If they couldn't improve the AI in siege battles to be not-cringe worthy
these fuckers havent made a great game since med 2
they havent even made an average game since napoleon
Med 2 was shit without mods and clear decline compared to Medieval 1
these fuckers havent made a great game since med 2
they havent even made an average game since napoleon
Med 2 was shit without mods and clear decline compared to Medieval 1
Med 2 had some of the clunkiest battles and sieges. Dunno what you guys are talking about, but med 2 sieges <<<<attila ones. Units would get stuck on the walls, siege towers took forever to unload, the pathfinding in the streets was HORRID, the worst in any game I've played. Units would get stuck on building and every siege would end in a last stand as the AI routed to the city centre.
Only way medieval 2 could be enjoyed was with mods and by never playing sieges. Even land battles were clunky but the mods made it nice at least.
Med 2 would be great if cavalry wasn't so overpowered.
Do you remember in Empire TW when every unit had hooks and rope for wall climbing?http://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Siege_Q_and_A
We've had a lot of questions from the community following our recent siege videos, and so we thought we'd take the time to answer some of them...
Ladder Deployment
We took the decision pretty early on to not include functionality and animations for troops carrying and deploying ladders.
There are certain considerations about the large number and combination of animation states between all the different unit types, that could be better used elsewhere, but the main reason was for gameplay improvements.
Essentially, we found it pretty questionable gameplay-wise in having units carrying ladders to the wall, it’s clumsy when you are trying to co-ordinate your attack, managing the picking up and putting down of ladders while you are marshalling your forces forward and reacting to the defenders’ actions. It also means that when playing against an attacking AI or other player, the defender has the advantage of picking off those troops carrying ladders when there’s little the assaulting side can do to mitigate that. Yes, it would be more realistic, but we don’t believe that there’s enjoyable gameplay there on the whole.
In the process of designing the game, we of course have to make conceits and compromises to produce a better gameplay outcome, and we don’t think that having ladders appear at the walls is too much of an immersion-breaker when traded against the benefits of smoother, more flexible and stronger gameplay.
Similarly, units will teleport or drop straight down the inside face of walls, because being able to form up quickly and effectively off of a wall rather than filing one-by-one out of a door or down a ladder before forming up again, makes for smoother and more interesting gameplay that is less exploitable by the opposing player.
What’s the advantage of siege equipment/towers when every unit has ladders?
As mentioned in the Siege Blog, ladders are an option for breaching the walls that all non-monstrous infantry units have, but it is a high risk tactic due to the exposure and debuff the unit will get verses defenders. Siege Towers are very advantageous in that not only do they protect the unit within them from enemy fire under approach (and also soak up incoming fire protecting the rest of your army), but the unit in them immediately deploys on the wall, fresh, the instant they dock.
That of course makes them a prime target for defenders so you’ll need to consider and support their use. However, even a siege tower that gets destroyed halfway to the walls has often served an important shielding purpose, and even its wreckage can continue to provide some cover for units advancing under fire.
I've never played a Total War game but I'm pretty hyped for this game because of strategy + Warhammer.
try this http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?1377-Call-of-Warhammer
pick the 1.51 cause the 1.6 version is still in beta and buggy as hell.
these fuckers havent made a great game since med 2
they havent even made an average game since napoleon
Med 2 was shit without mods and clear decline compared to Medieval 1
I've never played a Total War game but I'm pretty hyped for this game because of strategy + Warhammer.
try this http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?1377-Call-of-Warhammer
pick the 1.51 cause the 1.6 version is still in beta and buggy as hell.
I made a retard friendly install of 1.51 that just needs to be extracted to your mods folder with all of the mini fixes and patches installed in order for /twg/ a couple months back for multiplayer. If anyone's interested you can download it here.
these fuckers havent made a great game since med 2
they havent even made an average game since napoleon
Med 2 was shit without mods and clear decline compared to Medieval 1
In a way he's right. There were so many neat little features they stripped out going from Medieval 1 to Rome like named officers in every unit with stats and traits they could earn with titles you could grant them for governing over regions, dismounting knights before battle, the ability to choose which side of a rebellion you want to fight for, and betraying allies mid battle. The simplicity of the campaign map makes the AI do retarded things less often too. I do think Medieval 2 is an improvement over Rome though and mods like Bellum Crucis and CoW are why I still play M2 to this day.
TW never was a grandstrategy game. In MTW and STW, at least, the strategic layer played more or less the same role as the one in Jagged Alliance: give some context to the battles, and make you care for the outcome.Meh. Med 1 map was too simple, would be nice to choose the actual terrain you want to fight in, the location etc. But CA is too incompetent to do that properly.
Might as well ditch the grand campaign shit and just have a series of historical battles. TW sucks as a grandstrat game anyway.