The good, the bad and the ugly about MTW

Well after around two weeks of 'getting medieval' on my friends and neighbors I think I'm ready to give my two cents on MTW.

Well first off, its nice familiar territory, particularly if you've played STW or WE/MI with the board game style interface and the usual cast of emissaries, assassins and spies. The kings and princes depicted in the game seem to be accurate to the various periods represented and on the surface its as good a game as STW was, perhaps better. The battles, while I do feel they do tend to be difficult with all the rolling terrain and the difficulty of controlling the 'helicopter cam' view and, personally, well at least me and my brother noticed that the graphics don't seem to be as good as STW, the battle engine itself is one excellent, perhaps one of the most seemingly realistic simulations of a medieval battle available. The old STW features of morale and gaining rank/experience, the sheer diversity of the available units, the ability to stage ambushes and the need to use terrain all make for an engaging, realistic experience. Then, when one side breaks and runs, the prisoner taking begins. I especially liked this part and the option to execute captured prisoners ala Henry V at Agincourt or ransom them w/c played a major part in medieval warfare and politics - capturing and ransoming. I'm glad they got those things down. The mere use of morale is an extremely welcome change from the stand until you die type of battles that we're used to in games like Stronghold (wish they had given units a morale bar or something that would wax and wane depending on their proximity to violent action).

That being said, there are still, I feel, many things that could have been done to make the game at the very least, truer to the history. Unfortunately, the designers apparently did little more that stick the exact same game system of STW with a few allowances for "flavor" on the medieval period without really considering seriously many factors that made medieval europe different from medieval japan or even europe different from lets say the muslim cultures depicted in the game.

At the start (early period) the great kingdoms of Europe were just beginning to emerge. However, the power of the nobility was incredibly immense. If simulated in this game (and at this scale), players would have to face rebellions every two or three turns or so. While taxation and such did have much to do with contentment, there were also feudal prerogatives and rights of the nobility, the supply of men and money for foreign wars, the political maneuverings and machinations for lands, titles and offices and the common insult that made men of stature rise in arms. Perhaps for gameplay's sake this is hardly depicted. For the most part, kingdoms are incredibly stable, except perhaps if you start losing!

This was a time when law, government and even the concept of the nation state were still being formed and developed. Often nobles and princes were laws unto themselves defying their kings which were often little more than first among equals. However, perhaps for simplicity's sake, law, government, etc are abstracted into structures like the Chancellory, the Constableship, the Admiralty and such. There is no chance to 'do a prince John' - in fact when I play England, high period, the evil famed John is often the BEST king I ever get ending up a magnificent builder and a mighty warrior in spite of my oppressive taxation system (which, weirdly enough, doesn't seem to bother my subjects in the slightest - well, so much for the sherriff of Nottingham!) - or grant my nobles 'primae noctae' or something like that. Law and government and their codification and centralization were the tools that eventually strengthened the power of the king as absolute ruler in the land, weakened the power of the nobility and defined the concept of the nation state. As it stands, you start out with factions that are not factions so much as they are NATIONS, one and indivisible - o sure they have civil wars when things are going bad but there are no internal squabbles of the type that sadly occurred all too often in Medieval Europe. So... recommendation number 1 - raise the chance of rebellion by a LOT!

While the scale of the campaign and the game engine was just perfect for recreating conditions in Medieval Japan it is hopelessly off for depicting medieval Europe. In STW you were dealing with what were essentially countyships and regions. In MTW your game board is on a national scale. I'm sorry it just doesn't feel right to fight a single battle and then the entire province falls into your hands. Government had progressed very little beyond the concept of city state in most areas of western Europe (the city being replaced by the feudal fief) and what happened to, lets say Rouen wouldn't matter a bit to the citizens of Bayeux or something like that. Even 'more organized' empires like the HRE were still a collection of dukedoms and principalities that were for better or worse self-contained. Also this affects production and conquest area. For any country to 'survive' it has to conquer a darn sizable chunk of Europe that historically only the Turkish empire and the Golden Horde were able to acheive and not until later. If I'm to 'survive' as England I will need to 'wipe out' France - something that was NEVER acheived by the greatest of warrior kings in history but is only TOO easy to do here due to the simplified regional scale of the game. There is another side to this too - the virtual non-presence of the nobility in this game. The great noble houses that made their mark on the history of the times - the Valois dukes of Burgundy, the king of the two Sicilies who was also Comte de Anjou, the counts and dukes of Brittany, the Dampierre family who were counts of Flanders, the earls and Dukes of Norfolk or Surrey and Arundel, none of these are represented and yet if you read history books they made often nation shaking contributions to history. Instead you get the STW system of 'generals' - these being the ONLY people who could be given titles and offices (when many of the titles and offices I saw in game were available also to heirs and princes - remember, this was a time when the royal house was only the first among equals and they had to squabble for land and title just like anyone else) and these not even hereditary lords but random names picked out of a box - and many times not even accurate either. Most of the English names were taken from either the Saxon period (before the start of the Early period of the game) or the War of the Roses period (after the end of the Late period) and they mix and match so you get Norman knights commanded by the norman lord Aelfgar Fitzalan or worse Tostig Wulfstan. At the time there weren't even such things as forenames and surnames - you got your name from your locale like William of Worcester and Roger di Montgomerie (Montgomerie being his home castle in France) or from your parentage like FitzOsbourne (son of Osbourne). These eventually became the family names we know today. However, these names were more than names or random mix and matches that were fine for STW but fail horribly here - they represented a family, a noble house, sometimes even a name was passed down from father to son as a hereditary right. Names like Lochiel of the Clan Cameron (hereditary name of the Chief), Guy de Dampierre, Guy de Lusignan, Humphrey de Bohun, Hugh le Despencer or Simon de Montfort were often passed down through the ages as a symbol of power and of hereditary right (by the way, none of the above named nobles which were immense political figures during the time period simulated by the game are even in the name pool - except perhaps for Hugh Despencer and Simon de Montfort). It is my personal feeling that nobles should have been handled the same way as kings, perhaps with not as much detail but they should have been there, perhaps keeping track of at least the first three or four heirs. The nobles should have been in a separate class from kings and generals (generals WERE available in the form of knights bannerets and leading aldermen - men like Sir John Chandos, Sir William Marshal and Jean de Grailly, Captal de Buch and should be available for promotion to nobility if ever but this only lasting as long as they live). Nobles should have the same persuations, vices and virtues as kings and should keep track of their lifespan as well (I really don't like this 'immortal' general thing - like every one of your commanders is a Duncan Macleod). Nobles should be present with their personal retinues, available for command and impossible to 'disband' except by execution or attainder for treason or something like that and after that the son, if any, would have the right to claim his father's lands. Likewise they should be made separate and undisbandable since, the medieval practice was to raise 'levees' of horse, foot and archer for very short periods of time and then send them home. As it is, you can raise and maintain huge standing armies that historically would never have lasted one or two years. After a campaign these levees should be automatically disbanded while their lords would remain with their personal escort of knights.

Also, borders were not as strictly defined or patrolled as they are in the game. Yet another instance of history surrendering to gameplay. Like before this is related to the convoluted noblity/fief system of Western Europe. A knight might hold lands in France for the French king but also rule an earldom for the English king. The king of Sicily was also the Count of Anjou and the Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine was also King of England. It SHOULD be possible for 'characters' like Kings, Princes and 'Lords' to cross national bounderies like the emissaries, priests and princesses but maintaining only their personal escort of 'Royal Knights'. (NO other units with them) - that really shouldn't bother the rulers of the land. As it is, if you have, for instance in the High Period game, playing as England, Brittany and Aquitaine and for instance Flanders - you can't get from Brittany to Flanders without declaring war on France, which holds Normandy, unless you take a ship.

Another thing not covered in this usually comprehensive list of virtues and vices are mistresses and favorites. While it gets refered to abstractly with adultery, incest and secret perversion, these were sometimes non-sexual (like Richard II and Sir Simon Burley, his mentor and father figure to whom he gave preferential treatment to the detriment of his reign) and often of national consequence (like Edward II's Piers Gaveston who so angered the nobility that they rose in rebellion against him). Likewise there is no possibility for Bastard sons to claim the throne or at least be recognized. The medieval world in all its normalcy is way beyond the scope of this game.

Another thing is why only generals? The strict division of labor in Shogun with its caste type society doesn't strictly apply here, at least in regard to the church. Churchmen were administrators - there's no going around that historical fact. The church was, in fact, one of the most powerful principalities in the medieval world. Churchmen (Cardinals and Bishops) didn't just 'raise the piousness' of a region, they often served as governors and sometimes even Generals (an example is the fighting Prince Bishop of Durham who often had to defend the northern counties of England from rampaging Scots). But in this game the 'priests' are pretty limited with no chance to gain office or advancement.

Also, I think that these characters, whether they be priests, generals or princesses, should have more of a free will. At least one in ten should be a 'wildcard' - like there are no princesses around (all are sweet, submissive and surrendered to their fate) like Isabelle of France (the French princess of Braveheart) who started an affair with the powerful Marcher lord Roger Mortimer (NOT William Wallace!!) and deposed her husband while she and Roger were the power behind the throne (at least until her son, later Edward III of Crecy fame, led a coup de etat and executed Roger), or Katherine de Valois, Henry V's neglected French wife who had an affair with a Welsh gentleman in her service that led to the Tudor line of Kings. Or how about if one of the princely heirs decides his kid sister is hot, hot, hot and has an incestuous affair with her. I mean, no one playing this game straight would willingly 'waste a princess' by dropping her on her brother except perhaps (as I did) for the sake of curiosity. The whole role of women is, like those of priests, incredibly limited in this game - while it is true most medieval women were little more than pawns, there were rare but definite occasions when a medieval woman was a national force. Many queens were dictators of state policy or even powers behind the throne. Some like Margaret d'Anjou were warriors, many wives defended their husband's castles with as much valor and viciousness as men. And then there was of course the most famous woman of the middle ages, Joan of Arc. But how does MTW treat women? After they're married off they're gone, to some fairy tale castle making babies and thats the end of it.

When your king dies he goes whoof and like that he's gone and forgotten. There should at least be a summary of the achievements of his reign or something. Perhaps thats when you should get your scorecard tallied.

The battle should keep track and say WHICH general is in command of which unit. While it may not have been a matter of consequence who was commanding what in the Japan of STW, these issues were matters of great consequence in a medieval european army. Right of command, who would get command of this or that division, who would lead the cavalry, were all convoluted affairs that had to be sorted out by the man who would 'marshal the army' or simply the marshal.

And then there are the little innaccuracies and compromises made in the spirit of 'gameplay balance' - the Almohads are just way too strong, their lands being way too rich (most of it was desert and most of them were squabbling tribes for petes sake!) while the Spanish, who must fight against both them and the Aragonese and Portuguese are just way too weak. The lands of Western Europe are just not as rich as they historically were and in any case they're too few of them to squabble over w/c means that everyone gets a chance at conquering Europe (something NO ONE EVER acheived before Napoleon and Hitler). Thats why wars were fought where they were fought and between the factions that fought them because of the sheer distances involved and the size of Europe. The only transnational battle groups that ever operated were the crusades (which I felt were excellently handled by the game!!) and most other wars were really little more than enlarged border raids whose sheer cost were often beyond the resources of the most powerful kingdoms. Thus we had the Hundred Years War between France and England with small excusions for very limited periods into Spain. We had the war of the Teutonic Knights in the east against the Polish, Lithuanians and Novgorodians. We had the Scottish wars (concluded all too quickly in this game) which dragged on endlessly ruining the northern border counties (the Scots are way too docile and passive even here and even at EXPERT difficulty). And we had the unending wars in Italy and the Balkans. All told, these wars RARELY if ever crossed the regional bounderies that we can cross in MTW. Truly the only ones with a sense of conquest and empire were the Muslims (evanglization at swordpoint) and the Golden Horde. Everyone else was caught up in their own 'little wars'.

Finally, there should be a definite division between Western European, Eastern European and Russian and Muslim gameplay styles and options. The lack of princesses of the Muslims is a start but there should be so much more. I'm thinking that the Italian city states and the Muslim nations can stick with the current game play style of generals etc but it just doesnt work for the Western European nations.

To sum up, more consideration should have been given by the producers/programmers/researchers to these little things that while seemingly inconsequential are what separates the mere 'games' from the 'experience'. I loved STW because it was an 'experience' - the graphics, the throne room, the FMVs, the gameplay, the game SCALE, were all just right to give me the feel of being a Hidetora or a Takeda. Unfortunately what's true for Peter may not be true for Paul and here, at least with the Western European nations. This is NOT a simulation of the medieval climate or of medieval politics but a game which happens to be set in the middle ages. The use of 'national' sized factions (while perhaps necessary for gameplay) seriously detracts from the atmosphere of a world before the concept of the nation state was fully realized while the regional scale of gameplay ensures that anybody can conquer Europe. While there is a lot I liked about it, it just doesn't give me the same tingly feeling I got playing STW. I don't have any problem remembering that its just a game.

Reply

You know, I think you may have something here. One of my first impressions was that they sort of Shogunized Europe.

Whereas Japan being much much smaller than the continent of Europe. The conquest of Japan and the pursuit of the Shogunate, in essence, was simply efforts upon "Nation Buidling". Japan being a nation consisting of individually governed provinces and regions needing to be united to become a nation.

You are correct in assessing that the "Shogunate" concept has been borrowed and wholesaled upon Europe. Which is not only historically incorrect, but may not have been necessary for gameplay (though obviously cheaper to do).

What could have been developed was the concept of "Nation Building" which could have been applied to the City-States and Regions of post-Roman Europe. This would have been more historically accurate; and has much gameplay appeal.

For instance, within the broad context of the existing game, upon picking a faction say England and a time period, say several "turns" prior to the Norman Conquest. In such a case, the player would then placed in the role of the Duke or Normandy; and then would have to deal the circumstances of those times and situations. Namely, dealing with the King of France, preparing for and invading England, as well as guarding against his cousins the Norsemen, etc.

Choosing France as a faction would entail a different set of circumstances to manage. Of course, the French King would have to attempt to manage the Duke of Normandy and the other Vikings he allowed to settle in France; containing Norsemen invaisions, his Nobility and relations, etc.

The basic game concept would be that of "Nation Building" rather than a Shogunate conquest of Europe.

Winning might consist of being the first "faction" to achieve Nationhood with a King firmly in "absolute" control. The scope of this game would probably cover, the "Fall of Rome", the "Dark Ages", and the "Medival" period leading into true Nationhood.

The Add-On to such a game would cover the "Age of Exploration", "Trade Empires", and Early Colonialism with Economics being a equal or greater weight to military conquest in winning the game.

Many present TW gamers would like such a game, but its a good outline for Creative Assembly to begin a new game franchise. One with more emphasis upon nation building and ecomomics.

I'm sure there's a great deal of thought at CA regarding what's next beyond the TW franchise. Hope they stick to what they know and do well, rather turn to something like role-playing. Such a 180 degree turn has been the death of many a game company.

Reply