MTW:VI vs VI2

[MasterOfNone]

For those who have played (and loved) Medieval Total War: Viking Invasion, what about it did you find so appealing - or not so appealing - and how does this compare with Viking Invasion II?

Has anyone actually played MTW:VI for the first time because of VI2?

Did anyone go out and buy RTW/BI because of VI2? Or at least look it up out of curiosity?

How well, given the nature of the engine, does VI2 bring the atmosphere of VI2 to BI?

Why do you like VI2 if you have never seen or played MTW:VI previously?

Discuss such things in this thread - we'd love to hear your thoughts!

[leonn]

the first viking invasion was great because it was a very focused campaign,the vikings were the only ones who could land anywhere while others had to land at a port.which meant of course that you could play vikings properly ie raid,slaughter,enslave and burn everything down.the music from vi1 was brilliant and the fact that youve included it makes the mod.mtw1 in many ways was a better game than mtw2,glorious achievements mode for example added depth and a real medieval feel to the game,while mtw2 feels a little like rtw in different clothes.vi2 brought back that exitement and period feel that mtw2 lacks.vi2 could be tweaked in my opinion by allowing vikings for example the ability to burn stuff down on the battlemap with fire arrows.manys the settlement my little psychos have trashed with thatched buildings blatently standing there unburnable!also,if a church is shown in a settlement it would be nice to see it (and wreck it,naturally),ive taken a few that still have pagan stones where a church should be.these are however details,i reinstalled rome and bi just to play this mod because the original was so brilliant,and you have more than done it justice.yes there are a few things you could do to make it even better,but if it stays just as it is i will keep playing because youve brought back something mtw2 was a little bit lacking in,fun!

[Aradan]

Making buildings on the battle-field burnable by fire arrows is beyond the capabilities of the RTW engine. What else do you think we could improve?

[leonn]

ok,just my own opinion.dont know if these would work within the confines of the engine but here gos.factions,there were of course more than the few you have during this period,dublin for example was its own viking kingdom with its own kings.ireland was full of petty kings of minor kingdoms who were always at war with one another,and alliances betwixt them and the vikings were not uncommon.the vikings had many settlements in ireland,cork,limerick,waterford,wexford and wicklow being the major ones.the dublin vikings became the traditional allies of the kings of leinster which led to them fighting for them against the high king brian boru at clontarf.i suppose it depends on how complex youd like the mod to be.in any event i think the viking factions could do with someone to bribe and strike deals,nothing so wussy as a diplomat,how about a godi?godi were the speakers of the will of the gods,many viking kings,chiefs and armys had them present to cast the runes and read omens,you could use them as pagan diplomats whos presence speeds up pagan conversion.the vikings also had many smaller kings,york,the orkneys,the isle of man.there were 6 kings on one side in one battle! all this may be beside the point of what your trying to do so if im way off base then let me know!

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

VI2 is good I still love MTW 1 because it has that classic appeal.

[Aradan]

Well, yeah, some of the things you want done are beyond the scope of the mod and would take a full team and/or many more months to do, so we'll have to pass. We tried to stay loyal to the original VI, not make a historical mod about the period. Gameplay is our number 1 goal (apart from quality and stability, obviously).

But, we digress, the topic of the thread is to tell us how awesome VI2 is discuss the VI2/VI comparison.

[leonn]

i know,too enthusiastic.but how about this? is it possible to give all vikings who have shields the shieldwall ability? it was the first tactic i learned when i reenacted the vik,that along with the boars snout,which is a wedge shaped shield wall used to break up formations.both these formations are mentioned in numerous primary sources,but is it possible with the engine?

[Aradan]

All non-spearmen Viking units with shield already have shield-wall, spear and shield-wall in the viking style don't go well together. Wedge for infantry isn't possible on this engine, no.

[Mr Mac]

I just love the time period. I had purchased the battle chest in 2004, and I played a lot more MTW: VI than the vanilla MTW. The vanilla MTW was sort of boring an unappealing to me. Viking Invasion was an interesting experience for me because I LOVE anything and everything to do with Dark Age Britain.

I loved how you could play as some pretty out there factions, (Ireland, Picts, Scotland) so it definitely appealed to me.

I'll admit I haven't played the Viking Invasion 2 mod yet, but Rome Total War has superb graphics compared to medieval1, and presents a far more detailed scope of an already great gameplay experience.

[Keyser Soze]

Mr Mac, try Viking Invasion II . it could be good method how you can spend your time it is the best mod for RTW/BI.

[Hippias]

I was a day 1 purchaser of the original VI and this updated baby brings all the goodtimes back.

The MAP (I REALLY like the map) - although it may be my memory but was not a bit more of the shetland's/orkneys shown in the original game? After a couple of years besieging Alexandria with the Seleucids in rome era mods it is wonderfully surreal to be besieging Wantage with 400 welshmen....

The only thing from the original that seems to be missing is Loyalty/Civil Wars, which used to liven up things spankingly as a disinherited heir with low loyalty would split the kingdom. strange this, because with VI2 based on the BI exec surely there is enough spare faction slots to have loyalty for all....??

Improvements over the original - sieges (something that the old graphices couldn't really handle) which would be even more mighty with ladders....but I have seen the other threads where ladders = siege towers = won't be done.......shame there is not a work around.

[Aradan]

The loyalty/rebellion features are tied to "shadowing" factions, which have some unpleasant side-effects we opted to leave out of the game. And yes, ladders without towers is impossible, so we had to settle for no ladders.

Glad you're finding this on par with VI.

[Hippias]

Should also mention the excellent province information that you can read when selecting a town - don't recall that in the original.

Not allowing horseman on ships - masterstroke - also not in the original????

The same music is a boon.

As far as possible, considering the difference between the two engines, the battle atmosphere is very similar, but I seem to recall in the original most battles seemed to have flocks or individual birds flying across (ravens no doubt) making highly atmospheric "ravenny" sounds.

Did I mention I liked the map? Battles in forests are enormous fun now.

Don't suppose you would consider a suitably basic Dark Ages style siege tower (ever seen The War Lord with Charlton Heston?) as a means to sneaking ladders in....

[cherryfunk]

Can you modify how many 'build points' siege towers require? Perhaps you could make them enormously expensive, so that ladders are the only realistic option?

[FFJean]

I agree with Hippias, the War Lord is just great ;-)
FFJean

[Aradan]

I'm not aware (and I believe neither is MoN) of a way to modify building points for each engine.

No, mounted units could cross the sea in the original, this was one of our own tricksies.

[FFJean]

Dear Aradan,
The fact that mounted units can't cross the sea is a really great idea. Although I must say I loathed it when I had to disband my experienced Cav units in Ireland to have enough money to build lousy, unexperienced Inf units to invade England. But again, this is a very good idea, and participate to the challenge, as well as being very much historical.
Yours,
FFJean

[leonn]

i agree with mounted units not being allowed on boats,makes for a better game.but im not sure how accurate it is.in 886 a great viking host came to england and having wintered at fulham then decended on the continent where they carved a trail of mayhem and destruction for over a decade.in 892 however they were defeated in battle by arnulf king of francia.the army then returned to england bringing with it from boulogne its own horses.while the vikings prefered to fight on foot,and were uncomfortable fighting against cavalry,the did field their own such as at the battles of sulcoit in ireland in 968,and montfaucon in france in 888,at which the chronicler abbo of fleury implies a large body of viking cavalry were present,fighting seperatly from their infantry.they usually used horses to increase mobility while raiding,and seemed to aquire cavalry having defeated an enemy and taking their horses as is recorded in the anglo-saxon chronicles under the years 999 and 1010.

[MasterOfNone]

Yes, the Danish Horsemen in VI2 are riding British horses (they would use the local horses according to what I have read). I believe the Scandinvian ones were quite small too.

We've allowed the boats to carry small numbers of costly mounts, but this only applies to the Celtic factions' bodyguards.

[leonn]

i think the horses they used were roughly equivalent to our modern highland ponys,extremly hardy and strong but relativly small,around 14 hands or so.also i seem to recall the bayeux tapestry shows the normans transporting their horses over to england.