Originally posted by Cambyses II
The problem with the battle engine is that CA's entire focus was on 3D unit models, and nothing else. In a strategy game where if you're actually zoomed in close enough to appreciate it all, then you cannot really oversee the battle effectively. The physics of this are quite simply appalling. Men shooting through the air in all directions, flying horses, slow and unrealistic lunges and swipes. The physics seemed to have taken second place to the appearance.
Now connect this with the fact that the long distance sprites were, and are to this day simply awful. This one was very important to whoever was playing the game for tactics and not zoomed in half of the time; even if you look at battles from miles away with IAN mode at the older engine the sprites and their actions, and even the arrows mid air, are reckognisable. In RTW everything turns blurred, past step 3 or 4 in the camera that allows for effective battlfield surveyllance.

Originally posted by Cambyses II
They are 3D visually only. They still work on the principles and same attack round system of SWT/MTW, as far as I can tell.
This might or might not be the case for M2. The combat results and apparently cycles are strongly connected to the animations and thus the 3-D
men may have substance there. I haven't played the game long enough (for 2weeks upon release) to really observe this; my comment is based in reading the forums and intuition. In RTW i agree that the system seems to be fairly similar to that of the old engine - if not identical.

Many Thanks

Noir