You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Medieval 2: Total War Discussion
Moderated by SwampRat

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.47 replies
Total War Heaven » Forums » Medieval 2: Total War Discussion » Medieval 2 Reviews - Post YOUR reviews here!
Bottom
Topic Subject:Medieval 2 Reviews - Post YOUR reviews here!
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
GLORYOFSPARTA
Seraph (in absentia)
posted 10 November 2006 04:11 EDT (US)         
Hey guys! To avoid flooding the forum with tons and tons of reviews of Medieval 2, I've decided to create this thread for you all to throw your opinions out there. Please don't create threads for your own review - they will be closed.

Review away!


GLORYOFSPARTA | RTWH and M2TWH Site Director, AoMH Game Information Admin, HeavenGames LLC
AoMH | RTWH | M2TWH | Ancient Greek Festival - 3rd to 4th of June in Watford, UK, 2006.
"Whoever obeys the gods, to him they particularly listen." - Homer
"GoS OWNS for being female and liking The Simpsons and Rammstein." - Crazed Ewok
AuthorReplies:
sgthunter09
Legionary
posted 12 November 2006 05:54 EDT (US)     1 / 47       
My review is not positive.

I got the game on friday so I had time to play troughout the weekend. I tried out a few nations and looked trough everything. How much troops they have, how many buildings you were able to build...and it wasn't alot. In Medieval 1 there were alot more units a nation could have. Now it fells like you are battleing with the same units all the time.

And it sucks that there is only 1 era. Not like befor where you had Early, Late and Post eras.

The dark ages are wierd. If the romans built paved roads everywhere, how come there are no roads to be found. You have to upgrade lvl 4 city to be able to build paved roads. And thats it, there are no highways eather. So it must take ALOT of years for a crusade to happen, wich by the way hans't happened to me in the game yet. It always ends up as failed.

But there are good things about the game, the battles are very realistic even though u get to fight with the same troops for hundreds of years untill gunpowder arives and replaces archers.

But I realy hope there are patches, mods or expansions to give us more options.

Thecrayfish
Banned
posted 12 November 2006 06:35 EDT (US)     2 / 47       
So far its been great, I too wish there were more starting ages, but the first age gets going quicker than in medieval 1 and you can start getting some good troops, the battles are awesome and so far its been really good
Chalupa Batman
Centurion
(id: ccsantos)
posted 12 November 2006 06:53 EDT (US)     3 / 47       
Everything and more .

All the micromanaging is insane..but I'm picking it up. Took me a while to figure out how to join a crusade, but figured it out myself.

I disabled the FOW and can see everything, pretty prestine map

Get this game, if you don't, just shut off the pc and walk out of the room.


As-Salaam-Alaikum
Thomas Becket
Banned
posted 12 November 2006 14:37 EDT (US)     4 / 47       

Quote:

And it sucks that there is only 1 era. Not like befor where you had Early, Late and Post eras.

sgthunter, something is wrong- there is more than one era, just like the original Medieval. Restart your campaign and set a new era? Or just wait for the next era to begin!

RiderOfEternity
Legionary
posted 12 November 2006 14:56 EDT (US)     5 / 47       
What do you mean by fighting all the same units?

Leader of Liquid Fire. Animator Seb C.

One does not simply leave HG
Mechstra
Banned
posted 12 November 2006 17:51 EDT (US)     6 / 47       
I'm loving this game so far. Suffice to say that it's got R:TW's core gameplay mechanics but in a more interesting time period, in my opinion, as well as a more highly-developed atmosphere and mood and a lot of refinements and clever features.

Before giving some details of just what I love about it, I'll counter some of sgthunter's points.

Quote:

I got the game on friday so I had time to play troughout the weekend. I tried out a few nations and looked trough everything. How much troops they have, how many buildings you were able to build...and it wasn't alot. In Medieval 1 there were alot more units a nation could have. Now it fells like you are battleing with the same units all the time.


The unit count is actually higher for most nations, and more unique too. There are fewer situations with everyone being able to train Chivalric Sergeants, even if they have a regional variety which is superior in every way possible, including cost, as happened in M:TW. Buildings are also more varied and numerous, especially with the castle/city variation and the additions to ports, such as Merchants' Wharves and so on. Not to mention guild houses. Or how there are varieties of units in both militia and levy/professional form, such as Levy Spearmen from castles and Spear Militia from cities.

Quote:

And it sucks that there is only 1 era. Not like befor where you had Early, Late and Post eras.


I'm not exactly pleased that there are no varied starting points as in M:TW, but there wasn't in R:TW either and there's still a technological progression in the game.

Quote:

The dark ages are wierd. If the romans built paved roads everywhere, how come there are no roads to be found. You have to upgrade lvl 4 city to be able to build paved roads. And thats it, there are no highways eather. So it must take ALOT of years for a crusade to happen, wich by the way hans't happened to me in the game yet. It always ends up as failed.


Roman roads decayed greatly over time, and medieval period road-building was not exactly a refined science. Paved roads are perfectly adequate. Also, crusading armies move twice as fast/far as normal armies and you must be doing something wrong if you can't even get your crusades to their targets.

As to things I like about the game, take the armour upgrades. Gone is the 'armourer/armourer's workshop/armourer's guild' system of Medieval, or the similar Blacksmith/etc system of Rome - now, you need to build a progression of armourer buildings specific to the level of armour they'll provide, starting with the Leather Tanner, then on to the Blacksmith (for Light Mail), and so on. Also, these armour upgrades are more selectively applied than before. A leather tanner is hardly going to be able to supply a Feudal Knight with more armour than he has already - the first available upgrade for the Feudal Knight is partial plate. Units can't be infinitely upgraded, either - a standard Billman will never sport anything more than Light Mail, no matter how many armourers' buildings there are in the province that recruited/retrained him.

Recruitment pools work very well indeed once you figure out how to use them. Free-upkeep militia units in cities are also an excellent idea, and implementation. Merchants are cool but seem a bit too much of a sideshow right now - the income even from a high-level merchant on a resource is pretty small, in the tens rather than hundreds.

The trait system is great - I like the way there are 'hidden' attributes for characters, such as Priests having Piety as their main attribute but also having Violence, Purity, Unorthodoxy, and Eligibility as attributes that stay in the background, only mentioned in the bonuses of their traits or retinues. Allowing assassins to specialise in sabotage or killing is a nice touch, too.

I'm sure I'll think of other things, but this should do to be going on with.

Thomas Becket
Banned
posted 12 November 2006 18:29 EDT (US)     7 / 47       
Sounds so good!
sgthunter09
Legionary
posted 13 November 2006 09:53 EDT (US)     8 / 47       
I stand corrected =D
Ueriah
Legionary
posted 14 November 2006 19:22 EDT (US)     9 / 47       
Installing it as we speak. Er, type.

Been waiting for this day for 10 months now.

Had to explain to the boss that yes, I know I have some really big deals in the works, but this is Total War, man, and so I'll be taking my vacation days right after the release.

Which was a Crusade of sorts in and of itself! Here in North America, with the 14th as the release date, I just snarfed a copy from Best Buy. All the other stores don't get thiers til tommorrow. In carrying Mideval 2 a day ahead of the rest of the joints, Best Buy just won my Christmas business. Funny how this stuff works out, eh?

Should have review shortly.

Nice seeing everyone here again.

Thomas Becket
Banned
posted 14 November 2006 19:40 EDT (US)     10 / 47       
I went to Best Buy around 10Am today and I didn't find it! I went to Gamestop and EB Games and same thing..just couldn't find it...

Gonna try EB Games and Best Buy again later today.

Ueriah
Legionary
posted 14 November 2006 22:19 EDT (US)     11 / 47       
The game was released today, retailers don't typicially lose sleep about getting the game the day it comes out. Usually it's 2-3 days to ship. I had luck with Best Buy, but when I called them before 3pm EST they didn't have it - called Best Buy again at around 6pm EST and the guy told me they were just unpacking it.

Which is awesome, because I live in Rochester, NY, and was about to drive two hours north to Canada to buy it there.

So I installed it with no problems and decided to start my first campaign to see how much differant M2 is from Rome.

I always thought that Rome had been a pretty rich game, but was quite suprised at all the differant directions that they are taking this. There are a lot of things to keep an eye on in the campaign. The couple battles that I played were fun and the game has a lot of visual appeal over it's predessors.

But I sort of expected that from M2, having been a really big fan of Rome. The part that suprised me is all the detail that has gone into the diplomacy section over Rome's limited diplomacy. And the characters bring a lot of deapth to the game.

It's sort of hard to give a full review with only a couple hours of play into the game, but from what I've seen so far, I'd say that it turned out a little bit better then I expected, and I had high expectations for this game.

Thomas Becket
Banned
posted 14 November 2006 23:04 EDT (US)     12 / 47       
Ueriah, thank you! I found it at Best Buy=) GOOD CALL. Installing!
Thomas Becket
Banned
posted 15 November 2006 02:14 EDT (US)     13 / 47       
My Review (Updated as I go along):

Alright, first things first- this game is incredibly similiar to Rome: Total War. You will instantly know how to play it. If you were looking for a feeling of 'oooh' or 'ahhh', you came to the wrong place- even the battles look so similiar to Rome's, only with slightly enhances graphics.

However, this is not a bad thing. The game itself is very rich and detailed. The campaign map looks so much crisper and better now, and it is much, MUCH larger.

I will start by listing a few Pros and Cons I noticed after some 3 hours of play-

Pros:

- Enhances Graphics: Honestly, they look good, although I noticed that models without any pants have really ugly looking boxy legs. The campaign map also looks alot, ALOT better. Rivers flow, trees sway, the grass looks grittier, its much BIGGER.

- Campaign Map: Besides the graphical overhall, this probably has the biggest improvement in the game. First, the role of religion really is far more noticeable here. The pope is a fun aspect! Crusades are a little redundant, especially after you reach your target after years of moving about and spending money only to find a few peasants to kill. The feeling of grandeur behind a crusade doesn't last for long, but it might be more interesting in the later turns!

Diplomacy has been improved, and its fun- princesses work just like in MTW, which is fantastic. I haven't tried marrying one of the princesses to my own guys though!

Heirs are picked automatically- yes, it is nice, but sometimes the heir is one of those generals you let your daughter marry. I would have thought it would be better if the heir stayed within the royal bloodline- quite a dissapointment.

Merchants are really useless and I would not reccomend even contemplating them- they just slow down the 'loading' time since you have to watch merchants duke it out. Pressing space bar doesn't speed it up much.

The missions you get are actually all helpful and not so random as Rome's Senate Missions.

Interface has been substantially improved, but again, its similiarity to Rome is a let down- in my opinion, they should have completely rehauled the interface to make this game look as fresh as possible.

Battlemap: The AI has been improved. They seem to move more as an army than they did in Rome. And their movements seem to be well-coordinated and planned. I got thrashed many times. However, I am dissapointed with several bugs.

It would seem that cavalry are incapable of comprehending the words 'CHARGE', infantry mull about in the back while 3 or 4 of their friends (out of a 150 man unit) take on the enemy (and the enemy would do likewise), and the enemy stops short of charging unless you make the first move.

Alot of these bugs are a little bit of a game killer:\. They honestly detract from the overall enjoyement. Knowing that my next big battle with France is going to end up in me slowly shooting them down with my arrows, or my cavalry just standing there and getting killed, is a bummer.

AI also seems to be incapable of reacting to arrow fire- I brought a bunch of javelin horsemen in a custom battle on VH to the generals horse unit and he just stood there as I picked him off- they didn't even send another unit to help him out. This wouldn't even happen in Rome.

I think the underlying problem is the one that will be fixed in the patch- AI expects you to make the first move, and arrows/javelins don't count as a first move.

Dissapointing that we have to wait two weeks for such a crucial fix!

The battlemap interface is dissapointing as well. I just stuck to Rome's. I was hoping to return to Medieval's, but the so-called 'minimal UI' is actually more obnoxious than Rome's was. You have buttons at the top center, a big map on the top right corner, and a unit scroll at the bottom right. The map is huge and is not transparent the way it was in Medieval 1. The buttons on the top seem to be way too much, and instead of laying them all out at the top they layed them on top of each other, so it covers way more of the screen than it should. Overall I would not reccomend this UI. A shame.

Current Verdict:

I'm still playing, but so far, I am pleased, but I have not been completely impressed. It is a wonderful game, but the game-killing bugs (surprisingly not mentioned in those official reviews) and the game's striking similiarity to Rome- the interface is identical and the battles even more so- even the general's speeches are quite similiar to Rome in presenation (though the voicework is much better)--really blows away any 'wow' factor.

I DEFINATELY reccomend it though, for any total war fan, but if you're willing to wait, honeslty don't make the mistake I made in playing this too early- wait for the patch in 2 weeks, it makes a difference.

Spitfire_UK
Legionary
posted 15 November 2006 12:23 EDT (US)     14 / 47       
Bloody awesome, that's what it is!

The battles are absolutely fantastic. The graphics beautiful. I'm having great, great fun.

Ever since we had Medieval 1, then Rome, I've been dying for this game to come out. Romes engine with the Medieval time zone.

Best of the lot for me.


EASY, EASY, EASY..... You SHUDUUUUUUUPPPP!!!!
Gladiador
Legionary
posted 15 November 2006 16:32 EDT (US)     15 / 47       
@Thomas Becket

maybe it is smarter for them to stay in a position because if they give chase they will never catch the archers and just get tired and loose formation which makes them more vulnerable.


(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This is bunny. Copy bunny into your siginature to help him on his way to world domination!

eeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeee

Thomas Becket
Banned
posted 15 November 2006 18:57 EDT (US)     16 / 47       
No, I don't think Cavalry have any problem chasing archers, actually, cavalary are alot more up to speed in this game, they can catch routers and archers better than in Rome, where it took ages to chase down running fools.

But the problem is, they don't respond!

Brock88
Legionary
posted 15 November 2006 23:51 EDT (US)     17 / 47       
Just got it today. Played as the English for about 30 turns.

- The engine and the graphics are pretty much just like Rome's, maybe updated a little bit, but definitely nothing major.
-The campaign map is alot more cluttered with agents and agents and armies. There seems to be people everywhere. It's confusing sometimes.
- I don't really see the "smarter AI", I have only played 2 open plain fields so far, and I have kicked the AI's butt with my superior number of cavalries flanking them. This is on hard
-Seiges are alot more tougher than Rome's. First of all, England has shitty infantry, my best infantries gets beaten by longbowmen in hand to hand combat. Their strength seems to be in archers.
-Although you get more info now in diplomacy. They don't actually help. It's just more info. AIs seems to accept the same kind of deals and reject the same kind of deals. The info screen may tell you if it's fair or not, but it doesn;t tell you what's fair/unfair about it, and what you can do to make the AI accept the deal.
-There seems to be a lot of pirates in the english channel, totally devastated my little navy.
-I noticed a little pathfinding mistakes in sieges. I found my infantries sometimes getting stuck on the walls.

Now on to questions:
1. How do I change my army into a crusading army? Which button do I press
2. What the heck does the merchants do? Their "4 florin per turn" income hardly even pays for the merchant itself. Also what determines who's the victor when two merchants duke it out?
3. Are they any good infantry for the english?


Never lie, steal, cheat, or drink. But if you must lie, lie in the arms of the one you love. If you must steal, steal away from bad company. If you must cheat, cheat death. And if you must drink, drink in the moments that take your breath away.
Winner of 2005 OD : Best Ownage, Funniest Newbie, and Dinoman Award
"Mastering Others is Strength, Mastering yourself makes you fearless -Lao Tzu"
Primo
Legionary
(id: Marcus Orentius)
posted 16 November 2006 05:14 EDT (US)     18 / 47       
1. Select the army you want to go on crusade and in the general's panel, at the bottom, press the join crusade button.

2. Take them to the holy land, they bring in far more income that way.

3.Haven't you played the battle of Agincourt?


Exilian - a website for mods for Mount&Blade, Rome Total War, Empire Total War and news about Shogun 2: Total War
"There is no extreme metal, death metal, progressive metal or vegetarian metal." - Tryhard
"Light infantry, rangers, and riflemen all have the unique ability to pull yard-long poles from their arseholes and plant them in order to stave off cavalry." - BurningSushi460
Ace Cataphract
HG Alumnus
(id: Ace_Cataphract)
posted 16 November 2006 18:36 EDT (US)     19 / 47       
So far, these are my two cents on the battle system. I've only two complaints about it, which I'll get out of the way first.

The first - cavalry. They seem to be a bit more difficult to control and less obedient, esspecially when it comes to charging, though that's partly my fault since I realize that they charge better if you get them to stop completely before the charge, though they should at least charge a little even if you order them right into an enemy unit.

The other HUGE gripe I have is with gunners. Handgunners, Arquebusiers, and Musketeers are horrible units. No, their guns are, indeed, excellent weapons, however, they themselves are horribly done. The whole line rotation is terrible. It means that after firing once they lines rotate and they spend the greater part of a minute changing their formation then about another 15 seconds standing there before they raise their guns and take 10 more seconds to fire. I've fought whole battles in Custom Battles and online where I've had gunners fire only once or twice the entire time. It makes them kind of worthless. I really hope CA revises this terrible situations. I mean, I thought that in Medieval, they were annoying because their reload time was long, but here, it's not even about the reload time, it's about them doing such unnecessary things, like having to be in a perfect line in order to fire.

Apart from those two things, my opinion of the battle system is solid. Sieges are appropriately more difficult. The AI isn't HUGELY improved, but it's certainly better than Rome's AI to the point where I've actually get Narrow Victories or Average Victories when I play Custom Battles as opposed to winning Clear Victories. Of course it's always annoying that the reason they're tougher on Hard and Very Hard is less because the AI's legitimately better, but because your men rout more easily.

The period system is more fun as it allows more fun battles, IMO as is the system of Florins per team as per Medieval Total War. It's excellent as you can balance it for sieges and lopsided maps. Hopefully people online take advantage of the excellent possibilities of money balancing.

The graphics - infintely better. They're simply excellent. They might not actually be too far ahead of Rome's but they're far enough. This, coupled with the fact that men in the units are fairly unique, makes the grapics extremely impressive.

It also seems that certain units have been balanced differently. Light units are no longer worthless against heavy units. I've had Sword and Buckler Men who are registered as light infantry hold off far heavier infantry and Almughavars have done similar things, being able to hold off fairly heavy cavalry.

Over all, it seems that balance is far better from what I've played. Factions are better balanced with their units even though they have diverse units with different roles as opposed to being lopsided or being balanced by being generic.


I put a dollar in one of those change machines. Nothing changed. ~George Carlin

[This message has been edited by Ace Cataphract (edited 11-16-2006 @ 06:51 PM).]

Mechstra
Banned
posted 16 November 2006 19:41 EDT (US)     20 / 47       
Funnily enough, Ace, the cavalry charging and gunpowder units constantly reforming if they take any casualties and so on are bugs that are being addressed by CA for the first patch.

Also, this time, on Hard and Very Hard the morale and fatigue penalties are applied to the AI's units too. So both sides are quicker to rout and so on, not just the human player's.

[This message has been edited by Andrew Dunn (edited 11-16-2006 @ 07:42 PM).]

Thomas Becket
Banned
posted 17 November 2006 12:11 EDT (US)     21 / 47       
The more I play this game the more I realize how great it is! Did you guys notice that you can no longer march straight through enemy territory?

That's both good and bad- bad because sometimes strategically it would make sense for you to skip the tough castle and cut it off from the other ones...

But obviously, thanks to this feature, which is both good and bad, we are forced to take castles on our immediate borders.

Ace Cataphract
HG Alumnus
(id: Ace_Cataphract)
posted 17 November 2006 12:26 EDT (US)     22 / 47       

Quote:

Funnily enough, Ace, the cavalry charging and gunpowder units constantly reforming if they take any casualties and so on are bugs that are being addressed by CA for the first patch.


Oh, yea, I know about the patches, but it's still worth the complaint. Again, for the cavalry it's not very unrealistic. However, I also learned that the deeper you keep gunner formations, the worse they perform. Keeping them in shallow lines is best because they do a lot less shuffling and their firing rate is stepped up pretty drastically.

Quote:

Also, this time, on Hard and Very Hard the morale and fatigue penalties are applied to the AI's units too. So both sides are quicker to rout and so on, not just the human player's.


Hmmm...are you sure about that? I mean I hardly notice the fatigue changes, but it kind of defeats the purpose of increasing the difficulty level if the computer also has less morale.

I put a dollar in one of those change machines. Nothing changed. ~George Carlin
Mechstra
Banned
posted 17 November 2006 13:20 EDT (US)     23 / 47       
Yes, I'm sure. The Hard and Very Hard difficulties now rely on equal penalties for both sides and improved AI rather than stacking bonuses on the AI.
Thomas Becket
Banned
posted 17 November 2006 14:17 EDT (US)     24 / 47       
I honestly find routing/morale/etc... to be so vastly improved over RTW its almost magical. Units do not route easily, and IMO if you especially play on HUGE unit size, you will have up to 10 minute battles. Which is something else, Rome's lasted barely a minute or two.

What I've read in previews etc..., is that on VH/VH morale and routing bonuses don't count- it is the unit size that affects morale and routing. Vh/Vh just improves AI responses.

Supposedly, of course.

Gladiador
Legionary
posted 17 November 2006 21:24 EDT (US)     25 / 47       
been playing the english for 30 turns, at first it so-so but then it gets way better. the graphics are good, nice archers

i don't have the same problems with the cavalry, they are very obedient to my orders.

The game is very good but the only thing is that my head hurts for playing the game.


(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This is bunny. Copy bunny into your siginature to help him on his way to world domination!

eeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeee

« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Total War Heaven | HeavenGames