Comparing MTW to M2TW

[Guerrilla]

Cons:
-The game contains too many historical inaccuracy... why are the Mongols Islamic instead of Pagan?

The Mongols had multiple religions, including shamanism, islam, christianity and buddhism.

[Kaiser Nonsense]

Here you can post similar comparisons to mine

I recently started re-playing the original MTW, so I thought I could compare it with M2TW:

Medieval II Total War:
Pros:
-Nice graphics
-Cool sound effects
-I like the fact that now the game is tile-based, instead of region-based
-I like how diplomacy is handled, and that you can give lands, etc.
-I like how heretics appear, and you have to denounce them
-I really love the recruitment system! Now you don't have to worry about slow recruitment anymore!
-I like the fact that the game is relatively easy to mod, unlike the original MTW
-I like the fact that you can discover America
-Good to see some additional factions, like Scotland and Portugal
-I love the fact that your characters finally talk... They are so alive!
Cons:
-The game contains too many historical inaccuracy... why are the Mongols Islamic instead of Pagan? Why are there so many rebel settlements on the map at the beginning? Why is Törcsvár named Bran? And why is Törcsvár even the "capital city" of Transylvania to begin with (Kolozsvár was the center of Transylvania during the Middle Ages)? And Budapest... that city did not even exist up until they were connected by the bridges!
-Rather unrealistic with many factors
-You can't control and train inquisitors anymore
-Music is too Hollywood-ish to my taste... I'd like to hear authentic medieval music on the strategy map (similar to Empire Total War)... battles are a different matter
-Too many fantasy units... like, what is the difference between English/Portuguese Knights and Feudal/Chivalric Knights? And why can you recruit them in the Sahara if you capture it?
-I miss many of the old generic units... like, the fact that every Catholic faction could recruit Crossbowmen, Archers, Men-At-Arms, Sergeants, Urban Militia...
-I miss many of the old buildings, like Spearsmith, Swordsmith, Monastery, etc.
-I hate the fact that you have to choose between City and Castle. Why can't you have both at the same time? It worked that way in real life...

Not entirely unrealistic, Sir. Castles and cities WERE indeed different, the kind of fief which produced more income, had more populace was a city, in a city you can't have the same military structure and drill the soldiers in the streets. The Mongols are Islamic simply because it wasn't worth creating a whole faction system Pagan just for the Mongols. The cities are like that because they represent a time under Hungarian control and the name is Bran in English, so is Oporto (Portugal, which in Portuguese is simply Porto, now why would they add an O in English is beyond me, but it is). And Bran was very important in the middle ages, both by military and strategic values. It was first built by the Teutonic Knights, as a wood stronghold, simple, when it fell to the Mongols, the King of Hungary made the stone castle, which exist up to today.

[Reimu Hakurei]

Not entirely unrealistic, Sir. Castles and cities WERE indeed different, the kind of fief which produced more income, had more populace was a city, in a city you can't have the same military structure and drill the soldiers in the streets. The Mongols are Islamic simply because it wasn't worth creating a whole faction system Pagan just for the Mongols. The cities are like that because they represent a time under Hungarian control and the name is Bran in English, so is Oporto (Portugal, which in Portuguese is simply Porto, now why would they add an O in English is beyond me, but it is). And Bran was very important in the middle ages, both by military and strategic values. It was first built by the Teutonic Knights, as a wood stronghold, simple, when it fell to the Mongols, the King of Hungary made the stone castle, which exist up to today.

Törcsvár (or "Bran") was built by the Teutonic knights, but it wasn't around in 1080 - in fact, the Teutonic Knights themselves didn't really exist either.
Also, at the time, Gyulafehérvár was the centre of Transylvania, not Törcsvár.
And the Mongols being Islamic is simply unrealistic, period. Many mods fix that, fortunately.
Also, the capital of Hungary was Esztergom at the time, not Buda. Budapest didn't even exist until 1870, when Buda and Pest were joined by bridges. (Buda was made capital in the 14th century.... Pest was originally settled by Muslim Volga-Bulgar merchants, then Germans after Muslims were exiled in the 13th century)

And I loathe the idea of "English" names for non-English cities and provinces. Let them be in their own native names. I always do that in my mods.
Köln, NOT Cologne.
Wien, NOT Vienna.
Roma, NOT Rome.
Venezia, NOT Venice.
Al-Qahira, NOT Cairo.
Konstantinapoulis, NOT Constantinapole.
Moskva, NOT Moscow.
And the list goes on.

[Kaiser Nonsense]

Törcsvár (or "Bran") was built by the Teutonic knights, but it wasn't around in 1080 - in fact, the Teutonic Knights themselves didn't really exist either.
Also, at the time, Gyulafehérvár was the centre of Transylvania, not Törcsvár.
And the Mongols being Islamic is simply unrealistic, period. Many mods fix that, fortunately.
Also, the capital of Hungary was Esztergom at the time, not Buda. Budapest didn't even exist until 1870, when Buda and Pest were joined by bridges. (Buda was made capital in the 14th century.... Pest was originally settled by Muslim Volga-Bulgar merchants, then Germans after Muslims were exiled in the 13th century)

And I loathe the idea of "English" names for non-English cities and provinces. Let them be in their own native names. I always do that in my mods.
Köln, NOT Cologne.
Wien, NOT Vienna.
Roma, NOT Rome.
Venezia, NOT Venice.
Al-Qahira, NOT Cairo.
Konstantinapoulis, NOT Constantinapole.
Moskva, NOT Moscow.
And the list goes on.

Mr Hentai, I know perfectly that the Teutonic Knights built it in the 13th century and the Order was created in the 12th century. However, is that outside of the medieval time? No? Good, there is your answer, it was important in the Medieval era, and as you can't create settlements or new ones appears out of nothing after certain time, it was implemented in the beginning of the game. And it's ridiculous how you loathe the game due to some minimal details.

[Lord Jake]

Both games are good, but I must admit I don't miss the crying babies every time someone cranked out new kid...

[Kataphractos]

Sometimes I even forgot that I had an army in some regions.

Nothing like looking over your core region late in the game and finding a fort you don't recall building, and on inspecting it you find nothing but spear militia and levy archers...units you haven't produced in over 200 turns (speaking from SS experience).

Both games are good, but I must admit I don't miss the crying babies every time someone cranked out new kid...

Or clicking through every single faction and construction announcement, especially if you had a larger empire...

-I miss many of the old buildings, like Spearsmith, Swordsmith, Monastery, etc.

The downside to that though is that you pretty much had to have your regions specialize in a particular unit or two for production, which worked in some areas because IIRC, units could get a training or valor bonus if they were trained in a particular region. Granted, specialization mattered less later in the game as your regions were built up...

-I like the fact that now the game is tile-based, instead of region-based

Nothing is more infuriating than marching your army right up to an enemy city/castle garrisoned by a single unit and, despite being right outside its gate, you can't attack because you're just a pixel too far away. And then on next turn they've brought in like two+ stacks to counterattack you.

[Dr. Conquest]

Nothing is more infuriating than marching your army right up to an enemy city/castle garrisoned by a single unit and, despite being right outside its gate, you can't attack because you're just a pixel too far away. And then on next turn they've brought in like two+ stacks to counterattack you.

I might just have the solution for that (see paragraph 2 of 4):

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post12602059

Whether it can be used in any given instance depends somewhat on the troop movements and unit types available to you, but I have employed it successfully on more than one occasion.

[Aeratus]

I agree that the castle vs. city distinction was a very poor design choice. There are mainly two problems.

First, historically, castles existed within cities, and did not necessarily exist as a standalone.

Examples:
- Citadel of Aleppo - only 5 medieval castles in the world were larger than this
- Edinburgh castle - prime example of the reason that castles should be upgradable into cities
- Citadel of Cairo
- Castle of Seven Towers in Constantinople

Secondly, there is no reason for castles to be able to train higher quality troops than cities. This is because, as explained above, many cities had large castles within the city, and many cities were resident to feudal nobility.

[Kataphractos]

First, historically, castles existed within cities, and did not necessarily exist as a standalone.

Examples:
- Citadel of Aleppo - only 5 medieval castles in the world were larger than this
- Edinburgh castle - prime example of the reason that castles should be upgradable into cities
- Citadel of Cairo
- Castle of Seven Towers in Constantinople

You forgot the most famous example of all: The Tower of London

[Idealess_Dodo]

I'm almost certain there's a castle in London, Just I didn't think it was the tower of London.

[eugenioso]

to me, MTW2 is just a simplified version of MTW. MTW had all the freedom of action that you could ever want. dont like your faction leader? an assassin can remove him. lost the province? dont worry, they still need to siege the castle. the amount of freedom is staggering.

meanwhile, in MTW2, if you dont like your faction leader, get him on a boat and get him killed (?). lost the province? no of course not, they only have 10 armies on my territory, it doesnt mean its theirs.

EDIT: oh, and the archers in that game were actually useful. in MTW2, ill be lucky if i get them to fire on an arch without killing the troops right in front of them (because as we all know, archers fire on straight lines, regardless of whether they hit the knights standing guard in front of them or not). in MTW, the archers fired OVER THE HEADS OF THE TROOPS IN FRONT OF THEM. hell, even RTW got the damn fire pattern better than MTW2. for that reason, and only that reason, i would play MTW over MTW2 any day.

[Miguel_80]

M2TW has more quality

[SonofaBooyah]

One thing I really miss from MTW was the fact that you could start at different dates, with all the empires at different strengths each time.

[Kirila the Kitten]

*Martin Luther King*
I have a dream , that sometimes , a man, a MODDER, will make a MTW mod for M2TW! The gameplay of MTW+the graphics of M2TW= Fantabulous !
Well , Marty didn't say that...

[Kaiser Nonsense]

*Martin Luther King*
I have a dream , that sometimes , a man, a MODDER, will make a MTW mod for M2TW! The gameplay of MTW+the graphics of M2TW= Fantabulous !
Well , Marty didn't say that...

Oh shut up. First it's impossible, second MTW is not even that good.

[Kirila the Kitten]

Oh shut up. First it's impossible, second MTW is not even that good.

Do not dare! MTW was the best game of 2002 ! And even today is very supported! I think that some tweaks in M2TW, like unit limit, AI, unit stats, units, are possible...

[sickpeople]

No idea why anyone even plays and complains about vanilla M2TW when mods like SS, TATW, BC etc. are available...

[Darrowmere]

Although i enjoyed MTW and was one of my favorite games back then it did reach a point in every game where is became to silly to continue. Me as English and denmark 1/3 of the map each and fleets in every sea region so could both send stack of soldiers from one side of the map to the other in 1 turn. Looking back it has a sort of RISK boardgame feel to it with the major regions. Whilst historical accuracy aside i think MTW2 is the best game so far in the series.

[Kataphractos]

EDIT: oh, and the archers in that game were actually useful. in MTW2, ill be lucky if i get them to fire on an arch without killing the troops right in front of them (because as we all know, archers fire on straight lines, regardless of whether they hit the knights standing guard in front of them or not). in MTW, the archers fired OVER THE HEADS OF THE TROOPS IN FRONT OF THEM. hell, even RTW got the damn fire pattern better than MTW2. for that reason, and only that reason, i would play MTW over MTW2 any day.

So place your archers farther behind your lines then. Hasn't been a problem for me.