M2TW review

GEC: Discuss gaming, computers and electronics and venture into the bizarre world of STGODs.

Moderator: Thanas

Post Reply
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

M2TW review

Post by Vympel »

Link

We'll skip the good and go directly to the bad:
This is not the revolutionary leap forward we saw in Rome: Total War. The new sequel takes the basic package of Rome and revisits the basic campaign setting of the original Medieval: Total War. In terms of the overall gameplay, there aren't that many surprises here for fans of the series. There are a few new touches here and there that are worth investigating, as well as some substantial improvements in the graphics department.
That's fine by me.
The only real problem we found with the graphics was the tendency for models to skew when standing on a incline. It's subtle but definitely disconcerting to see a cavalry model stretch ten degrees in order to get all four feet on a hill. The frame rate's still not the greatest but a 256MB card should still be able to render most of the details you'll want to see without crippling your performance.
and
Unfortunately, almost nothing has been done to improve the interface, either on the battle or campaign screens. Formation controls are still stuck where they were back in the original Shogun: Total War. Being able to lock formations of multiple unit types, change facings without changing size, and resizing from the center of a formation rather than the corner are still small aggravations that continue to plague the series. There's an option for a more minimal interface this time around but it's even more distracting than the basic interface. On the campaign map, there's still no easy way to locate all of your units and see which ones still need orders.
:evil:
Likewise, the incredibly slow pace of the AI turns still drives us crazy. Sure, there's an option to avoid seeing enemy moves altogether, but that's not exactly a solution to our problem. We still like to see what the AI is doing; we'd just like to see his units hustle a bit when they're making their way across the map.
:evil: :evil:
There are a few other problems with this sequel. First, the addition of the Aztecs seems like a bit of a gimmick. This New World power just doesn't fit the rest of the game's overall concept. It would make a hell of an expansion if beefed up by the addition of other South American powers but the concept doesn't really work here.
No surprise there.
The Papacy is a wonderful element that helps to provide a framework for the game but there are some problems with the way it works. For one thing, the Pope hates it when Christians fight against each other. While that's fine in theory, it's completely ridiculous that you take a reputation hit when another Christian power sneaks in and takes a city you've been sieging. At the start of your turn, the Pope sees you camped outside another Christian city's walls and your favor drops.

Trying to stay in the Pope's good graces isn't any guarantee that he'll reward you either. It's nice not to be on the wrong end of a holy crusade, of course, but the real plum of good papal relations is having one of your priests assigned as a cardinal. The political power is great but it doesn't seem like being in the Pope's favor has anything to do with gaining those cardinal seats. We've had games where the Pope has awarded multiple seats to the nations he likes the least.

Guh?
That's poorly thought out. You'd think they would've caught this, but surely they'll come up with a patch.

Och, jeez:
Medieval II also allows players to turn off the battle timer. We like to linger a bit on the field when our tactical plan requires extra time but it can be a real game killer when you're besieged by defenders who have no way to get inside your walls and are too stupid to retreat. If you take out the enemy's battering rams, siege towers and ladders, their forces will simply sit outside your gates waiting for you to reload the game or send your own forces out to fight with the enemy directly. Neither option is very satisfying. It would be nice if the AI could realize the futility of the situation and kick things back to the strategy map. At the very least, you ought to be able to enable the battle timer during the battle sequences.
The same crap as in Rome? COME ON.

Anyway, they gave it 8.8, and this is just me cherry-picking the bad because we all know how awesome it is otherwise.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

CA have a habit of making the AI do stupid things and not patching it. Sure, fans may have done some stuff for R:TW, but it shouldn't be happening at all now the engine is refined after several years. They really ought to have made some effort in making the GUI cleaner and the AI smarter.

Personally, I blame the Aussies for slacking off after they joined the group.

Otherwise, a few graphical glitches is little more than what you usually see in a new game release.
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Stark »

I think it's amusing how many game franchises like TW have had flaws/proplems/sub-optimal solutions from iteration one that are still in a decade later.
User avatar
Ghost Rider
Spirit of Vengeance
Posts: 27779
Joined: 2002-09-24 01:48pm
Location: DC...looking up from the gutters to the stars

Post by Ghost Rider »

The only two things I have problem is apparently the wonky Pope bit, which makes me feel fuck playing a Christian power....unlikely it may seem early on, and the siege problem.

As all said, it still looks to be a consumer of my life, but it's sad to hear these niggling things.
MM /CF/WG/BOTM/JL/Original Warsie/ACPATHNTDWATGODW FOREVER!!

Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all

Saying and doing are chocolate and concrete
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Stark wrote:I think it's amusing how many game franchises like TW have had flaws/proplems/sub-optimal solutions from iteration one that are still in a decade later.
Well, in their defence, Shogun didn't even have real sieges. It was just army behind a fence and you have to attack them, no siege equipment whatsoever. It sucked. Medieval introduced it- and did it better than Rome. In Medieval, armies would attack the gate with sheer men and try and hack it to pieces somehow. It'd take forever, but they did have a chance of knocking the gate down and getting the game to get the fuck on with it.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

In the "that's retarded" category, apparently, there's no Dismount option in M2TW. Which makes me wonder just why the fuck there are Dismounted variants of mounted troops in the historical battles and listed in the faction profiles. What an utter waste of an opportunity. They had it in the original, for god's sake.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
2000AD
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6666
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:32pm
Location: Leeds, wishing i was still in Newcastle

Post by 2000AD »

Vympel wrote:In the "that's retarded" category, apparently, there's no Dismount option in M2TW. Which makes me wonder just why the fuck there are Dismounted variants of mounted troops in the historical battles and listed in the faction profiles. What an utter waste of an opportunity. They had it in the original, for god's sake.
Because you can train the dismounted units. You can get mounted knights and dismounted knights.
Ph34r teh eyebrow!!11!Writers Guild Sluggite Pawn of Chaos WYGIWYGAINGW so now i have to put ACPATHNTDWATGODW in my sig EBC-Honorary Geordie
Hammerman! Hammer!
AniThyng
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2777
Joined: 2003-09-08 12:47pm
Location: Took an arrow in the knee.
Contact:

Post by AniThyng »

2000AD wrote:
Vympel wrote:In the "that's retarded" category, apparently, there's no Dismount option in M2TW. Which makes me wonder just why the fuck there are Dismounted variants of mounted troops in the historical battles and listed in the faction profiles. What an utter waste of an opportunity. They had it in the original, for god's sake.
Because you can train the dismounted units. You can get mounted knights and dismounted knights.
Isn't that kinda stupid? Why not just call them...uh. I don't know. Unmounted? Dismounting implies you had a horse at some point, presumably one you can get back on when you need to.
I do know how to spell
AniThyng is merely the name I gave to what became my favourite Baldur's Gate II mage character :P
User avatar
Brother-Captain Gaius
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6859
Joined: 2002-10-22 12:00am
Location: \m/

Post by Brother-Captain Gaius »

That does strike me as rather lame. It wouldn't be hard at all to have one little button on the GUI somewhere that toggles knights from mounted to dismounted anytime during your turn - or prior to a battle even, it's not as if it takes a vast amount of resources and planning to get on and off a fucking horse...
Agitated asshole | (Ex)40K Nut | Metalhead
The vision never dies; life's a never-ending wheel
1337 posts as of 16:34 GMT-7 June 2nd, 2003

"'He or she' is an agenderphobic microaggression, Sharon. You are a bigot." ― Randy Marsh
User avatar
Acidburns
Padawan Learner
Posts: 470
Joined: 2005-07-11 08:02pm
Location: Glasgow, Second City of the Empire

Post by Acidburns »

I'd agree with most of what they have said. Only annoying behaviour I have seen from the Pope was when he restrained me from attacking the French and Scots, but had no problem with them attacking me. I think as the English I may have had a long rating with the Pope at the start, so maybe it's justified. After I got my ass excommunicated (wasn't letting them get away with attacking me, Pope be damned) the Pope died, and there was an election. The Danish won, who were allied with me, and immediently upon being elected I was reconciled. So that made sense I guess. The Danish were also the most popular faction. Perhaps theres something going on behind the scenes, or maybe it's just a random bug.

I've not seen the AI lounging around a castle siege yet, but I can believe it. I think I've noticed a couple of new moves from the AI on the tactical map, it's largely the same. I do think that the AI moves better on the campaign map.

Also, I noticed the skewing effect as well. I was looking at a hill battle and I was sure that something looked odd, but I couldn't place it. Nice to know I'm not going crazy.

I think you can see it in this screenshot if you look at the knights on the left. It's more obvious in game however.

Image
Image
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

2000AD wrote: Because you can train the dismounted units. You can get mounted knights and dismounted knights.
That's just dumb. What is their movement rate in the strategic map?
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
Adrian Laguna
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4736
Joined: 2005-05-18 01:31am

Re: M2TW review

Post by Adrian Laguna »

Vympel wrote:
This is not the revolutionary leap forward we saw in Rome: Total War. The new sequel takes the basic package of Rome and revisits the basic campaign setting of the original Medieval: Total War. In terms of the overall gameplay, there aren't that many surprises here for fans of the series. There are a few new touches here and there that are worth investigating, as well as some substantial improvements in the graphics department.
That's fine by me.
Good, because when CA announced Medieval 2: Total War they specifically said it wasn't gonna be revolutionary. They were quite clear on that the differences between Medieval 2 and Rome would be similar to the differences between Medieval 1 and Shogun.
Vympel wrote:
Likewise, the incredibly slow pace of the AI turns still drives us crazy. Sure, there's an option to avoid seeing enemy moves altogether, but that's not exactly a solution to our problem. We still like to see what the AI is doing; we'd just like to see his units hustle a bit when they're making their way across the map.
:evil: :evil:
I've been skipping AI turns since Medieval 1. Quite frankly it's only a minor concern, I can keep track of AI moves by seeing where their units are at the end of the turn, no need to actually see them moving.


My chief concern is the campaign play. You see, in Rome Total war, unless you were playing the Romans, there was rarely another huge super-power to duke it out against in the end game, and even then sometimes it wasn't really a challenge. I never saw the rise of an AI nation so large as to rival your own, usually the nations in the other side of the world were various mid-sized nations rather than one huge juggernaught.

I remember that one Medieval game, the best example of what I mean. I was playing the Turks, starting in the Early Era. The French became this uber superpower. They had France, Great Britain, Denmark, Germany, Italy, most of Poland, and the upper Balkans. We stalemated in the line across the Danube river. They couldn't attack because my armies were too advanced technologically and friggin' huge, and I couldn't attack because while I might be able to break through the stalemate, it would widen my front and open it to counter-attacks and incursions behind my lines. Neither of us to try could attack through the Steppes because the Golden Horde owned them.

I was forced to fight the Almuravids (orange nation) and make a path of blood across North Africa to Tunisia. From there I took Sicily, started to advanced up the the Italian penninsula... and got stalemated again by the French. So I pushed the Almuravids out of North Africa, then set to the long and bloody task of cracking Fortress Iberia. After finally vanquishing the Almuravids, I entered France through the back door. They threw hordes at me, but it was too much, they couldn't hold three fronts, I could. I advanced into France proper and slaughtered its Kings and Princes in the heartland of the country. I had about half of the French heartland when their empire collapsed into anarchy. No more than five or six turns later 1453 arrived and the game ended.

Nothing that epic ever happens in Rome. I admit It was rare in Medieval, but at least it occurred.
User avatar
2000AD
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6666
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:32pm
Location: Leeds, wishing i was still in Newcastle

Post by 2000AD »

Vympel wrote:
2000AD wrote: Because you can train the dismounted units. You can get mounted knights and dismounted knights.
That's just dumb. What is their movement rate in the strategic map?
Um, mounted knights move as fast as other cavalry and dismounted knights move as fast as infantry. I haven't really noticed any big differences in movement speeds between units apart from between mounted units and units on foot and don't really pay that much attention so if your after some minutae about the difference in speed between armoured swordsmen and dismounted feudal knights your asking the wrong guy. (Crusades appear to go faster as well.)

English get a unit called English Dismounted knights (or it might be foot knights, can't recall) which in the description says that some English knights prefered to fight on foot to better protect the archers, so i guess this is an attempt to give all factions a simular unit (Though ENglish also get dismounted feudal knights.)
Ph34r teh eyebrow!!11!Writers Guild Sluggite Pawn of Chaos WYGIWYGAINGW so now i have to put ACPATHNTDWATGODW in my sig EBC-Honorary Geordie
Hammerman! Hammer!
User avatar
GuppyShark
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2830
Joined: 2005-03-13 06:52am
Location: South Australia

Post by GuppyShark »

I thought Dismounted Knights were "Knights who couldn't afford horses."
User avatar
Fire Fly
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1608
Joined: 2004-01-06 12:03am
Location: Grand old Badger State

Post by Fire Fly »

Does anyone know how improved diplomacy and the AI are? Those were some of the most talked about features for improvement.
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Fire Fly wrote:Does anyone know how improved diplomacy and the AI are? Those were some of the most talked about features for improvement.
Diplomacy is spotty, but the AI is still apparently dumb as a post in battle.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
wautd
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7593
Joined: 2004-02-11 10:11am
Location: Intensive care

Post by wautd »

Here's another bad one:


No burning oil at the gates :(

(actually, I think sieges could use more detail in general, a bit more like Stronghold)

edit: you can't fit cannons on walls as well :?
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Yeah, but towers can be equipped with cannons I hear, just like in the original.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Acidburns
Padawan Learner
Posts: 470
Joined: 2005-07-11 08:02pm
Location: Glasgow, Second City of the Empire

Post by Acidburns »

Indeed, there is an option to upgrade them with ballistae, and no doubt once gunpowder is discovered then cannons will be an option also.
Image
User avatar
The Yosemite Bear
Mostly Harmless Nutcase (Requiescat in Pace)
Posts: 35211
Joined: 2002-07-21 02:38am
Location: Dave's Not Here Man

Post by The Yosemite Bear »

so instead of playing one of the christian factions can you start a trade empire with the new world and sack and pillage christian cities in the name of Odin the All Father? If so can I sell slaves to the Aztecs?
Image

The scariest folk song lyrics are "My Boy Grew up to be just like me" from cats in the cradle by Harry Chapin
User avatar
2000AD
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6666
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:32pm
Location: Leeds, wishing i was still in Newcastle

Post by 2000AD »

Haven't reached the Americas yet. In fact i haven't found out how to start in a later period.
Ph34r teh eyebrow!!11!Writers Guild Sluggite Pawn of Chaos WYGIWYGAINGW so now i have to put ACPATHNTDWATGODW in my sig EBC-Honorary Geordie
Hammerman! Hammer!
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

2000AD wrote:Haven't reached the Americas yet. In fact i haven't found out how to start in a later period.
You can't.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
2000AD
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6666
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:32pm
Location: Leeds, wishing i was still in Newcastle

Post by 2000AD »

Vympel wrote:
2000AD wrote:Haven't reached the Americas yet. In fact i haven't found out how to start in a later period.
You can't.
Well i guess the Americas are really late game then. I think i might hold off taking Jerusalem* until they pop up. It's a bit anoying that you can't start in different periods like M1:TW.

*In grand campaign Jerusalem is the target city for most of the Catholic factions. Like in Rome how most of the victory conditions were "50 territories plus Rome", in M2:TW it's "45 regions and Jerusalem"
Ph34r teh eyebrow!!11!Writers Guild Sluggite Pawn of Chaos WYGIWYGAINGW so now i have to put ACPATHNTDWATGODW in my sig EBC-Honorary Geordie
Hammerman! Hammer!
Post Reply