M:TW 2

J

John Uskglass

Venerable Relic of the Wastes
omg


omgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomg


omgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomg

omg

http://www.freeforumzone.com/viewmessaggi.aspx?f=42923&idd=4802

gmc2nv.jpg
 
OMG YES PLZ!

Someone get us a translation of that M2:TW pages from that mag before I go crazy.
 
*dances dances dances*

Whee!

Let us hope it's more like M:TW 1 than R:TW, though...
 
Mmm i don't know, I think i'd rather see the team tackle another time period/setting with the total war games (Star Wars, fantasy, and closer to modern all sounded cool). But either way, ANY total war games sounds good to me. I love them games.
 
Jebus said:
Let us hope it's more like M:TW 1 than R:TW, though...
Click to expand...
I think a combo of the two would be nice. I like some of the more unique characteristics of R:TW BI, such as the Horde system and more then simple stupid Salic Primogeniture for inheritance law, not to mention the rather ahistorical in the case of the west ability of the Monarch to choose titles for whoever the fuck he likes.


I'd Like to see:
Less abstracted cultural representation. Something like Victoria, only without the annoying POPs, maybe.
More choice in tech tree. For instance, I would like different kinds of agricultural advances rather then +40%, +80% and the like. Perhaps Inclosure 20-80%, Manorialism 20-80%, Serfdom 20-80%, Some kind of representation of the pre-Manzekirt agricultural system (like Themata Agriculture) 20-80% and the like, with a definite impact on the development of economies and the like.
More accurate representation of urban growth and nascent industrial growth rather then just turns for production and that awful 'squalor' thingy.
 
That just blew Mark of Chaos the fuck out of my radar screens, and that was my most anticiptated upcoming game.

There are no words for how awesome that is.
 
Somehow...it seems to remarkable to be true...

Besides if it is my PC wont run the damn thing. Great link though J. U..

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
*Cue the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's Messiah.*

Thanks for the link. Sounds very promising.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=42107

History in the Making
A huge campaign spanning from the years 1080-1530, that will take the player beyond the first Crusade up until the dawn of the renaissance. An extended campaign map will allow passage to South and Central America bringing the player into battle with the Aztecs.
Click to expand...

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/medieval2totalwar/

Set in Europe during 1080-1530 that has players influencing battles during the Crusades, into the renaissance period, and even features an extended bonus map that lets you tackle the Aztecs in South and Central America.
Click to expand...

Argh. Unbelievable. Currently slated for 'winter 2006' eh. Shame it isn't Aussie winter. Can't wait.
 
Seems cool. I hope they keep some of the features from Rome, such as the free moving of armies over the map, but make it historically accurate this time. Mmm, and maybe naval battles (although this would be less spectacular than it would have been in Rome).

Quite frankly, I would have preferred Rome: Total war 2, or a remake of Shogun, or maybe even China: Total war.

Also, I would like to see the Swedes as a playable faction.

Speaking of Total war though (especially Rome, but also the crusades in Medieval), did it ever happen to anyone that you had a surplus of soldiers that were either too costy or obsolete, but you didn't want to just disband them, so you packed them into large forces and just randomly sent them on a scorched earth mission against a rival faction? No?

Anyway, an option to upgrade obsolete forces somehow would be nice (retraining all the legions after the Marius reforms was a bitch, really).
 
I have come to the conclusion it sucks.


Puppet popes? Handing out princesses? The freakin' Aztecs?

Idiocy.
 
I really am looking forward to this, and I hope it is an improvement over the original.

Rome Total War had so many flaws, and it was even EASIER to manhandle the AI, no matter the difficulty, in that game. I remember wanting to keep playing as a Roman faction, which it would not let you do, when you had conquered Rome. So I built four forts around it and beat the city into submission until it rebelled, which was very useful for me.

(That god damn shit with the senate missions... "Kill your leader or we cast you out" bullshit. Absolutely worthless.)
 
Clearly, you haven't played the Roman Total Realism mod. I highly reccomend it. Another upcoming mod is Europa Barbarorum.
 
*bump*

Plenty of updates about this game now, more probably around E3.

I hope they have the same campaign style as Rome, moving armies around freely rather than region-to-region like Shogun/Medieval.

Don't really care about historical accuracy that much... Fun gameplay seems more important.


Pretty cool graphics so far, but I still want naval battles.

*EDIT*

trailer. http://eurogamer.net/game.php?game_id=5499 (right corner)

Fairly cool... They need to get rid of that lame synchronized movement from the previous games though, notice how that cavalry unit lower their lances at the exact same time.

I'd say this is far from done, and it might be crap if they release it this fall.
 
No navies, no Sweden, Lithuania, or the Teutonic Knights? How am I supposed to smack bitches around as Gustavus Adolphus in the Thirty Year's War or tear shit up at Tannenberg?

They should simply copy Knights of Honor or Crusader Kings, add their own free-form movement and battle system and then kick it out the door.

As it stands, this looks awesome, but I'm more interested in Europa Universalis III.
 
The one thing I want to see in the game is the ability (depending on the map) to bring my entire army on screen at once.

Back in M TW I had battles that had to be autoed because the resolution would take days, manually. (Byzantines versus the ENTIRE Mongol Horde. My 9 star emperor saved the day.)
 
Pajari said:
No navies, no Sweden, Lithuania, or the Teutonic Knights? How am I supposed to smack bitches around as Gustavus Adolphus in the Thirty Year's War or tear shit up at Tannenberg?
Click to expand...

You tard, lol. The 30 year war took place in the 17th century, way after Medieval times, when the Teutonic knights were extinct. Lithuania was never really.. Big. Sweden neither, not until well, the 30 year war. They only conquered some Finnish tribesmen in a silly little crusade.

Back to the actual game though. No naval battles is a shame for countries that are supposed to rely on sea warfare, like the Byzantine Empire and those Italian shitholes. It's a pretty big part of the game.

I don't see why people are bitching about the South American continent being included in the game. You probably won't be able to go there until very late in the game anyway.
 
Oh shit, 1510. Kind of skipped over that part in the interview. But they did mention "beginning gunpowder", and the 30 year's war was the ultimate pike-horse-and-musket hoedown. Am i rite, guyz?

I recognize that Westphalia came in 1648 and that Sweden's heyday was early 17th century to the end of the Great Northern War in 1721. And I wasn't saying that Tannenberg happened during the 30 year's war either, though after my previous comment it was probably easy to think I was being that stupid.

But yeah, no navies is BS, especially since they're including Byzantium (even though their navy was pretty much toast by the first century of this game's time period). I wanted my Greek Fire :(. I do look forward to romping all over the New World, though. The Seven Cities of Gold should definitely be an easter egg.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top