Explain the Quality Different: Rome1/Medieval2 vs. Rome2/Attila

[veverčák]

Does anyone have an explanation for the marked decrease in quality between Medieval II (and Rome 1) and the Rome II/Attila generation? You mean pre-warscape and post warscepe games? I don't just mean the actual battlemap -- which, I think we all recognize, has become a horrible mess. Units rout far too quickly and are affected by the routs of fellow units across the battlemap (not just nearby, as they were in Medieval II). Right, peasant militia should hold off men-at-arms while being charge by knights. This results in a rather annoying occurrence where, rather than the "wave of routs" one saw in Medieval II, after flanking one unit engaged in combat, then the next, then the next, units in Rome 2/Attila only really experience this half the time, and often rout before hand. You mean like during battle of Hastings Normans left wing start to collapse and need to be disengage and regroup? Or when whole Czech army collapsed after small force of knights detached to face flanking manoeuvre (soldiers thought that they were fleeing)? Do not get me wrong, I prefer slower paced battle, but Attila is much more closer to reall battles than Medievall 2 with To The Death morale. In addition, I don't know if anyone else experiences this, but I find that Medieval II was much more smooth, and that the handling/pathfinding of Rome2 and Attila is totally whack. At this point, I'm wishing I could return them. Good for you that you did not experince in any pathfinding issues in Med 2. I for example could not get any battering ram to gates of the inner city citadel.

On the campaign map, the Province system is far more limiting than the freedom of Medieval 2 and results in famously walled cities being defended by... men on a hill. Rather than the problem of constant sieges, we get a problem of constant urban fighting. Neither is very good, but at least the sieges would be more accurate. Not to mention the ahistorical way that the province system limits the amount of 1. Towns/Cities on the campaign map and 2. What can be built in each province. Right, the "freedom" of Rome and Med 2, right. What freedom are we talking again? The slots were already given with types of building so every settlement ends up being the same. What is ahistorical on current province system? Whole "building system and settlement system is totally made up in whole TW franchise.

Furthermore, the diplomacy has been limited, most strikingly by removing the "give/demand territory" option, which makes it very difficult to help allies in war without taking their territory (and thus crippling them for the rest of the game). One might argue that the point of the game isn't to help allies, but if my funds are limited, I do not want to hold far-off territory that will be difficult to protect., but AI You have manage to use this? I would like to but AI usually wanted settlement + ridiculous amount of money to say yes. And if you do not want to hold far away teritorie you can sack/loot/raze or subjugate said faction. Nobody is forcing you to ocuppy.

Speaking of protection, I feel that the Garrison system has been a problem since Empire. I much preferred having the player/AI have to construct limited units to protect a castle/city (even if they are just borderguards) than a magical army spawning whenever I come near that -- guess what -- also sallies out to help any armies nearby, despite being a "town defense" garrison. I do not understand the functional difference between the two. In addition, it results in towns being heavily fortified despite being in the safe part of an empire that a marauding horde would otherwise, historically, have taken advantage of because they were not well-defended and it would take time for an army to arrive. Walls without men to hold them is just wasting your money and time. In good old days your field army was only 10 - 25% of your drafted force. Rest was used as garrison and reserve force in case your campaign went horribly wrong. Said garrison force fulfil also role of the police force and keep brigands and rebellious nobles in check. Not to mention the logistic side of your campaign was truly limiting for number of your men you can take to the field.

So, does anyone have an explanation for this? Has CA tried to honestly address any of these complaints before (Attila's an expansion, so I didn't expect it to be MUCH better, but jeeze...)? If your answer is "warscape" can you be a bit more detailed and tell me why? I personally like most of the change to franchise and hope CA keep going in said direction. Med 2 is still cheap rip-off of Rome with same fancy graphic and I still think it killed my childhood. But of course, this is just my humble opinion.

Edit: Forgot about the weird tracers on arrows -- WHY?! ​To see the arrows and know who is firing on whom? Perhaps?

[surg3on]

Does anyone have an explanation for the marked decrease in quality between Medieval II (and Rome 1) and the Rome II/Attila generation?

Nostalgia .

[Viva Espana!]

Nostalgia .

Well, I recently installed Medieval II Vanilla to check and I don't think that's the case.

[Giant Death Robot]

I love Medieval 2 to death, but vanilla is just less good than Attila vanilla.

-Diplomacy sucks in Medieval. Not only do you have to lug your slow-arse diplomat around, beyond trade agreements you can barely do anything, it's unclear how or why the AI does anything, and the Pope is a headless chicken who sends crusades to Germany rather than the Holy Land. Attila has the Imperium system which drags down siplomacy, but it works better otherwise.

-Realism wise, M2 is not perfect by any means. Byzantine units are just wrong.''Inquisitors'' burning princes at the stake? really?

-M2 is incredibly easy. Even as a weaker faction, you can take over the world because the AI barely builds anything. And don't even think on playing on nothing else than VH/VH if you don't want to fall asleep from boredom. The only threat are the Mongols. Attila goes from easy (Sassanids) to need-to-look-it-up-on-the-net hard (WRE).

-Empire management is miles, miles ahead in Attila. In Medieval, you just adjusted taxes you required and made sure you didn't get heretics. In Attila, managing sanitation, corruption, edicts, governors, maintenance, religion, building slots and public order makes it far more compelling.

-Dynastic management? In Medieval 2? Ah. At worst, just adopt some random joe Captain if you need an heir and never bother with it again. It's much deeper in Attila, you can ignore it but often at your own perils.

-The pathfinding. Ye gods. At least you can know where your stacks go in Attila. Fighting in cities would also destroy formations, seems that this works better in Attila.

Now, there are things Medieval 2 does better (melee battle line just looks much better, no contest about it). And with mods it's one hell of a game. But vanilla? Attila had 1 patch and no major DLC and it's much better already.

[Renown]

As someone who wants to get into the roots of the game and change them up, I can tell you I've been very excited with the release of each TW game. They get better and better, some times they make small mistakes but overall I've loved each of their games. Just wish they allowed us MORE access for mods rather than less.

[PumpkinBread]

Rome 1 ->

Feature wise, it is but a shell of what Medieval and Shogun had to offer. But that jump to 3D, special. Medieval 2 out of the box? PUHLEEZ. A pile of crap. But with mods like SS, hell yes.

[Candy_Licker]

I love Medieval 2 to death, but vanilla is just less good than Attila vanilla.

-Diplomacy sucks in Medieval. Not only do you have to lug your slow-arse diplomat around, beyond trade agreements you can barely do anything, it's unclear how or why the AI does anything, and the Pope is a headless chicken who sends crusades to Germany rather than the Holy Land. Attila has the Imperium system which drags down siplomacy, but it works better otherwise.

-Realism wise, M2 is not perfect by any means. Byzantine units are just wrong.''Inquisitors'' burning princes at the stake? really?

-M2 is incredibly easy. Even as a weaker faction, you can take over the world because the AI barely builds anything. And don't even think on playing on nothing else than VH/VH if you don't want to fall asleep from boredom. The only threat are the Mongols. Attila goes from easy (Sassanids) to need-to-look-it-up-on-the-net hard (WRE).

-Empire management is miles, miles ahead in Attila. In Medieval, you just adjusted taxes you required and made sure you didn't get heretics. In Attila, managing sanitation, corruption, edicts, governors, maintenance, religion, building slots and public order makes it far more compelling.

-Dynastic management? In Medieval 2? Ah. At worst, just adopt some random joe Captain if you need an heir and never bother with it again. It's much deeper in Attila, you can ignore it but often at your own perils.

-The pathfinding. Ye gods. At least you can know where your stacks go in Attila. Fighting in cities would also destroy formations, seems that this works better in Attila.

Now, there are things Medieval 2 does better (melee battle line just looks much better, no contest about it). And with mods it's one hell of a game. But vanilla? Attila had 1 patch and no major DLC and it's much better already.

Exactly. Med II was the pinnacle of modding, and for that reason it is probably the greatest TW. Attila and Shogun 2 are good base games, probably better then Vanilla Med (with some great and some bad traits), but the difference is modding. It really pushed MedII and Rome to new hights, which is sadly not possible to this extent in the newer games.

[englisharcher89]

Can't look at Medieval II anymore, and it was my fav. game back then. Especially vanilla version, can't be bothered with mods I appreciate dedication, but it always takes years to do mods in final version, most of them are usualy left unfinished.

-Diplomat spam, every single turn I'd have to look at diplomat bowing in front of my city or general, with no result at all
-Whole design was just lazy when I look at it again, I mean factions with no proper names only (England, France, Poland, Russia, Spain etc. using modern names), faction coat of arms are terrible
-Overstreched timeline, was able to recruit Renaissance units in XIII century
-Rebels everywhere, grey area instead of factions.

Maybe Rome II wasn't that great (at the beginning) but it's good step forward with overall design, same goes for Attila.. and I hope next game based on Medieval will have a lot more factions, provinces, and everything that makes new Attila awesome game.

[mavyalex]

Hi,

I dream of CA or modders implementing naval warfare in MTWII (or at least in Rome Total War)...That would be great!

[the lightning legion]

its a completely different engine though so regrettably it probably wont happen

[Ulfgard the Unmaker]

Hi,

I dream of CA or modders implementing naval warfare in MTWII (or at least in Rome Total War)...That would be great!

its a completely different engine though so regrettably it probably wont happen

As I recall, UndyingNephalim of the Hyrule Total War overhaul has made some progress in this respect, although I haven't checked in on the project for some time. When last I saw, he had managed to jury-rig the game into aping naval battles-- it wasn't terribly sophisticated, but it's the most progress I've seen on the matter. Granted, I haven't looked in on it for quite a while, so I don't know if there have been any further advances.



(For some reason, the video doesn't seem to want to embed on my end, so here's a link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCFHdd32zlg )

I also have no idea how it works in the context of a campaign, either.

[jakeswe]

M2TW was plauged by numerous animation bugs. Javelinmen are still useless. The battle engine in Attila is better. Rome 1 with Roma Surrectum mod wins all though.

[NostalgiaFan]

M2TW was plauged by numerous animation bugs. Javelinmen are still useless. The battle engine in Attila is better.

, That is some of the most godawful nonsense I have heard. You can complain about all the animation bugs and they still do not compare to all the problems in the current engine. At least there was some feeling of weight and force in med 2, the new games feel like there is practically nothing, and the 1v1 combat is still as terrible as always.

[Keyser]

Sometimes i don't get the medieval II nostalgia... It was a good game but from my point of view it was just Rome 1 in a different time period with better graphics...
If anything, i enjoyed Medieval 1 way more than i ever did the second opus.
The best vanilla mechanism for medieval II were the armor upgrade system and it's a shame CA dropped the idea, it felt more immersive than some stupid arbitrary bonus without visual representation and the guild spawning system.
The rest was juste Rome 1...

It was a medieval game about knights were knights couldn't dismount and you had to buy "dismounted knights" units... WTF ? Medieval 1 allowed you to choose to fight mounted or dismounted before the battle. What prevented them to port that simple feature ?

Siege were broken, less so than in Empire or even Rome 2 it's true, but they didn't work. They aren't perfect in Attila, but are an improvement above Rome 2 and while the AI still fight to the death in a siege battle, even when they lost their siege equipment, wich is nonsense, they at least attack in a convincing way when they have enough material.

[iloveyourz]

true story i attacked a mongol stack with2 armies first army was low tier ai charged in their general and they mass routed some of them routing before evening geting into combat.

Thsi chained to elite army who moral drop even more because of 8 dread debuff routing before getting into combat. CRUSHING DEFEAT

[CagatayKhan]

Med 1, Med 2 and Empire (last version) have best campaign. I like also Barbarian Invision campaign..Also Barbarian have best night battle..
Shogun2 have best multi...(Med 2 's multi is second. There are important upgrade weapon ,armor. )

Rome 2 and Attila have biggest problem is their map that occurs just corrdiors. Attila and Rome havent open map as a Med 2 ,Rome 1.. Also field interaction of army and citys are too big in campign map. There arent any strategic or fake moving ,using geography.. Map occurs cooridor and mountains..generate units ,send target city. There arent an enjoybale siege battle as med 2,rome 1...I don tlike new coomadn generate units system.. Campaign have dead since Rome 2..

[Jakkka123]

For their time Rome I/Medieval II were revolutionary games (looking back of course, you will notice they are pretty outdated games which is understandable). The newer installments are mere mediocricy, after all the patches, DLC and mods I would still not give Rome II more than a 6/10

Rome I/Medieval II had their numerous flaws, but never were these gamebreaking nor inrepairable through mods

You got a finished product for the price you payed, never did I get the feeling those games were rushed or cut from content to sell them to you separately

Except from naval battles and better diplomacy, the newer games have actually deleted or worsened many features that were present or better implemented in Rome I/Medieval II, which is plain outrageous after 10 years of experience

Above all, the warscape engine is a complete failure, some issues are not repairable even with 100 patches

[xjlxking]

The audience for gaming has changed in TE past decade dramatically. I'm 21 but now I'm confident I can go in my class and find plenty of gamers, I coukdnt do that 6-7 years ago, not in NYC. My point is gamers aren't die hard players now, there are casuals now which the market has to adapt to. Ultimately this is why most games are being very lenient on learning curve and complexity of mechanics.


With that said, me2 and Rome felt much more polished and finished than Attila or Rome. The emergence of DLC increases this believe. I quit r2 two months after its horrendous release. I came back to find that I have to fork over another $40 for extra stuff. It's justified but just made me think about R1 and ME2.

[Dekhatres]

Sometimes i don't get the medieval II nostalgia... It was a good game but from my point of view it was just Rome 1 in a different time period with better graphics...
If anything, i enjoyed Medieval 1 way more than i ever did the second opus.
The best vanilla mechanism for medieval II were the armor upgrade system and it's a shame CA dropped the idea, it felt more immersive than some stupid arbitrary bonus without visual representation and the guild spawning system.
The rest was juste Rome 1...

It was a medieval game about knights were knights couldn't dismount and you had to buy "dismounted knights" units... WTF ? Medieval 1 allowed you to choose to fight mounted or dismounted before the battle. What prevented them to port that simple feature ?

Siege were broken, less so than in Empire or even Rome 2 it's true, but they didn't work. They aren't perfect in Attila, but are an improvement above Rome 2 and while the AI still fight to the death in a siege battle, even when they lost their siege equipment, wich is nonsense, they at least attack in a convincing way when they have enough material.

"Sometimes i don't get the medieval II nostalgia..."

Even to this day there are stil mods being made and ppl play med 2 mainly because of them, if you ever played with mods and saw how MUCH fun they make the game you would get the "medieval II nostalgia"

"It was a good game but from my point of view it was just Rome 1 in a different time period with better graphics..."

well if you put it that way than every total war is just shogun 1 with better graphics and diferent time period

"The best vanilla mechanism for medieval II were the armor upgrade system and it's a shame CA dropped the idea, it felt more immersive than some stupid arbitrary bonus without visual representation and the guild spawning system."

gota agree with that

"It was a medieval game about knights were knights couldn't dismount and you had to buy "dismounted knights" units... WTF ? Medieval 1 allowed you to choose to fight mounted or dismounted before the battle. What prevented them to port that simple feature ?"

maybe warhorses just dont grow on trees and you just had to recruit those knights as they were ?(dismounted), infact warhorses were one of the most valuable and expensive things knights owned and couldnt be so easily replaced, http://m2tw.warlore.org/units/Dismou...usader_Knights i agree that we should have had the ability to dismount them

"Siege were broken, less so than in Empire or even Rome 2 it's true, but they didn't work. They aren't perfect in Attila, but are an improvement above Rome 2 and while the AI still fight to the death in a siege battle, even when they lost their siege equipment, wich is nonsense, they at least attack in a convincing way when they have enough material"

I wont even bother with the first sentence, anyway with some tweaks from modders i find the med 2's AI to be the best in the tw series, it dosent always make the best decisions but the fact that it can succesfully break through 3 diferent lines of defences (Citadels) tells a lot

[NostalgiaFan]

"Sometimes i don't get the medieval II nostalgia..."

Even to this day there are stil mods being made and ppl play med 2 mainly because of them, if you ever played with mods and saw how MUCH fun they make the game you would get the "medieval II nostalgia"

"It was a good game but from my point of view it was just Rome 1 in a different time period with better graphics..."

well if you put it that way than every total war is just shogun 1 with better graphics and diferent time period

"The best vanilla mechanism for medieval II were the armor upgrade system and it's a shame CA dropped the idea, it felt more immersive than some stupid arbitrary bonus without visual representation and the guild spawning system."

gota agree with that

"It was a medieval game about knights were knights couldn't dismount and you had to buy "dismounted knights" units... WTF ? Medieval 1 allowed you to choose to fight mounted or dismounted before the battle. What prevented them to port that simple feature ?"

maybe warhorses just dont grow on trees and you just had to recruit those knights as they were ?(dismounted), infact warhorses were one of the most valuable and expensive things knights owned and couldnt be so easily replaced, http://m2tw.warlore.org/units/Dismou...usader_Knights i agree that we should have had the ability to dismount them

"Siege were broken, less so than in Empire or even Rome 2 it's true, but they didn't work. They aren't perfect in Attila, but are an improvement above Rome 2 and while the AI still fight to the death in a siege battle, even when they lost their siege equipment, wich is nonsense, they at least attack in a convincing way when they have enough material"

I wont even bother with the first sentence, anyway with some tweaks from modders i find the med 2's AI to be the best in the tw series, it dosent always make the best decisions but the fact that it can succesfully break through 3 diferent lines of defences (Citadels) tells a lot

Could not have said it any better myself.