay-EE bazb! (drag out the 'ee')

[Brightblade]

My god, seriously people let's lay off the hate bandwagon here. Its one thing to poke fun or two it's another to cry havoc and let loose the dogs of omfgwtfbbq.

We all are quite aware we like history, if CA didn't bother to make the games in the first place we wouldn't have EB... or EB2 for that matter. Warcraft 3, C&C3 are all great games in their own right and I enjoyed every single CnC and WC game very much... just because they aren't uber realistic doesn't mean it's boring... EB is a great game based on history, none of the other RTS claim that to be the case.. and we already know CA isnt historically accurate in its games, and they cater to audiences that aren't as soupnazi about history as we are.

live and let live, and buy the game becuase you know you will, for EB2..

cheers

[Anthony]

Well, 'wololo' is pretty long lasting. The Irish used it in medieval battle to open a charge sometimes, as it was rythmic and could could help keep step. I should imagine that's not so hard to find. But seems weird a priest would say it, unless it's coincidence and they just wanted a sound that's nice and rythmic.

[Anthony]

I am playing M2TW with Dues Lo Vult 2.1 wich has Burreks skins, Titles, so on and am having a pretty good campaign but am anticipating EB2 with great relish. I don't consider M2TW to be crap. It's not as good as EB is but its not crap. In my opinion crap is RTW without EB(shudders from frightful images of cartoon men, half naked Conan barbarians who don't have good hygeine, screeching women, battlefield druids, gladiators, arcani, and 26th dynasty egyptians.)

Well, we do have 'druids' planned, but they'd be more realistic. Mind they'd be very high morale, wealthy, and well-equipped men. But, they'd not be the silly CA druids, but more realistic druids who did sometimes fight, most notably at Ynys Mon (Anglesy), against the Romans. They'd be extremely well-motivated, and will raise allied morale, and lower enemy morale (the Romans and other Celts and such were TERRIFIED of fighting druids, since they were holymen of the culture), but they won't be near as good in combat strength as a real champion, considering they don't regularly fight; their combat training is typically more 'how can you defend yourself if needed' as opposed to 'you need to go fight', which is a big difference.

[kalkwerk]

According to gamestar hotseat will only be with auto-resolve battles.

[edyzmedieval]

Ah, CA is getting rubbish even more. Long live EB.

[Kralizec]

It turns out the Papacy will have the conversion ability as well:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[antisocialmunky]

Ah, CA is getting rubbish even more. Long live EB.

Well, all things considered I'd have to disagree they aren't exactly taking away from gameplay, its not like you can't mod it out. Maybe EB2 will find some use with those new features so instead of taking jabs at CA and Sega, I'd think a better course of action is to see what you can use in the new expansion.

One thing I find interesting is the religion based recruiting that could be applied to things like 'Romanizing' areas. Another is the English Campaign's alliance feature. It'd be nice to be able to itnerect with small factions like the Syrocusians or Celtic and Iberian Tribes.

They're just adding new features instead of making the old ones work alot better which isn't anything new from CA.

[Wolfman]

Anthony: So they won't be super druids they will be human beings instead. Kinda of like the Sohei warrior monks in japan.I like it.
AntiSocialMunkey: I completely agree with your angle of the discussion It would be nice if the EB team was able to mods these features.

[blacksnail]

Ah, CA is getting rubbish even more. Long live EB.

I strongly disagree. These kinds of things are trivial to mod out, which means a "no magic" mod will show up within a week of the update coming out. The rather small percentage of history nerds (and I include myself here) will be happy, while the rather large percentage of people who want to have massive cinematic battles with "special moves" will be happy as well. This means the game sells more, which means CA stays in business, which means they keep making platforms we can use to mod these games.

Without CA there is no EB, and at this point RTW is pretty long in the tooth - 2004 was a long time ago when you go by market standards. Historical games just do not sell well enough to sustain the size of company required to make the Total War series what it is.

[mlc82]

I strongly disagree. These kinds of things are trivial to mod out, which means a "no magic" mod will show up within a week of the update coming out. The rather small percentage of history nerds (and I include myself here) will be happy, while the rather large percentage of people who want to have massive cinematic battles with "special moves" will be happy as well. This means the game sells more, which means CA stays in business, which means they keep making platforms we can use to mod these games.

Without CA there is no EB, and at this point RTW is pretty long in the tooth - 2004 was a long time ago when you go by market standards. Historical games just do not sell well enough to sustain the size of company required to make the Total War series what it is.

The annoying part to me is that they'll spend time putting magic into the game, and keep virtually the same AI that Shogun had (along with the new 3D map that the AI, originally made for a basic 2D "attack or defend" setup, is generally too dumb to use).

[Boyar Son]

OMG! I finnaly know what you guys are talking about! too bad its not viking invasion 2 or Magyar invasion but its cool.

A simple MTW2 expansion would've sufficed... (as for title)

[blacksnail]

M2TW is built on the RTW engine, which means you're most likely not going to see drastically improved battlemap AI until the next big CA game. I'm not sure if M2TW battlemap behaviors can be modded - my focus is still on the RTW engine - but the direction CA took with modding strat map behavior is very promising. Here's hoping the next game they have will have similar approach to moddability of battlemap AI, but the sheer complexity of battlemap AI makes me doubt it.

[Afro Thunder]

Just one question: Wololo??? Gonna need some clarification on that.

[Boyar Son]

Just one question: Wololo??? Gonna need some clarification on that.

In Age of Empires the preist would say "wololo" and everyone thinks its funny.

[adishee]

I agree about the AI thing. It's not that CA makes historically innacurate games and have officially departed from the TW roots (like so many franchise), it's that they don't touch the AI. RTW's AI sucks, its a miracle that EB and other mods have made campaigns difficult and battles at least not that easy *sometimes* with formations and stats. And I appreciate that mircale... love you EB.. now get back to work

[antisocialmunky]

I agree about the AI thing. It's not that CA makes historically innacurate games and have officially departed from the TW roots (like so many franchise), it's that they don't touch the AI. RTW's AI sucks, its a miracle that EB and other mods have made campaigns difficult and battles at least not that easy *sometimes* with formations and stats. And I appreciate that mircale... love you EB.. now get back to work

If you're implying that TW's roots are 'historical,' then I'd have to disagree. TW has been about one thing ever: Gameplay with historical flavor. STW was not historically accurate, it just used a romanticized historical setting for rock-paper-scissors. The only one that I would consider semi-historically accurate would be MTW and Viking Invasion.

However, I do concede that STW and MTW were more edutainment than more recent TW games that present a 'sqash buckler' history of the periods in which they take place. The Manual of STW was great fun to read for info and MTW was loaded with historic references.

With all that said, I still don't think they have departed from its roots because they were never about history. They were just wrapped in history to make it cooler and have more depth. TW is and always have been about gameplay involving massive easily controllable armies slugging it out in a romantic historic setting and it hasn't and probably will not change.

Many people including myself like more history and less fantasy, but lets face it fantasy is fun too sometimes. Go Ivanhoe!

[edyzmedieval]

@Blacksnail

True, without CA there would be no EB or RTR. But when you're a big fan of the series, have every game there is, you can't have the shock of discovering these fantasy addons.

[Anthony]

Viking Invasion is not remotely historically accurate. The 'Scots' (what?) and the 'Irish' are both wildly historically inaccurate (and far too weak; where'd the Danes invade first? Ireland. And where'd they go second? England. Why? Cause the Irish beat the living hell out of them, so they left Ireland to the Norse, who had Irish princes do most of their fighting for them outside the new city-states like Wexford, Dublin, Wicklow, Galway, and Cork). The Welsh are an unholy travesty too. That either Ireland or Wales was one faction is heinous. Nevermind the 'Scots' (they didn't call themselves anything approaching that, damn it) also controlled all of Ulster, when Ulster was 5 competing principalities for quite a time. That Ireland was only divided into 5 provinces and given one faction is a nightmare, especially considering the Leinstermen regularly allied with the Norse, and it was a king from Ulster (Mael Sechnaill) and from Munster (Brian Boru) who won the great military victories against the Norse.

And what was up with the Welsh names on the Isle of Mann? Gaels had since conquered the island and had enforced naming caveats. And why was Meath called Brega? Brega is a tiny sub-kingdom in Meath that descends from the Brigantian presence there. Why is the castle in Ulster Emain Macha? Emain Macha was burned in the 3rd century AD.

The Irish unit selection is ten-thousand kings of wrong. Where the Knights of the Golden Chain? They were the most famous order of chivalry outside of Frankish courts, and were a direct inspiration for Arthurian legends, AND they inspired near the entirety of the chivalric code, considering it was their code that the Irish missionaries brought to the court of the Carolignians and employed as a basis for their own royal retainers, which in turn inspired chivalry. Where are the house soldiers (the best trained ignoble, non-landed soldiers in western Europe right up to the middle ages, considering they were actually, you know...trained, as in really trained, in marching, formations, offensive and defense motions, and equipped too, which was pretty unusual for non-landed soldiery in those days)? Why the hell are their gallowglass when they didn't exist until the high middle ages? What the hell are 'dart men', considering every Irish soldier carried darts and javelins? Why are their no slings or bowmen? Why are their royal guards horsemen when the Arras fought on foot? Most importantly, why the living hell are the Dal Riadans (to hell with that 'Scot' stuff) any different? They were Irishmen for Christ's sake. What's this 'highlander' bull? Highlanders being recognized as seperate soldiers only emerged due to differences between lowlanders and highlanders in the middle ages, and even then, all highlanders were were essentially Irish-cultured men who lived in Scotland.

...There's a lot more wrong, but I'd not even call VI 'semi-historical'.

[Dyabedes of Aphrodisias]

I'm dwarfed by the sheer, imposing mass of your knowledge...I really am, but...breathe man, breathe...

I guess EB was made for people like you

[keravnos]

I'm dwarfed by the sheer, imposing mass of your knowledge...I really am, but...breathe man, breathe...

I guess EB was made for people like you

... or more correctly by people like him, as Anthony is our member, and may I say, one of the more knowledgeable ones, especially when it comes to Celts.

[Birka Viking]

Viking Invasion is not remotely historically accurate. The 'Scots' (what?) and the 'Irish' are both wildly historically inaccurate (and far too weak; where'd the Danes invade first? Ireland. And where'd they go second? England. Why? Cause the Irish beat the living hell out of them, so they left Ireland to the Norse, who had Irish princes do most of their fighting for them outside the new city-states like Wexford, Dublin, Wicklow, Galway, and Cork). The Welsh are an unholy travesty too. That either Ireland or Wales was one faction is heinous. Nevermind the 'Scots' (they didn't call themselves anything approaching that, damn it) also controlled all of Ulster, when Ulster was 5 competing principalities for quite a time. That Ireland was only divided into 5 provinces and given one faction is a nightmare, especially considering the Leinstermen regularly allied with the Norse, and it was a king from Ulster (Mael Sechnaill) and from Munster (Brian Boru) who won the great military victories against the Norse.

And what was up with the Welsh names on the Isle of Mann? Gaels had since conquered the island and had enforced naming caveats. And why was Meath called Brega? Brega is a tiny sub-kingdom in Meath that descends from the Brigantian presence there. Why is the castle in Ulster Emain Macha? Emain Macha was burned in the 3rd century AD.

The Irish unit selection is ten-thousand kings of wrong. Where the Knights of the Golden Chain? They were the most famous order of chivalry outside of Frankish courts, and were a direct inspiration for Arthurian legends, AND they inspired near the entirety of the chivalric code, considering it was their code that the Irish missionaries brought to the court of the Carolignians and employed as a basis for their own royal retainers, which in turn inspired chivalry. Where are the house soldiers (the best trained ignoble, non-landed soldiers in western Europe right up to the middle ages, considering they were actually, you know...trained, as in really trained, in marching, formations, offensive and defense motions, and equipped too, which was pretty unusual for non-landed soldiery in those days)? Why the hell are their gallowglass when they didn't exist until the high middle ages? What the hell are 'dart men', considering every Irish soldier carried darts and javelins? Why are their no slings or bowmen? Why are their royal guards horsemen when the Arras fought on foot? Most importantly, why the living hell are the Dal Riadans (to hell with that 'Scot' stuff) any different? They were Irishmen for Christ's sake. What's this 'highlander' bull? Highlanders being recognized as seperate soldiers only emerged due to differences between lowlanders and highlanders in the middle ages, and even then, all highlanders were were essentially Irish-cultured men who lived in Scotland.

...There's a lot more wrong, but I'd not even call VI 'semi-historical'.

One question about what u say about the Norse???Why would Irish princes fight for the Norse?? I read fairly much about the vikings and this is something I never heard about before???

[antisocialmunky]

Viking Invasion is not remotely historically accurate. The 'Scots' (what?) and the 'Irish' are both wildly historically inaccurate (and far too weak; where'd the Danes invade first? Ireland. And where'd they go second? England. Why? Cause the Irish beat the living hell out of them, so they left Ireland to the Norse, who had Irish princes do most of their fighting for them outside the new city-states like Wexford, Dublin, Wicklow, Galway, and Cork). The Welsh are an unholy travesty too. That either Ireland or Wales was one faction is heinous. Nevermind the 'Scots' (they didn't call themselves anything approaching that, damn it) also controlled all of Ulster, when Ulster was 5 competing principalities for quite a time. That Ireland was only divided into 5 provinces and given one faction is a nightmare, especially considering the Leinstermen regularly allied with the Norse, and it was a king from Ulster (Mael Sechnaill) and from Munster (Brian Boru) who won the great military victories against the Norse.

And what was up with the Welsh names on the Isle of Mann? Gaels had since conquered the island and had enforced naming caveats. And why was Meath called Brega? Brega is a tiny sub-kingdom in Meath that descends from the Brigantian presence there. Why is the castle in Ulster Emain Macha? Emain Macha was burned in the 3rd century AD.

The Irish unit selection is ten-thousand kings of wrong. Where the Knights of the Golden Chain? They were the most famous order of chivalry outside of Frankish courts, and were a direct inspiration for Arthurian legends, AND they inspired near the entirety of the chivalric code, considering it was their code that the Irish missionaries brought to the court of the Carolignians and employed as a basis for their own royal retainers, which in turn inspired chivalry. Where are the house soldiers (the best trained ignoble, non-landed soldiers in western Europe right up to the middle ages, considering they were actually, you know...trained, as in really trained, in marching, formations, offensive and defense motions, and equipped too, which was pretty unusual for non-landed soldiery in those days)? Why the hell are their gallowglass when they didn't exist until the high middle ages? What the hell are 'dart men', considering every Irish soldier carried darts and javelins? Why are their no slings or bowmen? Why are their royal guards horsemen when the Arras fought on foot? Most importantly, why the living hell are the Dal Riadans (to hell with that 'Scot' stuff) any different? They were Irishmen for Christ's sake. What's this 'highlander' bull? Highlanders being recognized as seperate soldiers only emerged due to differences between lowlanders and highlanders in the middle ages, and even then, all highlanders were were essentially Irish-cultured men who lived in Scotland.

...There's a lot more wrong, but I'd not even call VI 'semi-historical'.

I'm sure you're right, my knowledge on the period is limitted. I thought it was somewhat historically grounded. Guess not, but that goes to my argument that TW was never historically accurate. A very informative post Anthony.

[Anthony]

One question about what u say about the Norse???Why would Irish princes fight for the Norse?? I read fairly much about the vikings and this is something I never heard about before???

The Irish, particularly in Leinster and Meath, were promised favorable trading status, thus increasing their wealth. It's an economic thing. The idea of the 'Irish versus the Norse' is largely a myth. The Norse in Ireland as often fought for the Irish against other Norsemen (and many of the Norse there became culturally quite thoroughly Gaelic in most ways), and most 'Norse' armies in Ireland were mostly composed of Irishmen.

Consider Clontarff. On both sides there were Norsemen and Irishmen. Brian had substantial numbers of loyal Norse subjects, and Sigtrygg had allies from Leinster and most of his subjects around Dublin were Irishmen. His only truly 'Norse' soldiers came directly from Norway, or were Icelandic mercenaries, or came from Denmark, or from the Danelaw in England.

The Norse had no numbers to actually conquer Ireland alone; it'd be impossible. The Norse at the time fought in small pirating bands. To form a maintained presence, they needed Irish soldiers, and, since Irish soldiers were loyal to chiefs, themselves loyal to local princes/sub-kings, they needed to align themselves with those men. So, they'd marry their children to Irish gentry, and promise them special status in trade; reduced tariffs, setting aside goods specifically to be sold to certain territories, selling those goods at a reduced price, and so on.


Edit; another agitation...what's with 'last names' (the Gaels didn't have any at the time, just patronyms), particularly some like Fitz-anything (Fitz names are all Norman in origin, they'd not exist in Ireland at the time), or 'of the Nine Hostages' (a title that was given to high king/emperor Niall; it isn't right to just give that to random Irishmen).

[Birka Viking]

Well I was aware of that the vikings never were many...Often becouse of internal fighting. I think the larges viking army I ever heard about is around 80000 men when they besieged Konstantinopel. But this is far away from confirmed that they were so many...

[Anthony]

That's the point of it. The Norse in Ireland would have stood no chance against the Irish without more soldiers fighting for them. Even if they were the best equipped and trained soldiers the Norse could get (which many of them weren't, just landed men who had gone with the Norse to raid; a lot weren't necessarily that tough), the Irish would've overwhelmed them with sheer numbers. Irish armies were utterly massive. Brian's native Irish contingent alone outnumbered his enemies at Clontarff, and they were only 1/3rd of his northern army of Munster. Any one of the kings of Ireland could have raised substantially larger numbers than any Norse king (at the time), due to the relatively small populations of Norse kingdoms, and that the Norse had smaller armies, composed of landed men, when they went invading. The Irish had the advantage; all of their nobles, all of their regular soldiers, and all of their levies were right there, and Ireland was, until the later famine and migrations out of Ireland, a very densely populated island, meaning there was a lot of people to draw soldiers from. For the Norse to have a chance at success, they needed to entice Irish leaders to support them; marriages, favored trading status, gifts, etc., to get Irish soldiers on their side, in their large numbers, and give them a chance to fight traditional enemies (for example, the people of Leinster and Munster fought all the time, what'd the Norse prince of Wexford do? Offered the Leinstermen handsome gifts, trade bonuses, and a chance to fight Munster with the support of a friend; plenty enticing for an Irish king or prince).

I would clarify, I'm not complaining about CA above, just the idea that VI is historically accurate in even the slightest.

[Boyar Son]

Anthony, the Irish beat the Viking badly? how so? I thought if the English couldn't beat the vikings nor could the Irish.

[antisocialmunky]

What's 'English' they didnt' exist yet.