WoW TOTAL WAR Is BACK!

[ravinhood]

I just recently got M2TW last week under $20 (my limit on buying most games haha)and I am simply amazed to see Total War back again like it was in the origional MTW only with improved graphics and much better castle sieges. The spy cut scenes they could have left out I turned them off immediately. But, the AI finally on vh/vh is a challenge in fact it finally might be too much of a challenge, but, I'm holding in there with Denmark!

The historical value isn't there as far as who's who and who's the strongest. England in my first game got slaughtered by the Scots lol guess William Wallace's ancestor's decided to do what he couldn't do. lol Mainland England and Ireland belong to the Scots Portugal is in command of SPain territory, Venice is like the Golden Horde and has wiped out Hungary and Parts of the Byzantine Empire. The turks are taking out the other portion of the Byzantines and soon there will be no Byzantines. lol Me, I am in a neverending war between the HRE and Poland and this has been hard as hell to hold onto just what I gots. lol My worst fear right now is Venice who are allied with both the HRE and Poland. If they come into the fray I'ma gonner, I can barely hold against the HRE/Poland and the only reason I'm doing that is they are both hording their full stacks back for some reason.

Some funny things that happen is when I'm besieging either HRE or Poland the Pope decides I'm the one in the wrong in these wars (I didn't start them I merely finish them) and thus threatens me nearly everytime with excommunication if I don't back off of my siege or attacks. I think that's kinda lame since the AI does it RELIGIOUSLY lol (pun intended) to me and I don't see them getting excommunicated.

The way you recruit units and such is quite different from old. You're restriced by not only growth of your castle/city, but, by turns as well when you can get so many of this or that in the way of troups. Resourse gathering is a bit whacko as well in that you have to build a merchant to go out and sit on a resource to bring in the added gold from it. But, merchant battles favor the AI so much that spending 500gp on a merchant and getting value out of it in the long run isn't very likely. Not to mention you only get 1 merchant per market and market upgrade. I guess if I were going to complain this would be my highest complaint. Merchant wars isn't fun. I do like the way they separated castles from cities. This brings more realistic flavor to the game for me in that different things are built in each and you need both to win, cities for income and castles for the big boys toys of troups.

It's nice to see AI archers on the walls and burning down my siege equipment for a change. In RTW there was hardly ever any archers on the wall and even when there were my siege equipment always made it and rams to gates as well and I would always slaughter. Although the ole exploit jam em up at the door and rain fire arrows down on them still is in this version as well. I figured they'd fix that by now.

Overall remarkedly good this time around. I might have paid full price for the retail version had I known they were going to do a better job with the AI overall. So, I suppose I'll get the expansion when it's released since Total War is back. I still don't use pause when I have battles and this is much better than RTW's rout fests in the first five seconds of battle. I've had some great long battles so far, none of these it's over in 1 minute. So, if you haven't got M2TW, now's the time to get it, it's less than $20 on ebay since I think because the Total War Kingdoms expansion is due for release soon and these vendors are just unloading them at cost or maybe even less.

[Kuokkanen]

Who are YOU and what have you done to ravinhood, that one who hates all kind of RTS?

[HansBolter]

Does it have the seperate mini campaign for the British Isles like the add on to the original?

After I got the add on I never bothered with the larger European campaign again as the British Isles one starting in somethinng like 792 AD was so much fun to play.

[Monkeys Brain]

Halleluyah bravo ravinhood! [;)]

I am raving for month that MTW 2 is one of the best games in years to come hehe and glad that you like it as well.

I am also playing at VH/VH this time as Moors... It is really fun and challenging! hehe

I finished one game as Turks and it was also great... Best speeches is by England - I have gone halfway by them... one of the English generals had a speech in a battle vs. France something like this:

"they say that French are great lovers! Hah, ask any pig or goat and they will confirm that!" LOLZ!

Easily, I can put MTW 2 as one of greatest games of all times.

Is it worth 20$? No, it is worth 2000$! Seriously.

It has great production value, great gameplay value - overally simply magnificent job by CA Brisbane studio.

It's best Aussie game ever. Second is Warlords. And third is maybe COTA [:'(]

[Monkeys Brain]

Ravinhood something else...

AI is not that remarkable as it seems but few times had me and my friend sweating when he showed with some full stacks in front of our walls. [:D]
But, as Moors sometime he just unload some stacks near Tunis and just sit there for 5 or 10 turns doing nothing (Sicily or Papal States). I had also some Scotts unloading 1 full and one half stack (2) armies sitting in North Spain doing nothing and probably they could take my city there as I don't have top quality troops there. Mongols have taken 5 cities in Turkey/Egypt this time, I didn't allow them that in my Turks game. They are hard to beat and Timurids as well.

I don't agree about Merchants... In my game as Moors they are bringing 4000 gp a turn. Some are bringing 600 gp alone! Take your merchants to TIMBUKTU AREA! That is area south of Algiers, it take lot's of turns to get there! But, maybe Moors are already there...
Slaves, Ivory are also there and they bring lot's of gold as well.

If you need tips ask or go to http://www.totalwar.org/ you have guides for all factions there!

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
...guess William Wallace's ancestor's decided to do what he couldn't do

Just want to clarify for the record that William Wallace very much could've done "it". The fact that the Scots were fighting amongst themselves, they were willing to sell out to the English and, indeed, trade William Wallace. Wallace, I believe, sacked York, the stronghold of England and bastion of defence.

Now your history lesson is over, I didn't care much for the Total War games after the original. I don't know why...I just didn't and so didn't get M2TW.

But if your playing it and liking an "rts", then maybe...just maybe!

[Procrustes]

It's an extremely fun game.  You might want to check out Rome-Total War and it's add-on, RTW-Barbarian Invasion, too.  I was always a hex-game player until I found the original MTW - very fun and addictive.

[GreyFox]

MTW isn't an RTS - it's a turn based strategy campaign with real time battles.

If you have RTW try out the Europa Barbarorum mod - it breaths new life into that game and turns it into what it should have been in the first place.

I'm over at the totalwar.com forums as well with the same username.

Oh and Wallace wasn't as great as Mel Gibson likes to make out.

[JudgeDredd]

Oh and Wallace wasn't as great as Mel Gibson likes to make out.

Well off topic or not, I aint letting that fly.

I'm Scottish. Whilst I do admire the movie, I take it at face value...hollywood bolloxs. So I wasn't quoting a Mel Gibson movie.

More like what I was taught in history and through reading, though for the life of me I cannot find the book which says he sacked York. I may have him crossed with the young pretender there! [:o]

And he was the first to stand up to the English and to defeat the English heavy cavalry with infantry. And with a far superior force. He may well have won the battle of Falkirk had he not been betrayed by The Earl of Angus and the Earl of March...both English loving heathens.

And one thing he did have was a love of his country...something many of the different clans and lords had sold to the English for many years.

I'm not going to take this off topic anymore, so I would prefer if you want to discuss the intricacies of Scottish history and, in depth, Wallce, then we could start another thread. This one is rh's and I'd rather not hijack it.

[ravinhood]

Well I do hate rtsy rts games. Those that are 100% rts all  the time and have micromanagement hell in them like resource gathering, building all kinds of buildings and trying to attack around the map in different places at the same time. The Total War series has never been like that for me. In fact if ALL RTS games had turn based strategy and real time combat I would probably like them. I got "Imperial Glory" recently and although it's not really historical, it's still fun in the Total War sort of way. The Total War series was never meant to be an historical recreation or simulation, all of them have always been a turn based RISKLIKE strategy wargame to me. Afterall no one took over the entire globe in that time period. But, I must say this M2TW certainly keeps me on my toes like the origional MTW did. The battles are a bit faster, but, not near as fast as RTW's and I can deal with that. Every battle I've been in has been nail biting and I'm losing men 30-50x more than I did in RTW. I'm really sucking hind tit for reinforcements and money to buy them and still trying to build up my citiies and castles.

4000gp?? Merchants getting that much? My merchants out of Denmark are lucky to be getting 21gp or 50gp per turn and those are ones that have been trading amber for a long time. Sounds like Crusaders Kings there where all the good money resources are in the Arabian area. I'll give that a looksee.

To me the AI almost looks like it restricts itself from taking you out when it does have full stacks that could do so and instead just pisses you off and threatens you and hits you when you are gaining an edge. HRE and Poland could have easily pushed me back into Denmark if they had wanted to and cordinated their attack. But, instead they are making it a fun game and not a game of "ok I lost this one let's start over lol". One of the HRE's full stacks has been stuck on a bridge right next to one of my castles because a lone rebel unit is sitting in the middle of the bridge and he won't attack it. Russia is finally in on my side against Poland. But, France is spending all it's time piddling with Milam and not doing much of that since Milam only has 2 or 3 provinces. Even Venice who could have taken out Hungary and Byzantines have stopped their blitz and allowed them to remain on the map. And their eyes are looking toward Poland hehe I hope they hit them. lol

What I'm mainly comparing is the battle AI of MTW and this one. This one is a bit better and their siege attacks are a bit better than in RTW. Unfortunately their bridge fighting when on defense isn't too bright. One bridge battle I had I brought every missle unit I had up on the bridge, unloaded all their missles into their General and then withdrew and they never even budged toward those units. But, heh they got a consolation because some of the units in that battle came out of a nearby castle and when I withdrew they withdrew with the field army and left the castle empty. The AI took it the end of that turn. lol I got it back though.

I also LOVE the two walled castles I've seen in combat. That's pretty neat and if they break thru one wall and you can take out their rams or burn their siege towers you can withdraw to the second walled area and hold out till the timer runs out. Yah just gotta plug those rampart entrances and rain archer fire down on them as they try to get that far. I had one great battle as that is what it came down to. A handful of depleted melee units and one full archer unit, routed the remains of the AI's units as they tried to pour thru from the ramparts.

One thing I will ask...how do you make factions like you better I either have poor reputation with them or very poor. I was thinking it's probably giving them stuff, but, ones you are at war with won't take anything. I've offered everything but the kitchen sink to Poland and HRE and they won't accept anything. They'd rather fight a long drawn out war. lol I must say Denmark is a lot harder to play in this one than it ever was in the first MTW.

Thing is though if you really don't like ANY form of RTS then you won't like this game. I like rts when you have few units to control and no micromanagement during the battle. I've said them before, but, I'll say them again. The only other rts games I've liked before this were Kohan series, The Seven Kingdoms origional series and SACRIFICE (this one is hilariously funny while fun to play). I'm like this if I have to pause it to play it, then it suks to me. That means that I have to click faster than I can think and that's just not fun nor realistic even from a command decision type of game.

Does it have the seperate mini campaign for the British Isles like the add on to the original?

I believe that is coming out in the expansion again called "KINGDOMS". It has 4 new campaigns from what I have read and a lot more units and buildings etc. One of the largest expansions for the Total War series ever.

[Monkeys Brain]

Heh, yes my merchants were miserable like yours but those resources there are great plus in Egypt etc...

I suck at diplomacy, usually AI sooner or later gang up on you but it is good to have allies. You need money and landing 2000 sometimes on someone may soften them up.

Love this game [:D]


Mario

[IronDuke_slith]

I've grown progressively more disenchanted with the Total War series as it has gone on. I think at some point between MTWI and Rome they figured it was time to make more money and began working accordingly.

The graphics are nice, but the maps have really just become mazes. The switch from provinces to an open map should have opened up all sorts of possibilities but it didn't and all the games have really done (IMHO) is get prettier. With turns now fixed, campaigns shorter and divorced from historical dates and nothing new added like sea battles etc, I may well have seen the end of the franchise on my PC.

Shogun was one of the most exiting new games I'd seen. MTWII was just a souped up Rome. I think the games have stopped evolving and as such if you've played one...

Regards,
IronDuke

[Gem35]

Use the political and merchant mods for this title, they add alot more to the game.

[IronDuke_slith]

I don't doubt it, Gem35, and I certainly would never have played vanilla Rome without the total realism mod with the amended battles etc.

This, however, illustrates the point. they chased the buck dumbing everything down and beautifying it. Yes, it was moddable, but their essential ethos really appeared in vanilla Rome where the battles were little more than an arcade farce, even without arcade battles actually switched on.

Modding can only do so much, it really needed the developers to take this on but they never did IMHO.

Thanks for the advice, if I get the urge again, I shall look these items up.

cheers,
IronDuke

[Gem35]

I like playing it without the RTS balltes, I always quick battle.
The game is decent enough and alot of fun, but I get tired of it like most other games.

[ravinhood]

Somehow after playing this awhile I think CA got the message from the fallout of RTW. I certainly see a big difference in challenge and enjoyment vs RTW which on vh/vh was like playing easy to me. I'm actually having a tough time in this one with the high settings as I should. It's definitely an improvement and well heck graphics upgrade and a 613mb patch can't be all bad. lol How many 613mb patches have you ever downloaded before? Shows me they are interested in fixing it instead of just bandaiding it. Course I know the editor and stuff are in that patch as well. But, still. As critical as I am on games nowadays when I play one that I actually WANT to play more than 1/2 a day then it's pretty darn good.
 
As far as sequels go well what do you expect when basically the same engine is being used over n over. Hell, I always believe the same intial template is used over and over. Everyone of them has had charging generals to their death out of the box and they've always had to patch fix that. lol If you go back and look at the patch readme files you'll see a lot of repetitive patches/fixes for each and every game. I do agree I think CA perhaps forced by Activision had to put out that crap that was called RTW for a different market snare and then something happened in negotiations and SEGA got them and SEGA is letting them do their thing and thus M2TW is a much better product. Now I can only hope they let them do a RTW2 and implement what they have now with the better AI and gameplay. There was only so much modders could do with RTW, but, from what I've read they opened up a lot more for modders to play with in M2TW like AI programming/script writing. Fortunately I can still get some fun out of RTW by turning off morale totally and just having really an rts fight to the last man sort of battles. Setting the unit sizes to large and/or huge makes for some very tough games as population matters A LOT more than it ever did before.
 
I'm just wondering if some of you are giving M2TW a bad rap because of the bad taste RTW left in your mouth. It truely was the sukiest of the series, but, this one is definitely better and more fun and challenging. Me being the worst critic on this forum I would never give it a thumbs up if I thought it was crap I think you all know that. Course I was the same way about Paradox games after HOI, lol, every game they put out suked and I wouldn't pay retail for them and waited till several were less than $5. But, actually Crusader Kings is really very good and I've only played a bit of EU III and it's pretty good as well. But, I guess it only takes one rotten apple out of that company barrel to leave that bad taste in your mouth and always remember it.

[mikul82]

ORIGINAL: GreyFox

MTW isn't an RTS - it's a turn based strategy campaign with real time battles.

If you have RTW try out the Europa Barbarorum mod - it breaths new life into that game and turns it into what it should have been in the first place.

I'm over at the totalwar.com forums as well with the same username.

Oh and Wallace wasn't as great as Mel Gibson likes to make out.

Europa Barbarorum is the reigning God of game mods IMO. I played MTW 2 for maybe a week before going right back to EB, which makes MTW2 out of the box feel like Warcraft to me. Rome out of the box was simply too horrible to even talk about.

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
...guess William Wallace's ancestor's decided to do what he couldn't do

Just want to clarify for the record that William Wallace very much could've done "it". The fact that the Scots were fighting amongst themselves, they were willing to sell out to the English and, indeed, trade William Wallace. Wallace, I believe, sacked York, the stronghold of England and bastion of defence.

Now your history lesson is over, I didn't care much for the Total War games after the original. I don't know why...I just didn't and so didn't get M2TW.

But if your playing it and liking an "rts", then maybe...just maybe!

Holy Gibson Batman, Braveheart strikes again. Quick, history books to the batmobile!!!!

Sorry Dread, you're victim to what was a great film, but complete fiction.

No sacking of York (just cattle raiding across the border) , no shagging the Prince Of Wales's wife (he wasn't married at the time) no inventing guerilla war (much of Wallace's film achievements were made in reality by Bruce) and no "if onla we didna betray ourselves Hamish" moments for Scotland. Falkirk was an ass-kicking pure and simple.

Finally, the great victory he won at Stirling had a bloody bridge in it. We know that from the pictures and name: "Battle Of Stirling Bridge" so rather than some tripe about inventing the pike, Wallace cut the English to pieces by tricking them into believing they could cross leisurely to the other side.

Wallace proved England could be beaten, Bruce had the money, patience and men to do it. His victory at Bannockburn was a superlative moment in battlefield control.

But Mel did look smashing in that blue paint

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
...guess William Wallace's ancestor's decided to do what he couldn't do

Just want to clarify for the record that William Wallace very much could've done "it". The fact that the Scots were fighting amongst themselves, they were willing to sell out to the English and, indeed, trade William Wallace. Wallace, I believe, sacked York, the stronghold of England and bastion of defence.

Now your history lesson is over, I didn't care much for the Total War games after the original. I don't know why...I just didn't and so didn't get M2TW.

But if your playing it and liking an "rts", then maybe...just maybe!

Holy Gibson Batman, Braveheart strikes again. Quick, history books to the batmobile!!!!

Sorry Dread, you're victim to what was a great film, but complete fiction.

No sacking of York (just cattle raiding across the border) , no shagging the Prince Of Wales's wife (he wasn't married at the time) no inventing guerilla war (much of Wallace's film achievements were made in reality by Bruce) and no "if onla we didna betray ourselves Hamish" moments for Scotland. Falkirk was an ass-kicking pure and simple.

Finally, the great victory he won at Stirling had a bloody bridge in it. We know that from the pictures and name: "Battle Of Stirling Bridge" so rather than some tripe about inventing the pike, Wallace cut the English to pieces by tricking them into believing they could cross leisurely to the other side.

Wallace proved England could be beaten, Bruce had the money, patience and men to do it. His victory at Bannockburn was a superlative moment in battlefield control.

But Mel did look smashing in that blue paint

No I'm not being swayed by the film at all. As I said I got my history at cross wires (I can't remember what I had for breakfast, let alone what I was taught or read 20 years ago!). As I alluded to in my previous post, I was jumping several seasons later (read centuries) where the Young Pretender did invade England but he went down the West coast, not the east. Again, the Scots let him down.

You are correct. Wallace simply "annoyed" England after Stirling and Falkirk.

As for Stirling Bridge, he did indeed wait for the English to cross at their leisure and attacked it piecemeal...but he did use the schiltron (no he didn't invent the tactic or the weapon) and he was the first to defeat English heavy cavalry with such a tactic.

As far as Falkirk goes, Wallace was waiting for the English to weaken and get demoralised and at that particular time, that was completely feasible. The English did not know where the Scots were and Wallace was waiting for their supplies to dry out. Unfortunately, the location of his force was betrayed to the English by fans of the current regime. Also, the Scots were decisively beaten at Falkirk, but not before they were up for the win. Damned artillery!

And history has shown that Scotland has never stood together. They were rife with insecurity and lack of self belief. If they were not fighting the English, they were siding with them to help themselves against other clans. Even in the 21st century when Thatcher offered Scotland "their freedom", they couldn't be arsed. So the "if onla we didna betray ourselves Hamish" is actually very true and still exists to this day.

For pure bravery, the man is head and tails above any Scot. True, Bruce did the final beating. It's also true to say that William Wallace had no claim or desire for the Throne of Scotland. What he did was through passion for his country and hatred of the English (and their ways). Bruce had, shall we say, other motives.

But tbf on Bruce, he did take on a far superior English force and one convincingly.

With regard to the film, you are correct. Hollywood tripe, even if it was stirring in content.

[Phatguy]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd


Just want to clarify for the record that William Wallace very much could've done "it". The fact that the Scots were fighting amongst themselves, they were willing to sell out to the English and, indeed, trade William Wallace. Wallace, I believe, sacked York, the stronghold of England and bastion of defence.

Now your history lesson is over, I didn't care much for the Total War games after the original. I don't know why...I just didn't and so didn't get M2TW.

But if your playing it and liking an "rts", then maybe...just maybe!

Holy Gibson Batman, Braveheart strikes again. Quick, history books to the batmobile!!!!

Sorry Dread, you're victim to what was a great film, but complete fiction.

No sacking of York (just cattle raiding across the border) , no shagging the Prince Of Wales's wife (he wasn't married at the time) no inventing guerilla war (much of Wallace's film achievements were made in reality by Bruce) and no "if onla we didna betray ourselves Hamish" moments for Scotland. Falkirk was an ass-kicking pure and simple.

Finally, the great victory he won at Stirling had a bloody bridge in it. We know that from the pictures and name: "Battle Of Stirling Bridge" so rather than some tripe about inventing the pike, Wallace cut the English to pieces by tricking them into believing they could cross leisurely to the other side.

Wallace proved England could be beaten, Bruce had the money, patience and men to do it. His victory at Bannockburn was a superlative moment in battlefield control.

But Mel did look smashing in that blue paint

No I'm not being swayed by the film at all. As I said I got my history at cross wires (I can't remember what I had for breakfast, let alone what I was taught or read 20 years ago!). As I alluded to in my previous post, I was jumping several seasons later (read centuries) where the Young Pretender did invade England but he went down the West coast, not the east. Again, the Scots let him down.

You are correct. Wallace simply "annoyed" England after Stirling and Falkirk.

As for Stirling Bridge, he did indeed wait for the English to cross at their leisure and attacked it piecemeal...but he did use the schiltron (no he didn't invent the tactic or the weapon) and he was the first to defeat English heavy cavalry with such a tactic.

As far as Falkirk goes, Wallace was waiting for the English to weaken and get demoralised and at that particular time, that was completely feasible. The English did not know where the Scots were and Wallace was waiting for their supplies to dry out. Unfortunately, the location of his force was betrayed to the English by fans of the current regime. Also, the Scots were decisively beaten at Falkirk, but not before they were up for the win. Damned artillery!

And history has shown that Scotland has never stood together. They were rife with insecurity and lack of self belief. If they were not fighting the English, they were siding with them to help themselves against other clans. Even in the 21st century when Thatcher offered Scotland "their freedom", they couldn't be arsed. So the "if onla we didna betray ourselves Hamish" is actually very true and still exists to this day.

For pure bravery, the man is head and tails above any Scot. True, Bruce did the final beating. It's also true to say that William Wallace had no claim or desire for the Throne of Scotland. What he did was through passion for his country and hatred of the English (and their ways). Bruce had, shall we say, other motives.

But tbf on Bruce, he did take on a far superior English force and one convincingly.

With regard to the film, you are correct. Hollywood tripe, even if it was stirring in content.

Are you implying that Hollywood historical films just might be,GASP [X(], innacurate?