Verdicts on Medieval II

[Jason X]

not aimed at americans in particular, i just like the quote!

[Askthepizzaguy]

not aimed at americans in particular, i just like the quote!

Although it's tempting to compare the flag-waving in the USA to the uber-nationalist pawns in China, (a true bastion of freedom... see what ultra-partisanship gets you?) I won't because it's off-topic.



And Medieval II rules! I believe I made a fine argument for that viewpoint a couple posts ago.

[Quickening]

And Medieval II rules! I believe I made a fine argument for that viewpoint a couple posts ago.

Im actually surprised by how positive the verdicts have been so far. I asked the exact same thing many months ago and there were maybe a couple of people who had good things to say. I was just curious to know how opinions had changed after the game has been in its final state for a few months.
Then of course there is always the point to be made that most of the people who love the game are too busy playing it to voice their opinions

Im surprised by how much you damn Rome: Total War. It's true the cavalry were overpowered (rather oddly given the time period) but I still managed to have lots of fun with the game. That could be because it was my first Total War so when I read the "old skool" fans talking about how the battles were too fast etc, it didn't really matter to me.
Having since bought the original Medieval, I see what they mean. But I still love Rome.

Now that Ive got Kingdoms Im making an effort to stay away from any Kingdoms buglists because if I don't, it might taint my enjoyment I'll wait for the update and read all the things it fixed and then go, "ah so that wasn't working properly eh?"
Because again, if I hadn't come to this forum, then I would never have noticed the vast majority of bugs in M2TW.


As for patriotism, that is a great quote. I like the old Oscar Wilde quote, "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious".

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Im actually surprised by how positive the verdicts have been so far. I asked the exact same thing many months ago and there were maybe a couple of people who had good things to say. I was just curious to know how opinions had changed after the game has been in its final state for a few months.
Then of course there is always the point to be made that most of the people who love the game are too busy playing it to voice their opinions

Im surprised by how much you damn Rome: Total War. It's true the cavalry were overpowered (rather oddly given the time period) but I still managed to have lots of fun with the game. That could be because it was my first Total War so when I read the "old skool" fans talking about how the battles were too fast etc, it didn't really matter to me.
Having since bought the original Medieval, I see what they mean. But I still love Rome.

Now that Ive got Kingdoms Im making an effort to stay away from any Kingdoms buglists because if I don't, it might taint my enjoyment I'll wait for the update and read all the things it fixed and then go, "ah so that wasn't working properly eh?"
Because again, if I hadn't come to this forum, then I would never have noticed the vast majority of bugs in M2TW.


As for patriotism, that is a great quote. I like the old Oscar Wilde quote, "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious".

I only damn vanilla Rome Total War by comparison to Medieval 2. And only vanilla. Rome Total Realism was a fine, fine, fine mod. Added MUCH to the game. Much more than RTR: Barbarian invasion did.

I really enjoyed Rome, but since Medieval 2 came out... I could only play Rome if they came out with Rome 2: Total war and made it better than Kingdoms, Lands to Conquer.

I prefer the medieval period anyway. Larger empires in ancient times are unrealistic and doomed to failure anyway due to corruption and distance penalties, which are realistic.

I can't imagine a Gaulish empire controlling Brittania all the way to India and somehow managing to prevent massive revolts and millions of florins/denarii/gold lost to corruption and waste. Even Rome could barely hold her outer provinces and collapsed under the pressure. In medieval times it was actually possible to be a proper administrator of a super-massive empire due to the Feudal system. The Republic was far too bloated and corrupt for that. The feudal system is a very rigid, heirarchical, lean system which concentrates power exactly where it is needed. Superior in medieval times, though I prefer enlightened dictatorship which guarantees civil rights and liberties to rule by the masses or by a malign despot.

Democracy is for the well-read. This does not apply to certain current reigning superpowers who will not be mentioned by name.

[Quickening]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I only damn vanilla Rome Total War by comparison to Medieval 2. And only vanilla. Rome Total Realism was a fine, fine, fine mod. Added MUCH to the game. Much more than RTR: Barbarian invasion did.

I really enjoyed Rome, but since Medieval 2 came out... I could only play Rome if they came out with Rome 2: Total war and made it better than Kingdoms, Lands to Conquer.

I prefer the medieval period anyway. Larger empires in ancient times are unrealistic and doomed to failure anyway due to corruption and distance penalties, which are realistic.

I can't imagine a Gaulish empire controlling Brittania all the way to India and somehow managing to prevent massive revolts and millions of florins/denarii/gold lost to corruption and waste. Even Rome could barely hold her outer provinces and collapsed under the pressure. In medieval times it was actually possible to be a proper administrator of a super-massive empire due to the Feudal system. The Republic was far too bloated and corrupt for that. The feudal system is a very rigid, heirarchical, lean system which concentrates power exactly where it is needed. Superior in medieval times, though I prefer enlightened dictatorship which guarantees civil rights and liberties to rule by the masses or by a malign despot.

Democracy is for the well-read. This does not apply to certain current reigning superpowers who will not be mentioned by name.

I do find it really difficult to go back to Rome now that Ive played M2TW and Kingdoms. Im not one for mods so I can't really comment on any of them.

One of my problems with Medieval, Rome and Medieval 2 is that it feels a bit silly playing as say, Scotland and then expanding to Egypt or something. I know it's a game but that is one of the reasons Im loving this Kingdoms expansion so much. It feels much more focussed and every battle and decision has far greater importance because the consequences are far more immediate. Not only that, but CA have made each campaign so distinct because of their unique rules and occurences. Really having so much fun. It has an incredible amount of playability for an expansion pack.
Ive fallen in love with the Teutonic Order. I thought pagan Lithuania would be my nation of choice for that campaign but damn I love the Teutonic Order

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I do find it really difficult to go back to Rome now that Ive played M2TW and Kingdoms. Im not one for mods so I can't really comment on any of them.

One of my problems with Medieval, Rome and Medieval 2 is that it feels a bit silly playing as say, Scotland and then expanding to Egypt or something. I know it's a game but that is one of the reasons Im loving this Kingdoms expansion so much. It feels much more focussed and every battle and decision has far greater importance because the consequences are far more immediate. Not only that, but CA have made each campaign so distinct because of their unique rules and occurences. Really having so much fun. It has an incredible amount of playability for an expansion pack.
Ive fallen in love with the Teutonic Order. I thought pagan Lithuania would be my nation of choice for that campaign but damn I love the Teutonic Order

Anyone have any screenshots of Kingdoms?

[Quickening]

Anyone have any screenshots of Kingdoms?

No screenshots but Ive uploaded some Kingdoms videos to youtube since Saturday if that helps any https://www.youtube.com/Quickening666

[marrow]

Although I agree with you on some points brought forth in your previous post I have to say a firm no to some other points.

You are indeed correct to point out that it is virtually impossible to iron out certain kinks in the game because it's so vast. Very true. I work in IT and I know how much code development can wreck your day.

However, it is plain wrong to advertise certain features and then not be able to implement them after all in the release version (like in Kingdoms) or simply miss some real howlers in vanilla 1.00.

I'm not mad at CA, oh no, I'm just seriously p!ssed off with SEGA for the hash they made of M2TW release and customer support. In fact, if I worked for CA I would be gutted that the game on which I worked so hard turns out only half as good as it could, only because sales & marketing at SEGA want the game released on a certain date and make cuts on testing.

I'm not saying I don't like M2TW, I really do, but sometimes I find myself really disappointed when I realise how good this game actually could have been had it not been so bloody hyped. It's a good enough game, don't get me wrong, but if it's meant to be "a milestone", "an instant classic", "10/10" etc, then even minor bugs are just plain embarrasing!

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Although I agree with you on some points brought forth in your previous post I have to say a firm no to some other points.

You are indeed correct to point out that it is virtually impossible to iron out certain kinks in the game because it's so vast. Very true. I work in IT and I know how much code development can wreck your day.

However, it is plain wrong to advertise certain features and then not be able to implement them after all in the release version (like in Kingdoms) or simply miss some real howlers in vanilla 1.00.

I'm not mad at CA, oh no, I'm just seriously p!ssed off with SEGA for the hash they made of M2TW release and customer support. In fact, if I worked for CA I would be gutted that the game on which I worked so hard turns out only half as good as it could, only because sales & marketing at SEGA want the game released on a certain date and make cuts on testing.

I'm not saying I don't like M2TW, I really do, but sometimes I find myself really disappointed when I realise how good this game actually could have been had it not been so bloody hyped. It's a good enough game, don't get me wrong, but if it's meant to be "a milestone", "an instant classic", "10/10" etc, then even minor bugs are just plain embarrasing!

Those are grounded, fair criticisms I can live with.

Not that my little opinion matters.

[ColIndyJackson]

Gents:

Merry Christmas to all from Canada!!! I hope this finds you and yours.

For openers, I totally agree with what Pizza Guy said. These games are created by human beings, and we human beings do have flaws, believe it or not. I love Medieval 2 for its history (the Middle Ages). The game makers' homework really paid off with this game AND Kingdoms. May their great work continue!!!

Secondly, somebody suggested that the diplomacy in Med 2 should be handled the same way as in EU III. I a turn a BIG on this. This is another reason why I love Med 2 so much--its uniqueness. Tell me, guys, what other game can you think of that has its characters move around by themselves instead of us pushing them around like pieces on a chessboard? I can't think of a single one.

I'd like to be honest with you, though. For the longest time, I looked at the game in the store and never picked it up for two words scared me off--TOTAL WAR. I thought that it was a game where people only fought each other. When I did finally pick it up and looked at it, I found it was right up street as a RTS game, and I like RTS games.

No, I say yes, kill the bugs and fix the errors, but don't change anything that we came to know and love about this game.

To paraphrase Desiderata: " Despite the dreams and broken promises, it's still a beautiful game!!!!"

Live long and prosper, take care and thank you kindly!!!!

Sincerely yours always,

Indy.

[Akka]

It's the only TW game I only finished one campaign, and the only I one where I won't get the expansion.

It had the potential to be the best of all, but the hardcoded limits of the battle engine made it so that the "anti-blob" made the battles un-playables and un-enjoyable, and wasted all the eye candy.

If I had knew beforehand, I wouldn't have bought it.

[Quickening]

It's the only TW game I only finished one campaign, and the only I one where I won't get the expansion.

It had the potential to be the best of all, but the hardcoded limits of the battle engine made it so that the "anti-blob" made the battles un-playables and un-enjoyable, and wasted all the eye candy.

If I had knew beforehand, I wouldn't have bought it.

The only thing that really annoys me in that respect is when you tell a regiment to charge and only like five guys run forward as if the rest were playing some cruel trick on them

[Viking]

I am mainly dissapointed with the game, as the diplomacy is in many aspects more or less broken. The battles has nice graphics but drains too much CPU power. In kingdoms I can play on higher graphics settings and yet run the game smoother.

That said, I liked the game, but they really....need to work on diplomacy.


Edit: Not to mention the hopeless thing it is to set up army positions inside a city.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

I am mainly dissapointed with the game, as the diplomacy is in many aspects more or less broken. The battles has nice graphics but drains too much CPU power. In kingdoms I can play on higher graphics settings and yet run the game smoother.

That said, I liked the game, but they really....need to work on diplomacy.


Edit: Not to mention the hopeless thing it is to set up army positions inside a city.

Those two things are huge factors for my own disappointment. And while diplomacy certainly improved a little in the vanilla game (and more so in mods), the inability to properly deploy troops inside cities is largely responsible for my abandonment of the game. There have been many other factors, but that one is huge, considering that so much of the game revolves around sieges. While Rome's malleable deployment system had some downsides (like pikes poking through walls/gates), it was pretty damn good--especially by comparison. Far as I can tell, in-city deployment is at its worst in the whole TW series.

[Slug For A Butt]

Now I'm going to disagree with previous posters concerning favourite time periods, I find M2's time period lends itself to a lack of unit diversity. I prefer the more distinct units from the late Hellenic/early Roman period in the game.
Give me chariots, phalanxes, screeching women, head hurlers, elephants, legions with testudo, war dogs, arcani, sapping etc. We have naptha to replace head hurlers and elephants remain, but the rest of the unit roster is a bit bland for me combined with the unit non cohesion which is really my biggest problem with the game now it has been patched.
Micromanaging a simple infantry charge to get more than a few of my men into battle just isn't fun for me at all. If they are remaking Rome I just hope they'll wait for the next generation game engine they design because this one is broken. The AI seems to be given more battlefield options in M2TW but it just frustrates the hell out of me trying to get my men to fight instead of just cheerleading the first few guys as they battle alone. I play RTW much more than M2TW and the insane infantry sppeds are unrealistic in RTW, but not as annoying as the basic inability to get a whole unit to fight or having cavalry struggle to hunt down routers in M2TW.
Both games are boring once you have built a bit of an empire, but from me it's a thumbs down for M2TW . It's the last TW title I have bought, and it will be the last until the future titles are either in the bargain bucket, targeted towards strategy instead of eye candy or invasive software free (or any combination of the above).
Each to their own. That's just my opinion.

[redriver]

may I pitch in my opinion on RTW super unrealistic speeds? am I the only one to think it's not true? what exaclty is unrealistic with regards to RTW infantry movment speed?

I find it quite on par with real life given the time period and troop composition.
look at it this way. the heaviest units or RTW(urbans and phalanxes) are barelly more armed/armored than the lightest fully upgraded M2TW units like spear militia or levy spearmen/swordsmen.

the same goes for battles in RTW. some say it's over way too quickly.

I think it's slower than in M2TW for exaclty the same reason as in example with the movment speed. simply put your average medieval solder will have way more armor and protection than any roman era one. that actually means they should last longer even if they don't know how to fight...

so this is how I test it. I make a custom battle in RTW with best heavies they got to pit against each other(full armor upgrades/no experience) and do the same thin' in M2TW only this time I use the lightest fully upgraded infantry and pit 'em against each other. guess what? both battles will actually last for some time before it's all over.
alas, in RTW not all factions have great infantry and the unit rooster diversity is far greater as well...

[Ethelred Unread]

I've got to say that I've played this game more than any other in the TW series and I love it.

On H/VH diplomacy doesn't seem too bad (except for the random blockades, but I find nations will usually accept a ceasfire straighaway) and since Rome I always play with the general cam, because being a "god" above a battlefield is an unfair advantage.

on VH/VH you are pretty much at war with everyone from the outset and it's not worth any diplomacy - but then the game is called Total War non?

[Old Geezer]

If I had known how good Kingdoms would be I wouldn't have been complaining. Worth the wait even when you only got a few years left.

[Niterider613]

I have played every total war game since Shogun. To me, they just keep getting better and better. I am totally into the kingdoms Crusader campaign. As the Kingdom of Jerusalem, I like how it kind of follows Kingdom of Heaven movie. I like Balin as a General lol. I have also tried some of the mods. I wish I could do things like that lol. I totally recommend this game to anyone that loves rts games.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I've got to say that I've played this game more than any other in the TW series and I love it.

On H/VH diplomacy doesn't seem too bad (except for the random blockades, but I find nations will usually accept a ceasfire straighaway) and since Rome I always play with the general cam, because being a "god" above a battlefield is an unfair advantage.

on VH/VH you are pretty much at war with everyone from the outset and it's not worth any diplomacy - but then the game is called Total War non?

Bwahahaha...

BwaHA HA HA HA HA!

BAH HA HA HAAHHHHHHH!!!!!

Actually I find the AI quite compromising on VH/VH... they always love alliances and promises to attack. You can run circles around them with diplomats if you know how.

That's how I managed to get 80,000 florins with Denmark in 10 turns. If anything, the diplomacy needs to be tweaked to make the AI less generous. This is on LTC, though I routinely did far better in Vanilla.

[phonicsmonkey]

M2TW = great game

RTW = great game

however, when you've seen the potential that can be unlocked from RTW by a really good mod (I'm looking at YOU, EB!), it makes you wonder just how much better they each could have been

roll on Broken Crescent! roll on EBII!!

[Akka]

the unit non cohesion which is really my biggest problem with the game now it has been patched.
Micromanaging a simple infantry charge to get more than a few of my men into battle just isn't fun for me at all. If they are remaking Rome I just hope they'll wait for the next generation game engine they design because this one is broken. The AI seems to be given more battlefield options in M2TW but it just frustrates the hell out of me trying to get my men to fight instead of just cheerleading the first few guys as they battle alone. I play RTW much more than M2TW and the insane infantry sppeds are unrealistic in RTW, but not as annoying as the basic inability to get a whole unit to fight or having cavalry struggle to hunt down routers in M2TW.

So true, so true...

[LadyAnn]

may I pitch in my opinion on RTW super unrealistic speeds? am I the only one to think it's not true? what exaclty is unrealistic with regards to RTW infantry movment speed?

I find it quite on par with real life given the time period and troop composition.
look at it this way. the heaviest units or RTW(urbans and phalanxes) are barelly more armed/armored than the lightest fully upgraded M2TW units like spear militia or levy spearmen/swordsmen.

Have they fixed the "Cretan Archers run as fast as than light cavalry when both of they are routing" bug? Oh, it is not a bug... It was built that way...

About armors: they greek phalanx is quite heavy though. Remember that they use bronze technology for shield/helmet. Can't make thin (but lightweight) armor they way steel armor is in 14th century.

Anyways, the speed was unrealistic in relation between different units.

Annie