looks like the next total war game is due Q4 2006. Of course, that's for goddamned ever away, but hey.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/med ... index.html

official game summary:
http://www.totalwar.com/community/medieval2.htm

Nice! Though I would prefer a different period and/or place in the world. They already did the Middle Ages once.

omgomgomgomgomg!!!11oneone

I just soiled myself.

Good find Satis! I just hope to hell theyre not basing it on the RTW engine.

*derf remembers fondly of many battles won thanks to Swiss Halberdier pwNag3!*

I was reading some stuff on it... it IS the RTW engine....

...but heavily modified. All the soldiers aren't clones any more...every unit has like various arms, torsos, heads, etc, which the computer randomly stick together for all the units. So the units look different.

Supposedly you can build castles...I hope you can actually design the damned things. You can also have cannons and guns and stuff in the later portions of the game...it covers from 1000 to around 1500 AD.

Anyway, graphics look good. Lemme see if I can find some screenies.

Here's a taste. Check IGN for more.

Damn.

The RTW engine is doomed.

Why would you say that? cos of its CPU heaviness?

Oh come on oxy!

- Its bugged to fuck.
- AI is cack.
- Dumbing down since MTW.
- CPU whore-fest. The battles run better than the campaign map.

Should i go on?

- bugged to fuck - care to expound? Besides what seems like a memory leak, I haven't run into any serious bugs.

- ai sucks - agreed. I don't think that's the engine's fault, though.

- dumbing down - never played anything previous to RTW. The description for M2TW sound like they've added depth, though, not removed it.

- CPU whorefest - disagree. Well, it may be a whorefest, but I've had some lag in the battle map, but never in the campaign screen. Also, when I do lag, it's only because I have an assload of archers unloading fire arrows.

I just got my gaming mag in the mail today, and it featured a preview of Medieval II: Total War. And it pretty much confims what Satis said about it being more diverse than RTW.

There will clearly be a much greater influence of diplomacy and economy. For example, you can now choose to develop settlements into castles or cities. The former are hard to conquer and allow you to produce tough miltary units early on, the latter can grow really big and return huge trade profits. And have diplomatic strengths, etc.

Another thing is that cities and castles will no longer have a generic build structure but will 'blend in' with the environment and the buildings it holds. So a city in a mountain range or near a stream will have added defense perks, one can assume.

There will also be princesses that can wed with one of the other factions' heirs to strengthen your alliance's ties, and a general increased focus on diplomacy.

In that regard: much like the senate in RTW, you will now have to deal with the Pope as an external regulating entity. He will, like the senate, issue certain assignements (do a crusade on the Turks etc), or send inquisitors to your land(s) if they aren't zealous enough. They'll kill highly placed officials. If you really fuck up in keeping your lands pious, the Pope can excommunicate you, which basically means all the pope's buddies will try to pwn you.

But you can also use him to your advantage: there's the obvious bonus of money and standing of being on a good slate, but you can also coordinate attacks on excommunicated states if you you're a good buddy of his. Or, even better, you can lobby one of your cardinals into the papacy, should the old man die. Sweet!

Apart from all this there's an increase of playable factions compared to Medieval I, and you can conquer America and pwn the natives.

And I'm sure I didn't remember everything I just read. needless to say, it definitely doesn't look dumbed down. If anything, it looks like more and better!

@ Satis

1. I generalise the word "bug" to anything thats just about wrong in the game. e.g:
- Heavy cavilry surviving phalanx charges.
- Rare, but totally stupid battles on rediculously steep slopes.
- Vast historical innaccuracies.
- City pathfinding totally shot to shit.
- Attacking ships in ports.

2. I generalise the word "engine" as the main system to which the game belongs to.

3. @ dumbing down: I said RTW was dumbed down compared to MTW (not that MTW2 is dumbed down compared to RTW).

@ Ox



lol, that is so wrong. Unless you can actually build a new settlement (wherever you want to) this system is totally innaccurate. Castles were strategically placed military structures (like forts). There was no such choice in evolving a settlement into a castle. Castles were structures that supported cities.



Thats no different from MTW1. Thats what i mean by dumbing down.

yea...but...you get to invade central and south america. You can blow the shit out of Aztecs...that's got a certain sweetness to it.

Anyway, PERSONALLY I'm looking forward to it. If you want to rain on my parade...well...you can't. Because I'm the sun god. I'm the fun god. Ra Ra Ra!

Yea well, im the Fuhrer, and i proclaim that those who say "Ra" thrice, must suffer punishment - a public stoning.

I've been publically stoned more times then I'll admit.

In that case, thou shall be sent to the Fuhrers prison camp for alternative punishment - prolonged ruthless buggery!

hehehe

@ dumbing down...well, ok, so maybe dumbing down compared to Medieval I, but I didn't relaly play that. So I'm only comparing with RTW, and in that regard it's diplomatic rox0rnes!!!

I gotta check on my mag to see what they said about building castles and cities. i'll get back to you on that. I'd love to be able to construct my own settlements, but dunno how that'd fit in the concept of provinces.