This game is annoying

[Fandango]

For instance, I try to move my cavalry but it takes them forever to MOVE!! And when they do, they are just striding normally. In rome, it's a hell of a lot better. Double clicks on the target and the cavalry set off instantly.

Also, I find it difficult to adhere to formation and tactics in M2TW, it seems to me that it's more about charging. In Rome I found myself using tactics and setting out my armies before an attack/defence.

Overall, it's just an annoying game. Not to mention the fact that the medieval period of history was boring.

[duda]

annoying? go play guitar hero then if you ain't got the patience for one of the best if not best strategy games ever...

[Hazzy101]

Why do people come on forums just to moan? ps. nothing is boring if it has guns in it

[GVP]

MTW2 and RTW are so simmilar you can't say you liked one and hated the other.

ps. nothing is boring if it has guns in it

So true

[AlexTheGood]

ps. nothing is boring if it has guns in it

How can be Guns funny??? :hmmm:

[Wizzerdrix]

How can be Guns funny??? :hmmm:

I agree, I prefer bows and crossbows and other primitive shooting weapons. Modern day warfare is so lame and boring, I wish it was still like in the old days. But since there is gunpowder units in M2TW I like using them. Nothing beats blasting your enemies to pieces with cannons or mongolian rocket launchers before the battle has even started, haha.

[syntax_error]

How can be Guns funny??? :hmmm:

Pull a trigger and there's a loud boom, it rocks your body, and someone dies. How can that not be fun!?!?

(don't worry, it's cool, living with Marines has made my slightly morbid...)

[Sparkshot]

I don't know, probably the most memorable element of RTW was the ease of making money. Just by controlling a few provinces I had so much money I didn't know what to do with it. I actually spent money on things my provinces didn't really need--I never looked at my treasury after the first couple of turns. In Medieval 2, you can eventually make money but never on the same scale as Rome unless you controlled half of Europe.

Back on topic, yes I can find Medieval 2 annoying on many different levels but I look past it and have fun. It's the best out there and beggars can't be choosers I guess. Plus, I heard the reason why Medieval 2 was subpar compared to Rome was because the CA Australian branch developed it, as opposed to the UK branch that developed Rome. That being said, Medieval 2 was probably just a filler before a new IP (Empire) was released. So hopefully that means Empire will meet our expectation since UK is back on the bandwagon.

[AlexTheGood]

Pull a trigger and there's a loud boom, it rocks your body, and someone dies. How can that not be fun!?!?

(don't worry, it's cool, living with Marines has made my slightly morbid...)

Flame Removed I will see you in a war getting shot, to see if it is fun or not...

[stormbringer951]

I will see you in a war getting shot, to see if it is fun or not...

Alex, aren't you over-reacting a bit? He's obviously not being totally serious...

[D.B. Cooper]

I don't know, probably the most memorable element of RTW was the ease of making money. Just by controlling a few provinces I had so much money I didn't know what to do with it. I actually spent money on things my provinces didn't really need--I never looked at my treasury after the first couple of turns. In Medieval 2, you can eventually make money but never on the same scale as Rome unless you controlled half of Europe.

Yeah it was too easy to make money in Vanilla RTW. It was a huge shock when I tried EB and was deep in the red after a few turns. Turns out a few ship units were dragging my economy down. Medieval 2 is better, I was riding high about 5 turns ago but fell down again to almost nothing for a few turns after. Then I had to sack every city I came across to jumpstart my economy again.

[syntax_error]

I will see you in a war getting shot, to see if it is fun or not...

The other guy was right, I'm not being serious. It's all in good fun.

As far as being in a war and getting shot, I took two 7.62mm rounds to my left thigh and one more on the left side of my abdomen (luckily it didn't hit anything other than muscle & skin) when I was in Jalalabad a couple years back. I know it sucks and it's not fun.

But it's cool, I shot him back (again, j/k. slack off, it's how i deal with it)

But, I'm not going to get into a bash on some other guys thread. Start a new thread if you really want to push the issue....

[jsktrogdor]

Overall, it's just an annoying game. Not to mention the fact that the medieval period of history was boring.

I dont want to offend you by questioning your logic, but out of curiosity why did you buy the game if you dont like the period?

[stormbringer951]

Total War fan? Just buys all TW games? I dunno

I agree with him on the tactics actually. In Rome, I maneuvred around a lot. In medieval, I tend to actually use medieval tactics, such as throwing low quality foot troops into the meatgrinder, while smashing enemy formation with an armored charge. In Rome, there was actual battlefield tactics I used, while in Medieval, I tend towards setting up a good beginning formation and just trusting to the knights to do the work when I counter-charge a poor enemy attacking formation.

However, the cavalry reacted way too quickly in Rome, and in many cases it was too overpowered. An instant charge from five metres out? I hated it when that happened in Rome.

[D.B. Cooper]

However, the cavalry reacted way too quickly in Rome, and in many cases it was too overpowered. An instant charge from five metres out? I hated it when that happened in Rome.

I agree with you on that. In Rome I could rout four units of archers with my general, head on. I found out the hard way that a couple units of archers could force my own general to retreat. Now I'm afraid to flank. Even the men who operate artillery at too strong. Realism or a wakeup call to Rome players?

[Retribution]

Are you being serious?

If you dont like this game, dont play it. Dont come to a forum ABOUT THE GAME, and moan about it.

And also, relating to what trog said, why did you buy it if you dont like the medieval period? Not a very smart move was it?

[Angrychris]

rome is better but metw2 is still extremely fun

[Wheelchair]

Only reason I don't play Rome campaign is cause the cities income can go negative, That just angers me.

[stormbringer951]

Only reason I don't play Rome campaign is cause the cities income can go negative, That just angers me.

It doesn't. In Rome, it calculates how much money you'll lose and assign that to your cities. So you aren't losing money from the cities, it's just that it shows exactly how much net money you are making (rather than in M2TW, where it shows you how much moneyo you are making from the city, and then minuses the losses at the beginning of your turn)

[boofhead]

It doesn't. In Rome, it calculates how much money you'll lose and assign that to your cities. So you aren't losing money from the cities, it's just that it shows exactly how much net money you are making (rather than in M2TW, where it shows you how much moneyo you are making from the city, and then minuses the losses at the beginning of your turn)

I believe in RTW it relates to your armies/generals....if you look at the settlement scroll deductions for army upkeep are made according to the size of the settlement, so you may get negatives in some settlements but when you add all settlements together you're definitely making a profit (unless you are doing something very foolish).