In RTW, you can build forts everywhere too, so I hope it's the same with castles, but not cities.

Byzantium FTW!!!

E3 trailer


http://www.gamershell.com/download_13923.shtml

Looks sweet

When's this coming out again?

"2006" is the release date. So, halfway 2007.

This is my next big title.

Im so bored at the moment, I sorted out my tactic of choice before the game has even come out.

I think its pretty good. It seems to be able to deal with everything.





Im not sure how effective siege weapons will be against armies, so there are 2 unit spaces to flex according to who im up against.

Pavise arbalest should be able to deal with anything with their v.long range and v.good protection against missiles. Most of all against pesky missile cavalry.

The infantry really needs to be heavy and elite ot be able to deal with most types of troops crashing into the line. The idea is that they hold defensively, rather than charge.

The h.cav will protect the flanks viciously, and swing round for the killer blow.

My only major worry is if i come up against siege weapons. I may have to suffer some substantial losses before the h.cav finally get to the artillery and take it out. Alternatively, i may just have to do a complete frontal charge with inf + cav to smother the problem asap.

I think a Venetian type faction would suit me well. Elite, but expensive heavy infantry are sustained by extensive sea trading. Knights, arbalesters, and theyre clever enough to make decent siege weapons.

Based on the original medieval: are siege weapons more powerful/useful than in RTW? Cos you could clearly tell that the makers had made the siege weapons so 'balanced' out in that game that they became almost useless. Unless you were standing uphill with 10 siege units against an army of phalanxes.

I'll miss phalanxes in Medieval. They are so sexy; and devastating when wielded properly.

No, siege weapons were quite usless in MTW. I would only buy them as mercenaries if/when i needed to actually siege a castle. In battle, theyre largely useless. In RTW on the other hand, i think they were overpowered in a quite silly way. I mean the Onagers, they consist of 64 men supporting 2 launchers with about 20 shots each. The problem was that in reality they are far more complicated to deploy, let alone move on the battlefield. Keeping in mind that MTW2 is based pretty much on the RTW engine, i fear we may experience a step-up of siege weapon usefullness from MTW - MTW2.

Yeah, phalanxes are just that "devastating when wielded properly". Unbeatable on frontal attack. But i generally dont like them in MTW mainly because they suffer alot from arrow fire and they are available only late in the game. Also, theyre rather inflexible.

Mm, ok, thanks for the answer. I just got my gaming mag and its got a mouthwatering review about MTW2 in it, and I think it said something about putting more emphasis on siege weapons than in RTW. So...might become even worse in your book.

Didn't read it very thoroughly so I could be wrong, I'll update if that's the case. Btw, a phalanx can be beaten head-on. I tested it in a MP simulation:

a max veteran Spartan Phalanx (best of the game) against a max veteran urban cohort, head on. The Cohort won. Mainly because they'd slowly get around the flanks of the phalanx and kill them off that way.

So, a closed line of spartan phalanxes could take them; but one on one they get pwned. I know, I was disillusioned too I lurv phalanxes

lol, i wasnt considering 1-on-1 situations. Thats really obvious. The phalanx has no mobility. There have been a very few fools in history that deployed phalanxes in single companies. I think it was Epirus of Macedon that made the final blunder with the phalanx, attempting to fight on slopes and hilly ground against roman light infantry. Phalanxes dont have a happy time on slopes/hilly areas at all, but in RTW they pWn in all grouped situations because theyre easy to keep in cohesion. On flat ground, there was very little that could beat them if they had adequade protection of the flanks.

I think phalanxes could be useful in one on one too, provided they use slightly shorter spears or something. I mean, there's a spear unit in Barbarian Invasion that can form a sort of 'circle phalanx', I forgot the name. If a phalanx is in a one on one situation, couldn't it just form a circle instead of a frontal spear wall? Problem solved!

Anyway; having a phalanx unit fight within the city walls with houses covering their flank = w00t!

1 unit of foot archers can beat one unit of circle phalanx thingys in the game. Missiles really punish those cos the arrow go into the backs. If they charge, then the archers can run faster, gain ground and fire. But if it were against another melee unit yeah i think its pretty unbeatable 1-on-1.

Dont forget bridges too! Phalanx pwnage.

I heard that the demo will soon be offered to pre-orderers and readers of a PC magazine as an exclusive...but thanks to the internets we'll quickly get a hold on it, I presume.