Medieval 2: Total War announced for Fall of 2006!

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
http://pc.ign.com/objects/800/800327.html

Completely new graphics engine. No more clone armies. Religion takes a more direct role in diplomacy. 21 playable factions. New seige warfare. Over 10k units on a battle map. New building interface. Larger campaign map.

My wish was granted for a remake of medieval!
 

Malladine

Diamond Member
Mar 31, 2003
4,618
0
71
wow, sick.

Now I have a deadline to get a system overhaul for 10K units on screen :Q
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
Originally posted by: Malladine
wow, sick.

Now I have a deadline to get a system overhaul for 10K units on screen :Q

Makes me wonder how well optimized the game engine is for that many units. Rome Total war lagged with more than 2 or 3 arimes.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Nice! I loved RTW, but was all perplexed over where'd they go next. I was really hoping against the age of muskets as it just doesn't translate well to RTS games.....see AoE III. Esemble actually considered redoing AoK and I think they'd have been better served doing so....like CA is doing here. Hand-to-hand combat brings balance and an element of drama that can't be had with mostly ranged combat.

Long wait, but should be fantastic. I just hope they flesh out the turn-based part of the game more because the real-time is pretty much already spot on.
 

deadseasquirrel

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2001
1,736
0
0
Yeah, the turn-based portion was really the slow point for me with RTW. I absolutely loved the RT battles though. Finding the perfect mix of a Civ-style TBS with the RT battles will have me sold.
 

Busithoth

Golden Member
Sep 28, 2003
1,561
0
76
I'm still playing Rome: Total War. I got the expansion, but fail to see how it's fun to have a horde pour down on you in turn 2, when you're still building a palisade around your cities...

I find both parts of Rome, strategy and battle, extremely fun. The only thing that slows my comp down is fire arrows.

This new game looks like it'll be fun as hell.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
Yeah, the turn-based portion was really the slow point for me with RTW. I absolutely loved the RT battles though. Finding the perfect mix of a Civ-style TBS with the RT battles will have me sold.

I loved the realtime until I decided to play as Germania and modded the settings so I needed to take over the whole world. That's a LOT of battles and I played them all until right at the end when it was just mopping up rebel revolts and whatnot while taking the last few territories. At that point I was far more interested in a more robust turn-based strategy element to flavor up the realtime as I had been using diplomats to help manage everything and found that part really cool, but also really basic.
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Nice! I loved RTW, but was all perplexed over where'd they go next. I was really hoping against the age of muskets as it just doesn't translate well to RTS games.....see AoE III. Esemble actually considered redoing AoK and I think they'd have been better served doing so....like CA is doing here. Hand-to-hand combat brings balance and an element of drama that can't be had with mostly ranged combat.

Long wait, but should be fantastic. I just hope they flesh out the turn-based part of the game more because the real-time is pretty much already spot on.

I completely agree. Hand to hand combat brought so much natural diversity and fighting strengths to the battlefield unlike modern day RTS's where one missile can defeat a whole army. I'm also fascinated with that era when war was war and empires would thirst for it.

And im guessing the reason why they released the news so early was because everybody was loosing faith for the PC port when Sega took over. Now we know Sega is willing to publish for both PC and console.
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
Yeah, the turn-based portion was really the slow point for me with RTW. I absolutely loved the RT battles though. Finding the perfect mix of a Civ-style TBS with the RT battles will have me sold.

I loved the realtime until I decided to play as Germania and modded the settings so I needed to take over the whole world. That's a LOT of battles and I played them all until right at the end when it was just mopping up rebel revolts and whatnot while taking the last few territories. At that point I was far more interested in a more robust turn-based strategy element to flavor up the realtime as I had been using diplomats to help manage everything and found that part really cool, but also really basic.


And modding TW thanks to the scripts and text files was never easier. Lets hope they keep that up in Medieval 2. When I got sick of BI I just modded a few things here and there....like bolder throwing archers....
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,856
4,974
126
Interestingly enough I simply like the turnbased portion of it. the RT battles were fine and all but the strategy was just perfect. It was the ULTIMATE game of Risk.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
Cool, I loved R:TW. I just got bogged down towards the end game. Too many territories with hostile armies nearby to remember what was going on. And I listened to the Senate, I'd be at war from the North, South, East, and West. :(
 

flashbacck

Golden Member
Aug 3, 2001
1,921
0
76
Damn! I remember being amazed when I first saw screenshots of Rome:TW, these screenshots are just as amazing!
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,540
16
0
I really like the Total war series, but they've already done Medieval. I was hoping for something new, preferably fantasy next time.
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I really like the Total war series, but they've already done Medieval. I was hoping for something new, preferably fantasy next time.

Fantasy? No--no--no! Hah. The one thing that makes Total War stand out is it's dedication to realistic battles. Of course no video game can be 100% realistic. Leave the fantasy stuff to the consoles I say. I think fantasy is just a poor excuse for RTS developers to not develope any battle logic or AI. *cough* Star craft*
 

Malladine

Diamond Member
Mar 31, 2003
4,618
0
71
Originally posted by: Regs
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I really like the Total war series, but they've already done Medieval. I was hoping for something new, preferably fantasy next time.

Fantasy? No--no--no! Hah. The one thing that makes Total War stand out is it's dedication to realistic battles. Of course no video game can be 100% realistic. Leave the fantasy stuff to the consoles I say. I think fantasy is just a poor excuse for RTS developers to not develope any battle logic or AI. *cough* Star craft*
dude it wouldn't take much to imagine and consequently implement the tactical and strategic ramifications of, say, a 12' tall ogre, a 2 ton four legged horned demon or a horde of biting, scratching, spitting little imps. With pitch forks.

Surely.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Malladine
Originally posted by: Regs
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I really like the Total war series, but they've already done Medieval. I was hoping for something new, preferably fantasy next time.

Fantasy? No--no--no! Hah. The one thing that makes Total War stand out is it's dedication to realistic battles. Of course no video game can be 100% realistic. Leave the fantasy stuff to the consoles I say. I think fantasy is just a poor excuse for RTS developers to not develope any battle logic or AI. *cough* Star craft*
dude it wouldn't take much to imagine and consequently implement the tactical and strategic ramifications of, say, a 12' tall ogre, a 2 ton four legged horned demon or a horde of biting, scratching, spitting little imps. With pitch forks.

Surely.

Sure....but people are gonna expect to see dragons....how do you balance those....or a gorgon who can turn things to stone.....spectors......harpies.....spell casters?

If you're just gonna replace the roman infantryman with skeleton and troll models and call it a day, then don't bother. I think mythology can absolutely work, but I totally disagree that it wouldn't take much....it would be a huge endeavor. Somebody recently released a D&D RTS with all manner of creatures and it didn't come off very well.
 

Malladine

Diamond Member
Mar 31, 2003
4,618
0
71
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Malladine
Originally posted by: Regs
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I really like the Total war series, but they've already done Medieval. I was hoping for something new, preferably fantasy next time.

Fantasy? No--no--no! Hah. The one thing that makes Total War stand out is it's dedication to realistic battles. Of course no video game can be 100% realistic. Leave the fantasy stuff to the consoles I say. I think fantasy is just a poor excuse for RTS developers to not develope any battle logic or AI. *cough* Star craft*
dude it wouldn't take much to imagine and consequently implement the tactical and strategic ramifications of, say, a 12' tall ogre, a 2 ton four legged horned demon or a horde of biting, scratching, spitting little imps. With pitch forks.

Surely.

Sure....but people are gonna expect to see dragons....how do you balance those....or a gorgon who can turn things to stone.....spectors......harpies.....spell casters?

If you're just gonna replace the roman infantryman with skeleton and troll models and call it a day, then don't bother. I think mythology can absolutely work, but I totally disagree that it wouldn't take much....it would be a huge endeavor. Somebody recently released a D&D RTS with all manner of creatures and it didn't come off very well.
That's because they dumbed it down to kiddy level. If designers aimed at an adult market they could pull it off without much extra hassle. Spells etc could be modifications of the ranged mechanics they already have, for undead they would need to enhance morale to account for the fear effect. The only trouble would be in balancing such a system, imo.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,921
14
81
Back on topic, the question on my mind is: when will R:TW get a makeover with this new engine? (somehow, I've always found the romans more personally interesting that the mideval period)
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Malladine
That's because they dumbed it down to kiddy level. If designers aimed at an adult market they could pull it off without much extra hassle. Spells etc could be modifications of the ranged mechanics they already have, for undead they would need to enhance morale to account for the fear effect. The only trouble would be in balancing such a system, imo.

That's exactly my point. You're replacing the traditional archer unit with a robed caster who shoots fireballs instead of arrows. There's no point in changing themes if the gameplay is the same.

If you've got a spell caster he needs to be able to cast multiple attack spells like lightning and fireball, but he also needs to be able to summon and teleport and curse etc.