M2:TW A Total Failure

[TeutonicKnight]

I think M2tw is a total failure.It is full of bugs and such.I newer saw such a poor AI and i think this is the end of total war series.

Disagree.

There are some AI issues, I'll give you that. But I still predict Kingdoms will sell well, and that there will likely be another TW game in the future. Also, I'm enjoying it so much I've removed all my other TW games from the computer.

Have you tried any of the player bug-fixers? I use Carl's version, and it's wonderful. Word is that the new patch will make vanilla even better than the player bug-fixers, but that remains to be seen.

[Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)]

Kingdoms,knights in shiny armor and princesses became now old fashion.I think Tw should make a step forward and improve it's stile.

[Daveybaby]

Kingdoms,knights in shiny armor and princesses became now old fashion.I think Tw should make a step forward and improve it's stile.

In the news today, a man bought a game called Medieval 2 : Total War, and was disappointed to find it contained knights and princesses.

Yeah, its ridiculous. Come on CA - WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!?!? MEDIEVAL NEEDS MORE SPACE ROCKETS AND TANKS!!!!

I'm also writing to the developers of the NBA basketball series to complain that the game is full of basketball players - i much prefer traffic wardens, and also to the developers of Need for Speed - does the game really have to contain so many cars? Where are all of the shoe factories and anteaters?

This certainly wins my prize for the most bizarre troll so far.

[Shahed]

Like I always said you have to spend a good few hours modding and fixing, THEN it rocks. I have'nt got any other game installed at the moment. I use Carl's fixer too, plus I've tweaked a lot of minor things.

I agree fully that the AI is largely defective both campaign and battle. There's no arguing that, there's also no arguing that M2:TW has is indeed crippled by bugs in the original release.

[Vladimir]

I think he's just looking to impale someone.

[Quickening]

Yeah the bugs are terrible but the game they infest is brilliant. Ive had fun with it since day one and will continue to.
And it is definately not the end of the Total War series. Not by a long shot.

Watch Highlander: The Source if you truly want to see the death of a great series

[Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)]

I’ve been a fan of Creative Assembly since my first encounter with Shogun: Total War. That fantastically innovative game brought real-world units and tactics in a real-time strategy setting, complete with a deep and interesting turn-based grand strategy mode. Shogun was quickly followed by Medieval: Total War, and recently a new engine in Rome: Total War, which has thusly spawned one of the more recognizable and popular franchises in PC gaming.

Rome: Total War was not without its errors but due to the engine and improvements, we forgave much. Considering that Medieval improved significantly on Shogun in several areas, it was then not without cause that expectations for Medieval 2 were raised considerably. Yet, while Creative Assembly has addressed some issues, others continue to plague them. Worse, these problems have existed throughout the series and considering this is the fourth game in the franchise and the second with this engine, patience has worn thin to say the least.

[danfda]

Wow. If you hate it so much, then go away. Seriously. I think I've about had it with people whining about how bad the game is. You knew it would ship with bugs, as all new games do and CA has shown no reason to make you believe otherwise. So get over it. CA is working dilligently to fix the bugs, I have no doubt about that. Its fun as it stands now and can only get better when the patches and the incredible mods are released.

So why won't some of us just stop whining? Please. My brain aches from reading this exact same thread over and over again. 'Course, why I read them when I know what is coming is beyond me.

Though it is still better than the .com forums...

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Good lord, your grammar and sentence structure are improving faster than I can refresh this page!!!

or is that your cut & paste getting a workout!!!

[Quickening]

A link to Medieval 2s' wikipedia page would have sufficed instead of copying and pasting the whole thing.
Anyway this is first and foremost a game. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of medieval Europe (like me) can point out a million things that are inaccurate. But if I want a game for die hard accuracy I'll play Europa Universalis and even that has to compromise somewhere.
This is a game not a historical simulation as has been said and when it is fixed up it will be a truly great game. Best strategy game easily in my book.

[Durallan]

hmm Topic Title : Designed to make people get angry and flame me, wheeeeee

Okay well yes, well thanks for your opinion, I'll cya later

[Matty]

Wow. If you hate it so much, then go away. Seriously. I think I've about had it with people whining about how bad the game is. You knew it would ship with bugs, as all new games do and CA has shown no reason to make you believe otherwise. So get over it. CA is working dilligently to fix the bugs, I have no doubt about that. Its fun as it stands now and can only get better when the patches and the incredible mods are released.

So why won't some of us just stop whining? Please. My brain aches from reading this exact same thread over and over again. 'Course, why I read them when I know what is coming is beyond me.

Though it is still better than the .com forums...

What he said. Please stop with this ceaseless and utterly pointless inanity.

[Darkgreen]

I’ve played the whole series and I’ve just started to play MTW2 the past couple weeks. Even though mistakes were made and the game is bug heavy at the moment I don’t think these things are nearly as unforgivable as some people make this out to be and I don’t think this is the end of the series. If the next title in the TW series has these or similar problems then that I think would be unforgivable.
I think the series is at an important crossroads. The game developers can either learn from their mistakes and the series will continue to flourish or they can continue to make mistakes and people will get fed up and not buy their product.
What I like to do when a new game (especially those in a series) comes out is not buy it right away. I wait a couple weeks or a month or two and I visit forums like this to see what game features and what problems the new game includes. Demos are great too. If there are too many things that I don’t like and if it is a series game that doesn’t rectify it’s past mistakes, then I don’t buy it.

[Gaius Terentius Varro]

I’ve been a fan of Creative Assembly since my first encounter with Shogun: Total War. That fantastically innovative game brought real-world units and tactics in a real-time strategy setting, complete with a deep and interesting turn-based grand strategy mode. Shogun was quickly followed by Medieval: Total War, and recently a new engine in Rome: Total War, which has thusly spawned one of the more recognizable and popular franchises in PC gaming.

Rome: Total War was not without its errors but due to the engine and improvements, we forgave much. Considering that Medieval improved significantly on Shogun in several areas, it was then not without cause that expectations for Medieval 2 were raised considerably. Yet, while Creative Assembly has addressed some issues, others continue to plague them. Worse, these problems have existed throughout the series and considering this is the fourth game in the franchise and the second with this engine, patience has worn thin to say the least.

If you gonna quote someone then use a link to give credit to author

http://www.firingsquad.com/games/med...al_war_review/

if you're stealing text expect to be caught

[][GERUDO][Mojoman]

i agreee on the fact that kingdoms is going to be the total suck. it looks exactly the same as MTW2, and if u look at the screenies of the english campaign map, ull see an english army with all the units cards - which are exactly the same units as the MTW2 english armies :( u mighta thought there could be some originality, like normans, some huscarls remnants...but no. Billmen, English knights. Same old....looking at the screenies, there are alot more of these recurring units...in BI, every single unit was changed, even the roman ones.

why the hell didnt CA make VI2TW??? that would have TOTALLY FRICKIN PWNED! GAH!

[edyzmedieval]

Please keep your personal frustration behind the monitor, and not in a public place.

Thank you for your understanding. We appreciate less useless posting.

[TB666]

, and if u look at the screenies of the english campaign map, ull see an english army with all the units cards - which are exactly the same units as the MTW2 english armies :( u mighta thought there could be some originality, like normans, some huscarls remnants...but no. Billmen, English knights. Same old....looking at the screenies, there are alot more of these recurring units...in BI, every single unit was changed, even the roman ones.

To be fair, you can't compare Kingdoms to BI.
BI was set during a different era then RTW was hence new looking units.
Kingdoms will be set during the same period as M2TW was however they are more focused campaigns covering more specific events then the grand campaign.
For example, the english campaign, it is set during the same period so of course the english faction will have the same units they had in the grand campaign.
It's the new factions that will get the new troops.

[Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)]

i agreee on the fact that kingdoms is going to be the total suck. it looks exactly the same as MTW2, and if u look at the screenies of the english campaign map, ull see an english army with all the units cards - which are exactly the same units as the MTW2 english armies :( u mighta thought there could be some originality, like normans, some huscarls remnants...but no. Billmen, English knights. Same old....looking at the screenies, there are alot more of these recurring units...in BI, every single unit was changed, even the roman ones.

why the hell didnt CA make VI2TW??? that would have TOTALLY FRICKIN PWNED! GAH!

They should find new ideas for the game maybe space battles, maybe monsters or just something because this idea of knights in shiny armor, princesses,kings is really really old.

[redriver]

Disagree.

There are some AI issues, I'll give you that. But I still predict Kingdoms will sell well, and that there will likely be another TW game in the future.

Kindoms is just an expansion pack.. what do ya think the next big TW title is gonna be? Napoeon TW, Neolithic TW, Space Monkeys TW?

they already ran outta new ideas and m2tw is proof of that. needless to say I didn't even buy it...

[Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)]

Historical inaccuracies

Medieval II is a game in a historical setting, not a historical simulation. In order to make a playable game, plenty of simplifications have been made. For instance, in medieval times there certainly wasn't a single currency of constant value in use from Russia to Portugal, from Denmark to Tunisia. However different currencies with non-constant value would complicate the game without making it more interesting. Likewise, when clicked on, a Danish general in the 12th century for instance does not greet the player in correct 12th century Danish but in modern English with a practiced Danish accent with Slavic influences. Succession law was a very complex issue in Medieval times and varied a lot from country to country. In the game, it is very simple.

There are also some dramatizations of historical reality. Historically, medieval sieges were characterized by low intensity warfare, attrition and constant negotiations. All-out assaults on the castle or all-out sallies from the castle were constantly present as a threat, but usually not realized. A typical solution was to agree that the castle would be given to the attackers and the garrison would be allowed to leave once a condition had been fulfilled -such as a breach in the walls or no relief of the siege within 40 days. Such sieges would make for pretty dull gaming, though, so the game concentrates on all-out assaults and all-out sallies. This perhaps is the biggest historical flaw of the game. As of present, the makers of the Total War series have not found a way to model that staple of medieval warfare, the cavalry raid or chevauchee.

Apart from simplifications and dramatizations, history must be somewhat modified to make for a more interesting and balanced game. For example, Constantinople in the game is a large city with only a few government built improvements. However if the game portrayed Constantinople as it was in 1080, there is a possibility that the city could become the powerhouse to what would be an "unstoppable" Byzantine Empire. Yet another example is that a princess certainly did not have to be personally present for a marriage alliance to be agreed upon. If this was allowed in the game, however, a princess would just be an inferior diplomat.

Such simplifications, dramatizations and "game-ifications" are necessary and expected. However, there also seem to be some genuine misrepresentations of history in the game:

* While the game is free form and allows for deviations from history, at the start of the campaign (which takes place in the year 1080), some of the featured cities and factions are incorrectly portrayed. For example, the city of Budapest was three separate cities (Buda, Óbuda and Pest) until they were amalgamated in 1873. Stockholm is on the map although it was founded in the 13th century; so is Helsinki, which was founded in 1550. In addition, Caernarfon Castle in Wales was not built until 1283, Edinburgh only became Scotland's capital in the 1400s and Oslo did not become Norway's capital and most important city until the 1300s. Århus was never the Danish capital; in the medieval period the Danish Thing was situated in Viborg. The capital of Bulgaria during the period was Veliko Tarnovo, not Sofia, which until 1376 was known as Sretets. Bucharest was not even referred to until the 1400s. The borders of Poland looked different than it is shown in the game as well. The capital of Poland was Gniezno, not Krakow. The city of Antioch, in Rebel hands in the campaign was in Byzantine hands until 1084, whilst Nicaea, which was in Seljuk Turk control by 1078, is still in Byzantine control in the game at the start at 1080.

* Some of the factions are inaccurately portrayed. For example, it was only in 1143, via the Treaty of Zamora, that Portugal became formally independent from León; likewise, Aragon (which was a faction in Medieval: Total War) is a minor rebel faction, despite playing a major role in the history of the period. Another example is that historically, Milan was part of the Holy Roman Empire until attaining semi-independence in the 12th century, while in the game it is a separate faction ruling Genoa. Venice owns Crete when it did not acquire it until after the Fourth Crusade. Portugal owns the Algarve (which was in Moorish hands at the time) and Pamplona, which was part of Navarre. Some of the rebel cities are mislabeled (the Bretons are referred to as "French rebels," and the inhabitants of the Scottish Highlands as "English rebels." In the game, the Bucharest and Iasi regions are portrayed as having a majority of Catholics, presumably to allow easy access to a Hungarian player, although historically the populations were Orthodox. At the beginning of the game (1080) the campaign map shows Sicily under the control of the Normans and the establishment of the cites of Palermo and Naples into one kingdom. But the Norman conquest of Sicily against its Islamic rulers and subsequent joint kingdom did not occur until 1091. The game also shows the Byzantine Empire in control of the city of Nicaea at the start of the game. In fact the Byzantines had lost Nicaea to the Seljuk Turks after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 and the Byzantines did not regain control of the city until 1097. However, it is reasonable to assume that many of these differences between factions in history and the game is due to a wish to make the game interesting by creating playable factions of roughly equal strength rather than a genuine misunderstanding of history.

* Some character details are inaccurate as well. El Cid, who has the sobriquet "the Chivalrous" instead of "El Campeador", is the rebel ruler of Valencia at the game's beginning, although he did not install himself as its ruler until 1094. Alexius I Comnenus is the Byzantine Emperor at the campaign's start, yet he did not ascend to the throne until 1081; likewise, Spanish princess Teresa was born in 1080, but appears as a young woman at the campaign's start. Some of the marriages are also incorrect at the beginning of the game. For instance, Philip I of France is shown married to Bertrade de Montfort, which did not occur until 1092.The Danish King Knud II (The Holy)'s successor to the crown, is not the so called Prince Charles, but Prince Oluf, who reigned from 1086 to 1095.

At the beginning of the game, Gregory VII is pope, but subsequently elected Popes don't choose actual papal names. It would seem that the game-makers were willing to cheat a bit with the exact chronology in order to be able to include some famous historical characters from around 1080. In addition, certain historic titles do not fit within the game's character engine; "the Chivalrous," in terms of El Cid, is the most appropriate title for the character due to his notably chivalrous nature since the title of "El Campeador" is not included in the game (most likely due to how the title is so specifically applied).

* There are some geographic inaccuracies as well, such as the placement of the city of Naples south of Vesuvius and the Bay of Naples rather than to the north of the volcano. The map also depicts the location of the Aztec Empire inaccurately, placing it south of the Yucatán Peninsula. In fact, the entire continents the Americas is much farther to the north than it should be, with the Florida peninsula and the Caribbean lying parallel to Ireland and Great Britain (However, these are likely another simplification, as the map would be oddly shaped and needlessly enlarged if the geography of the New World were made to be accurate). Also the Netherlands are shown incorrectly, the western part of the Netherlands was shaped using the windmill around 1634, while you get a message ingame (early in the game) that the windmill is discovered. It is noted in the message, however, that the windmills produced are what can be considered early prototypes, which may explain the odd showing of the Netherlands.

* There are inaccuracies with the weapons and armor used in the game as well, most specifically the arquebuses and muskets. During battles the musketeers and arquebusiers are portrayed with their weapon, ammunition, and traditional Renaissance era clothing. However, during this time period muskets and arquebuses were extraordinarily heavy (the barrel alone was approximately 10-12 pounds) and in order to have a somewhat accurate shot the musketeer would have to use a pole to place the gun on. Also, muskets and arquebuses are portrayed as having longer range than the other hand-held long range weapons (bows, longbows, Mongol horse archer composite bows, etc.). In reality a musket or arquebus marksmen could only achieve a somewhat accurate range of 75 yards while a Mongolian composite bow could reach an effective range of 350 yards. This was due to the barrels of arquebuses and muskets lacking any rifling, found in modern day rifles, that make the weapon more accurate. Another weapon inaccuracy is the fact that troops transported on a fleet do not take part in the battle if their fleet engages another fleet. In the real Middle Ages sea warfare was very much characterised by boarding and fighting on the decks. Most of the European generals are portrayed wearing full plate armor even at the start of the game, though armor of that type did not reappear in Europe until the 14th century. Eastern Orthodox generals from Russia and the Byzantine Empire are also depicted with the same armour as western generals even though splint mail was the common armour for generals from Orthodox nations.

* In the game it is only discovered in the 15th century that the Earth is round and it is claimed that various people have been burnt at the stake for expressing this view before. This is a fairly common misunderstanding of history flat earth. It was actually widely known among educated people throughout the Middle Ages that the Earth is round and thus no one was ever burnt at the stake because of this, but more likely for expressing a belief in the antipodes.

* As in Rome: Total War, several Latin and other words are incorrectly used. For example, the singular of Preferati, the highest-ranking cardinals, is also given as Preferati, instead of the correct Preferatus. Also, the German word von ("of," "from") is used in the names of Holy Roman Empire characters (corresponding the French de and the Dutch van), while the following place names are given in English. For example, instead of Maximillian von Sachsen (proper German) or Maximillian of Saxony (proper English), the game would name the character Maximillian von Saxony.

* At least one quote shown during loading sequences is mis-sourced. The game attributes the quote "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse" to Charles V of France; the quote is actually attribted to Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor.

* A few linguistic mistakes. For example, the Flemish rebels speak with a French accent, which is incorrect, as the Flemish were and still are Dutch-speaking.

[hellenes]

Historical inaccuracies

Medieval II is a game in a historical setting, not a historical simulation. In order to make a playable game, plenty of simplifications have been made. For instance, in medieval times there certainly wasn't a single currency of constant value in use from Russia to Portugal, from Denmark to Tunisia. However different currencies with non-constant value would complicate the game without making it more interesting. Likewise, when clicked on, a Danish general in the 12th century for instance does not greet the player in correct 12th century Danish but in modern English with a practiced Danish accent with Slavic influences. Succession law was a very complex issue in Medieval times and varied a lot from country to country. In the game, it is very simple.

There are also some dramatizations of historical reality. Historically, medieval sieges were characterized by low intensity warfare, attrition and constant negotiations. All-out assaults on the castle or all-out sallies from the castle were constantly present as a threat, but usually not realized. A typical solution was to agree that the castle would be given to the attackers and the garrison would be allowed to leave once a condition had been fulfilled -such as a breach in the walls or no relief of the siege within 40 days. Such sieges would make for pretty dull gaming, though, so the game concentrates on all-out assaults and all-out sallies. This perhaps is the biggest historical flaw of the game. As of present, the makers of the Total War series have not found a way to model that staple of medieval warfare, the cavalry raid or chevauchee.

Apart from simplifications and dramatizations, history must be somewhat modified to make for a more interesting and balanced game. For example, Constantinople in the game is a large city with only a few government built improvements. However if the game portrayed Constantinople as it was in 1080, there is a possibility that the city could become the powerhouse to what would be an "unstoppable" Byzantine Empire. Yet another example is that a princess certainly did not have to be personally present for a marriage alliance to be agreed upon. If this was allowed in the game, however, a princess would just be an inferior diplomat.

Such simplifications, dramatizations and "game-ifications" are necessary and expected. However, there also seem to be some genuine misrepresentations of history in the game:

* While the game is free form and allows for deviations from history, at the start of the campaign (which takes place in the year 1080), some of the featured cities and factions are incorrectly portrayed. For example, the city of Budapest was three separate cities (Buda, Óbuda and Pest) until they were amalgamated in 1873. Stockholm is on the map although it was founded in the 13th century; so is Helsinki, which was founded in 1550. In addition, Caernarfon Castle in Wales was not built until 1283, Edinburgh only became Scotland's capital in the 1400s and Oslo did not become Norway's capital and most important city until the 1300s. Århus was never the Danish capital; in the medieval period the Danish Thing was situated in Viborg. The capital of Bulgaria during the period was Veliko Tarnovo, not Sofia, which until 1376 was known as Sretets. Bucharest was not even referred to until the 1400s. The borders of Poland looked different than it is shown in the game as well. The capital of Poland was Gniezno, not Krakow. The city of Antioch, in Rebel hands in the campaign was in Byzantine hands until 1084, whilst Nicaea, which was in Seljuk Turk control by 1078, is still in Byzantine control in the game at the start at 1080.

* Some of the factions are inaccurately portrayed. For example, it was only in 1143, via the Treaty of Zamora, that Portugal became formally independent from León; likewise, Aragon (which was a faction in Medieval: Total War) is a minor rebel faction, despite playing a major role in the history of the period. Another example is that historically, Milan was part of the Holy Roman Empire until attaining semi-independence in the 12th century, while in the game it is a separate faction ruling Genoa. Venice owns Crete when it did not acquire it until after the Fourth Crusade. Portugal owns the Algarve (which was in Moorish hands at the time) and Pamplona, which was part of Navarre. Some of the rebel cities are mislabeled (the Bretons are referred to as "French rebels," and the inhabitants of the Scottish Highlands as "English rebels." In the game, the Bucharest and Iasi regions are portrayed as having a majority of Catholics, presumably to allow easy access to a Hungarian player, although historically the populations were Orthodox. At the beginning of the game (1080) the campaign map shows Sicily under the control of the Normans and the establishment of the cites of Palermo and Naples into one kingdom. But the Norman conquest of Sicily against its Islamic rulers and subsequent joint kingdom did not occur until 1091. The game also shows the Byzantine Empire in control of the city of Nicaea at the start of the game. In fact the Byzantines had lost Nicaea to the Seljuk Turks after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 and the Byzantines did not regain control of the city until 1097. However, it is reasonable to assume that many of these differences between factions in history and the game is due to a wish to make the game interesting by creating playable factions of roughly equal strength rather than a genuine misunderstanding of history.

* Some character details are inaccurate as well. El Cid, who has the sobriquet "the Chivalrous" instead of "El Campeador", is the rebel ruler of Valencia at the game's beginning, although he did not install himself as its ruler until 1094. Alexius I Comnenus is the Byzantine Emperor at the campaign's start, yet he did not ascend to the throne until 1081; likewise, Spanish princess Teresa was born in 1080, but appears as a young woman at the campaign's start. Some of the marriages are also incorrect at the beginning of the game. For instance, Philip I of France is shown married to Bertrade de Montfort, which did not occur until 1092.The Danish King Knud II (The Holy)'s successor to the crown, is not the so called Prince Charles, but Prince Oluf, who reigned from 1086 to 1095.

At the beginning of the game, Gregory VII is pope, but subsequently elected Popes don't choose actual papal names. It would seem that the game-makers were willing to cheat a bit with the exact chronology in order to be able to include some famous historical characters from around 1080. In addition, certain historic titles do not fit within the game's character engine; "the Chivalrous," in terms of El Cid, is the most appropriate title for the character due to his notably chivalrous nature since the title of "El Campeador" is not included in the game (most likely due to how the title is so specifically applied).

* There are some geographic inaccuracies as well, such as the placement of the city of Naples south of Vesuvius and the Bay of Naples rather than to the north of the volcano. The map also depicts the location of the Aztec Empire inaccurately, placing it south of the Yucatán Peninsula. In fact, the entire continents the Americas is much farther to the north than it should be, with the Florida peninsula and the Caribbean lying parallel to Ireland and Great Britain (However, these are likely another simplification, as the map would be oddly shaped and needlessly enlarged if the geography of the New World were made to be accurate). Also the Netherlands are shown incorrectly, the western part of the Netherlands was shaped using the windmill around 1634, while you get a message ingame (early in the game) that the windmill is discovered. It is noted in the message, however, that the windmills produced are what can be considered early prototypes, which may explain the odd showing of the Netherlands.

* There are inaccuracies with the weapons and armor used in the game as well, most specifically the arquebuses and muskets. During battles the musketeers and arquebusiers are portrayed with their weapon, ammunition, and traditional Renaissance era clothing. However, during this time period muskets and arquebuses were extraordinarily heavy (the barrel alone was approximately 10-12 pounds) and in order to have a somewhat accurate shot the musketeer would have to use a pole to place the gun on. Also, muskets and arquebuses are portrayed as having longer range than the other hand-held long range weapons (bows, longbows, Mongol horse archer composite bows, etc.). In reality a musket or arquebus marksmen could only achieve a somewhat accurate range of 75 yards while a Mongolian composite bow could reach an effective range of 350 yards. This was due to the barrels of arquebuses and muskets lacking any rifling, found in modern day rifles, that make the weapon more accurate. Another weapon inaccuracy is the fact that troops transported on a fleet do not take part in the battle if their fleet engages another fleet. In the real Middle Ages sea warfare was very much characterised by boarding and fighting on the decks. Most of the European generals are portrayed wearing full plate armor even at the start of the game, though armor of that type did not reappear in Europe until the 14th century. Eastern Orthodox generals from Russia and the Byzantine Empire are also depicted with the same armour as western generals even though splint mail was the common armour for generals from Orthodox nations.

* In the game it is only discovered in the 15th century that the Earth is round and it is claimed that various people have been burnt at the stake for expressing this view before. This is a fairly common misunderstanding of history flat earth. It was actually widely known among educated people throughout the Middle Ages that the Earth is round and thus no one was ever burnt at the stake because of this, but more likely for expressing a belief in the antipodes.

* As in Rome: Total War, several Latin and other words are incorrectly used. For example, the singular of Preferati, the highest-ranking cardinals, is also given as Preferati, instead of the correct Preferatus. Also, the German word von ("of," "from") is used in the names of Holy Roman Empire characters (corresponding the French de and the Dutch van), while the following place names are given in English. For example, instead of Maximillian von Sachsen (proper German) or Maximillian of Saxony (proper English), the game would name the character Maximillian von Saxony.

* At least one quote shown during loading sequences is mis-sourced. The game attributes the quote "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse" to Charles V of France; the quote is actually attribted to Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor.

* A few linguistic mistakes. For example, the Flemish rebels speak with a French accent, which is incorrect, as the Flemish were and still are Dutch-speaking.

Nice Wikipedia copy paste...

[Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)]

Nice Wikipedia copy paste...

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PseRamesses]

Dracula, if u don´t like the game don´t play it. Or even better start your own mod and improve it yourself. I only play the vanilla until the first decent mod comes around then I NEVER play the original game again. I´ve done this with M1, RTW and now M2. Shogun was different, perfect in all its simplicity.

If you´re interested in a accurate historical simulation may I recommend you to try EUII or III. No battlefields there though. The TW series strenght is the ability to handle armies and troops on a battlefield and no other games comes close - period! We don´t play TW for accuracy or to get a history lesson we love battles the rest of the game is just cosmetics.

[Martok]

Let's see. We've got a thread flogging dead horses with posts bordering on flaming.

Keep the criticism and discussion civil & constructive, folks. I won't say it again.