메뉴얼은 아니지만... introduction(2)

[적닌자]

The worlds most detailed preview:

Dolly the sheep wouldn't recognise STW and MTW. MTW is most assuredly NOT a clone of STW in a different setting. MTW is a new game altogether in which players of STW will find many of their old tactics and strategies about as useful as a chocolate fireguard. MTW is also a much bigger game but, does any of this make it a better game?

The plot:

MTW is a game set between 1087 and 1454 in and around the Mediterranean and Northern Europe. It allows the player to play a number of different "factions" that are loosely tied to historical Kingdoms from the period and to try to dominate the Medieval world in a number of ways and game modes.

The prime mode is that of "total domination" where the player seeks to change history by conquering all the 120 odd provinces within the time period - I term this the "full campaign".
The player can also choose to break up the game into smaller chunks by starting at different time periods: These are known as the "Era's" and are "Early" (from which you start the Full Campaign) "High" and "Late". In domination modes each Era presents the player with a different time constraint and different starting conditions in which to achieve total domination of Europe - and as such a variable challenge.

On top of this is the other primary game mode of "Glorious Achievements" (GA's) - Here the player seeks to "win" by scoring the most "points" in a ranking system between each of the 12 major playable factions. Each faction has different GA's for each Era and GA's update over time - thus you can play a Full Campaign covering all 3 Era's AND in GA mode - allowing the player to win by either total conquest or by Glorious Achievement victory.

Once again the challenges, and in this case the actual GA's , change by faction by Era and thus present different challenges per Faction per Era start point...or you can play through them all via a full campaign in GA mode. (Got that?)

So - whilst MTW is superficially a very simple game with only two apparent modes of game it actually contains a huge variety of challenges. 3 start points for each of 12 factions in 2 different modes providing 72 different individual "gamelets" if you want to look at it like that.
This point cannot be stressed enough as the huge potential depth it gives for the longevity of the game - of course the challenge for CA is whether or not they have managed to make each of these "gamelets" individual enough to play differently and interest the gamer - or whether they are just cosmetically different versions of the same thing.

And we shouldn't also fail to mention that you can also play it MP via Internet (gamespy) and LAN, the Historical set battles, the Historical Campaigns and custom battles - oh and the map editor for creating your own!

Factions:

The different playable factions in the game are: English, Danish, Almohad, Spanish, Byzantine, Egyptian, German, Italian, French, Polish, Turks and Russian.

Non playable factions include The Papacy, Hungarians, Aragonese, Sicilians, Golden Horde and the multitude of individual provincial factions such as Welsh and Scots etc etc.

Each of the factions provide a difference in objectives as described above but also provide a different set of units, indeed the range and diversity of factional units is both wide and sometimes confusing. Adding to this confusion is that the same building may produce different units depending which faction controls it - luckily the in-game help, descriptors and pop-ups alleviate much of this confusion but one hopes sincerely that the MTW manual is a comprehensive affair - or far too many gamers will be left completely in the dark as to what builds what for each faction.

Furthermore each faction has its own set of "Factional Speciality Units" - for the English these being the Longbow and Billmen and other factions have similar but different units (such as the Almohad Urban Militia for the Almohads)....and on top of all of this are a number of "Provincial Speciality Units" such as "Bulgarian Brigands" which can only be produced in the province of Bulgaria but are not factionally dependent (i.e. whoever owns Bulgaria can produce them). Finally there are also "Regional Speciality Units" which can be produced by "any faction" if they control that province (and have the appropriate buildings); for example "Spanish Jinettes", which can be produced in many of the Spanish Provinces is controlled.

Confused yet?

It all actually makes a lot of sense once you get into things and the "restrictions" on what you can and can't produce certainly add well to the overall variety in the game, once added to the different starting positions for each faction it certainly makes the possibility of widely different "feeling" games depending on what faction you play - but its not time yet to declare this a winner.

Added to the ability on producing your "own" units the player can also hire mercenary units. Mercenaries in MTW are handled very well imo. The "mercenary pool" is best described by thinking of an entirely separate force of free roaming units that exist "underneath" the campaign map, roaming about looking for wars in which to get hired. Once they find an area of warfare, and work, more and more move into the area presenting an increasingly varied supply of units representing the full range of factional unit variety.

Thus it is possible to control and use units from every faction - so seeing English Camels fighting in the desert isn't an impossibility or meeting French mercenary Longbowmen in the fields of Flanders. There needs be some way to "balance" mercenary forces and this is done in a number of ways:
Firstly mercenaries cost double the unit support costs of their "Normally produced" equivalents. This makes the hiring of mercenaries something that should only be done in emergencies and for short periods of time. Secondly mercenaries have absolutely no loyalty to you and your cause at all - thus they don't bat an eyelid at being "hired and fired" over and over - but it does mean that leaving any solely mercenary army in a province on their own is a gamble. Thirdly you cannot upgrade or reinforce mercenary units - well, would you want to reinforce them when you are going to get rid of them soon?

On the positive side of mercs are their own capabilities to stay abreast of the technological advancements in the game. You tend to find mercenaries are a mixed bag but with ones representing the very latest in unit types replete with armour and weapons upgrades as well as lowly basic peasant units..with mercs its all very hit and miss but they can be invaluable for their other great feature:

You hire mercenaries "immediately". This means that they have no "build queue" at all and the moment you click on the "Hire" button they appear in that province and are ready for action. Once again this comes back to them fulfilling their role as "emergency troops" to be used for a sudden attack or a rushed defense.

All in all I do like the way Mercenaries have been handled and whilst the careful player may not ever have need of them - the adventurous player can use them to great advantage.

Special Units & Religion:

As well as the purely military units there are, of course, the "special units" that roam the campaign maps. These includes Emissaries, Spies, Assassins, Priests, Cardinals, Inquisitors, Grand Inquisitors and Princesses (and their factional equivalents in both the Orthodox and Muslim factions)

The roles of these special units are varied not just by job but by their role within each faction and especially by religion. The three major religions in MTW are Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim but there are also Pagan and Jewish religions in the game outside of the players direct control.

Priests and Religion

Overriding the entire game and factional dominance is the Religious struggle of the period which doesn't always take a back seat to proceedings. Indeed religion is very important and once again plays a role in making the factional differences create different playing experiences. Whilst I will go over these in detail later for now its worth pointing out major differences:

The Catholic factions are all "responsible" to the Pope - and he can be a real pain in the arse. The Papacy work to their own game rules and desires - which ultimately is the progression of Catholicism into the dominant religion whilst maintaining some form of status-quo amongst the Catholic Factions. As such the Papacy don't like to see any single Catholic Faction become dominant and it almost always works to preserve factions if they are endangered - especially endangered by other Catholic factions. In it more"aggressive" modes the Papacy will call crusades on opposing religious factions or even against its own Catholic Factions that it deems have done it or "the cause" wrong. Alongside this is its capability to Excommunicate Catholic factions (the results of which can be serious peasant discontent and rebellion in your provinces and the fact that other Catholic factions can then crusade against you!)


I think the pope is upset with me!

On the other side of the coin you may have to PAY the Pope a small measure of "gratitude" to even launch a Crusade against another religion or even an excommunicated Catholic faction...but you may even see the Pope grant you money in gifts for "services to Catholicism".

At the "special unit" end of the religious conflict lie the simple priests, cardinals, bishops (orthodox) and Alim (Muslims) that when dropped into a province seek to increase the following in their own faith. At their simplest these fellows will help keep your own provinces nice and content and free (reasonably) from other religious influences - but if used in other religions provinces they will stir discontent by doing exactly the same. Being a Catholic leader in charge of a Muslim or Orthodox province can lead to a religious rebellion or at the very least require additional troops to keep the population loyal.

Underlying all of this is population "Zeal" - which plays a role throughout the game in many aspects (which I will come back to). Zeal can be viewed as both good and bad and wanting to raise or lower it varies with ho and what you are doing (and what the other factions are doing) - at its simplest though high zeal means that any Crusade or Jihad raised or passing through a province with high religious Zeal will gain a lot of troops.

Inquisitors

Here is where the Catholic Inquisitors come into play - one of their side-effects is increasing Zeal in a province - and remember they ONLY affect Catholics, so putting an inquisitor into a Muslim or orthodox province does nothing mush (other than act as a source of information). But it doesn't stop there - after a time this raised zeal transforms the Inquisitor into a bit of a madman who goes round burning out the "unfaithful" resulting in mass executions - and a massive lowering of zeal! So its a bizarre game of judging when to move out your inquisitors from a province in which you want zeal raised - leave it too long and the population suffers and zeal plummets after the inquisitor goes nuts! Of course on the good side is that such units tends to cow the entire population and burn out (quite literally) any pagans or heretics.

The Inquisitors preoccupation with flames doesn't stop there though - you can also use them to try ANY catholic follower for heresy. Your chance of success depends on he ran of the Inquisitor (or Grand Inquisitor) and the rank and PIETY of the target (which can be a general, unit leader, king, prince or even the Pope!) and of course Inquisitors can act as a form of spy when dropped into an opposing factions province. The final point on Inquisitors is that "they never stop" - this unit is never idle and you can't disband them so beware just what you do with them and remember where you leave them - a high ranking inquisitor has a tendency to spontaneously try ANYBODY in the province it is in even if he gets a whiff of low piety or heresy - so unordered trials of your own units may result if unwary!

Assassins

Of course troublesome Inquisitors can always be assassinated by the Assassins at your control. These guys have a simple role of being used to kill other special units and/or military unit leaders (and kings, princes, generals etc). Also, and as with STW, these guys will also act as counterspies when left in your own provinces.

Spies

Spies are the equivalent of the STW Shinobi - able to stir revolt in other factions and helping to keep the same from happening to your own. They also allow you to see every detail of any opposing faction province when placed in them and act as a counterspy when in your own. They can, however, do more than this. Spies , as is a spy's wont, are also adept at uncovering personal vagaries in generals and heirs (your own or other factions).

What this specifically refers to are the "Secret" elements to and V&V (Vice & Virtue - RPG elements that are attached to generals and heirs over time such as "mighty Warrior, Coward, Glutton, Pervert, Blackmailer etc etc and see later).

What a spy can do is target an individual General who has, say, the vice "Secret Perversion" and reveal this "secret" to the world. Consequences of this can vary - generally though any "secret" V&V has no effect on the general (because its secret duh!). Thus a "Secret Heretic" uncovered by a spy becomes an easy target for an Inquisitor, A "secret pervert" becomes a public one with all the negative connotations on morale and any provincial aspects like negative trade or farm incomes Esc etc. Finally Spies are able to be used to frame your own generals for treason - a nice way to get rid of any generals whose support and loyalty is wavering...just bear in mind that if you fail it might spark off the civil war you were trying to avoid.

Emissaries

Emissaries are there for making alliances, asking for ceasefires and bribing other generals, units and armies. They can also be used to strip your own generals of any titles you have given them and once more act as counterspies in your own provinces when doing nothing else.

Princesses

An interesting addiction to the SU's and at first glance not a particularly important one - but their use is sometimes quite subtle.

In the patrilineal medieval world princesses didn't have much to do other than get pregnant and bear heirs but in MTW they fulfill their less obvious historic roles as peacemakers and alliance-brokers (as well as a back door into land!).
Princess's can be used to broker both alliances and to marry into other royal families. This allows for the possibility of gaining some of that factions land if/when the king dies without an heir (which, of course, you can aid in happening)

At a much more subtle level though princesses act as the "ultimate spy" - firstly they are very hard to kill - it takes more than the average assassin to get rid of them and they can move about pretty freely and unhindered especially as they are not affected by the anti-spy border forts that can be constructed. Secondly, and from experience more importantly, OTHER factions princesses are invaluable to your own survival:

If your line fails then you lose - hence having many heirs is a bonus. Yet simply having lots of heirs isn't the end of the story - to ensure the best chance of survival you will need plenty of MARRIED heirs. The reason for this is that upon accession to the throne your erstwhile prince, if unmarried, has no heirs of his own. This means that immediately all of his other prior relations have a close claim to the throne. Indeed until he has any of his own heirs his younger siblings cans till claim the throne - if he has none then his "Uncles" can claim the throne - and its always likely that many of these "royal uncles" exist in your faction as key generals - specifically all those old "princes" no longer in line for the throne directly but of "royal blood". These "Royal Generals" are the single most dangerous source of Civil War for your faction - and they can be really troublesome if a weak King comes to power.

To avoid this it is ideal to marry off all of your heirs as soon as possible - here is where the emissary comes into play as dropping it on another factions princess invites her to marry into your faction. If successful then that Prince will be having his own children all the while your King is aging - thus should he come to power he comes along along married and with young heirs of his own..securing your place for the future (as well as putting in a potential claim on the faction you married into and an alliance from it that is more solid than the simple exchange of words).

From experience in full campaigns I can't stress how important it is to manage your own royal line well. It is very easy to suddenly find yourself with an old King with old heirs... and if, as often happens if not careful, you suddenly find an unmarried 60 year old ascending to the throne then you are in trouble... he is unlikely to have either the "energy" (or time) to breed an heir of his own before he dies - and if so you are plunged into a civil war for succession!

Micromanagement or Mismanagement?

The above levels of interaction and complexity may seem like unnecessary complication, yet they add tremendous variation to the overall campaign game - and , thankfully for those wishing to avoid the detail, one that is balanced by the level of difficulty of the game that you chose. At easier levels the AI is far more forgiving of such things and certainly the opposing factions are more politically and subversively less active. At Expert levels though you will need to pay attention to such minutiae at almost "every turn".

Personally I love this sort of detail and the avoidance of Civil Wars is key to dominating the campaign map as is the maintenance of your royal blood lines. Even where not used for royal marriages your princess's can be married off to Generals to bolster their Loyalty in your leadership -a gain sometimes vital to success and the "Limited shelf life" of princesses (16-33) means that they are not guaranteed to be in constant supply - it all adds depth which I believe is a good thing.

On the negative side of things all the special units still need to be controlled individually by hand, they cant be stacked or moved en-mass and you cant issue specific orders to any of them (Such as set an assassin to kill and emissaries that enter its province). This places a micromanagement burden on the player which can get frustrating, especially in higher difficulty levels where such attention to detail is almost requisite. There are some aspects which are unavoidable but also others that are just damn annoying including a blatant case of the AI cheating:

Drop an assassin on a foreign emissary or priest and it will inevitably launch itself into motion - jumping from one province to another in the hope of those provinces border forts capturing your assassin - and then safely returning to your original province. Having tried to "prove" that this isn't any accident and successfully doing so it is VERY annoying for both the obvious "cheat" employed by the AI (a distinct advantage for it) and the annoyance of even where successful having inevitably to track down your successful assassin who is now in an entirely different province and put him back to where you want him. This has frustrated me time and time again and in a game where you can be controlling dozens and dozens, even hundreds, of special units it can be a right royal pain. If any aspect of MTW needs addressing and remains unchanged from STW it is this micromanagement of Special Units individually - a definite pain but not a major issue in the overall scheme of things.

Ships, Fleets and Income.

Of course underlying everything in MTW is money. Without money you can do nothing and the accrual of huge sums of money is actually one of the keys to success by total domination of all provinces. The reasons for this are the way in which income is now tied far more closely to trade than anything in STW.

Sources of income in MTW are now many more than in STW: You have basic farmland that can be upgraded, mineral resources you can mine and then Trade goods which you can sell to other factions. Add to this the ability to Tax Imports from other factions passing through your own ports and then also minor incomes from things such as Cathedrals and even the highest swordsmiths and such like.

Your key monetary income though will almost inevitably come from trade as trade income can far far far outstretch any farmland incomes. The key to trade is the access to "other faction" ports - which requires the utilisation of ships and shipping routes.

To trade trade resources you need firstly a merchant. The size and type of merchant building dictates the maximum tax value possible on each trade resource in that province. Inland provinces are limited to "Local trade" only - so even building any mercantile buildings in these needs to be assessed to ensure that the cost of building is actually worthwhile - but bearing in mind the scale of the Full Campaign (366 turns) it often is to some degree.

Provinces with sea access can trade via Ports. For exports you will need both the merchant and the port and in which case the port simply provides your export route. Beyond this you need a "clear sea lane" to the destination provinces tow which you are selling. This is achieved by building and placing Ships into the appropriate sea-lanes on he map until they reach the destination you want to trade at. The more uninterrupted routes you have the more you will see. Just remember two things:
1) You only trade with OTHER factions (not amongst your own)
2) You only trade what other provinces don't have - so you cant trade wool to a province which has wool as a resource.

The second trade income source is the Port itself - but this works on importation tax where OTHER faction ships are trading their goods at your province. These can actually prove to be quite profitable, once again due to the size of the overall campaign, and its surprising how the extra 21 florins year can come in useful. Afterall that's a "free" unit of Scots Highlanders in effect!

Blockades and battles:

Of course with trade comes the potential for trade wars and all of this is simply but admirably copped with by the naval element of the game. Ships are largely similar to Special Units in that they have no direct interaction and all battles/outcomes are decided by the AI. One advantage here though is that you CAN stack ships and make them into fleets and that they also have the ability to gain ranks also (by successfully winning naval battles).

Ships play a further set of roles in transportation of armies as well as a strategic role in defending your own coastline from "spying" and invasion. If your province has no port than it can still be invaded by an opposing army so long as they have a route to that province by ship. If, however, you have your own ship in the appropriate sea lane then you automatically blockade any sea-borne invasion by an army. Special Units can still move from any port to any port (irrespective of ships) but your army movements are dependent on unobstructed sea routes. Now whilst you can land an army into a province even if it has no port (and you have an unobstructed sea route) you cannot then take them back off that province unless you build a port.

This makes sea-borne invasion a bit of a risk. Even taking a province with a port may result in its capture but destruction of the actual port - essentially marooning that province until you build a port. Of note here is that any province that is "cut off" from your king suffers a steady decline in loyalty as time goes on - which produces a rush to build a port or open up now closed sea routes by the actions of opposing fleets and ships.

Overall the addition of meaningful naval elements enhances the game tremendously and the mastery of such is, once again, a key to success. Support of these ships and fleets is also a strategic and economic consideration. Ships automatically support themselves from he nearest port - however the further they are from a friendly home faction port the more they cost to support. Thus lengthy sea routes, even trade routes, can be uneconomic if all your ports are a long way from the target. This especially affects the "northern" factions such as the Danes and English which have no access to a Mediterranean port. To "partake" of the riches of trade in the Mediterranean they need very lengthy sea routes around the Spanish mainland and into the Mediterranean. Thus its imperative that both strike into wither French, Italian, aragonese, Spanish or almohad territory to secure such a port... and at the other end of the Mediterranean capturing one of the "strategic islands" of Malta, Rhodes, or Cyprus...and all he time trying not to antagonise every faction into war so that you've nobody to trade with!

Technology: (Tech Tree)

The tech-tree in MTW is extensive, far more so than in its predecessor STW. There are also now no limitations on the number of buildings in any single province - so you are now just limited by income and time. Obviously there are some factional specialties in terms of buildings - the Muslims get Ribbat's and Mosques rather than Chapter Houses and Churches but essentially the tech trees are largely very similar in terms of "type of building" that can be produced - the names may change but their purpose remains generally the same.

As already described the units that come from each building can be different depending on faction and/or what province the building is in and whilst initially confusing for those that want to know everything immediately - it soon works out that there is an obvious "rock-paper-scissors" approach lurking underneath everything. Militia houses always produce militia - albeit with factional variations, you need horse breeders for mounted troops (even though their variety changes) and so on and so forth. So although quite complex and varied the tech tree is largely one of common sense.

Helping this along are the detailed descriptions that CA have attached to just about everything in the game - from right-click detail panels to pop-ups and mouse-overs the game is replete with helpful tips and descriptors..theyr really have gone to town on this side of things and overall I think its a good thing. It has, on occasion annoyed me so much that I've turned off the pop-ups, only to discover myself missing out on some of the information and turning them back on. The choice is there depending on your mood - which is always the best option.


Some elements of the GUI: Note the descriptor for the likely terrain of the highlighted province. Also note the "down arrow" on the buildings panel, this scrolls down to the next page, or pages, to show all buildings in that province. You can alos see the "Mouse over" tooltip alongside the main panel.

The essence of the tech-tree is one confined and controlled by the "size of your castle". Most buildings have logical upgrade paths that are dependent on the size and type of your "castle". Castles come in the following flavor: Fort, Keep, Castle, Citadel and fortress - with each one having a number of "upgrades" that add extra walls, and a variety of different defensive towers to them. These additions extend the "siege life" of any units that are left within the castle and can be lifesavers (literally) - though in "safe" provinces it is worth forgoing the add-ons and going straight for direct upgrades ( a castle automatically has ballista towers whilst you need to add them to a keep, thus upgrading a "Keep with ballista towers" into a "castle" is, in a way, a waste of the money of producing ballista towers - but not if having such has saved the garrison from an attack)

The sheer length of the total tech-tree is variable depending on faction - but for the English the "total build" of everything in one province is about 374 years - which ma surprise you as the game only runs for 366 years.

Once again MTW departs from its "cloneness" with STW in this respect. The game is very much designed against being played in the fashion with which many played (successfully) in STW. Sitting back in a few safe provinces and pumping up a single one to a high degree of technical superiority often just degenerates into failure in MTW...one lone province simply cannot keep up with the demand for troops later in the game (or even early on) and concentrating everything into one province is a bad choice strategically/. Here's what CA had to say on things:

"You may be expecting to be able to build everything in one place, which is almost possible (370 turns for the Englilsh in a 366 turn game). However, it's not the way the game is intended to be played and isn't a good strategy. You'd end up with a bottleneck - only one region producing the majority of your best troops, and it would end up being far from the frontlines. You do need to specialise in some regions, and you won't end up being able to build all the troop types with maximum upgrades. You may not make it all the way to the end of the tech tree across the whole breadth of it in any one game, but you will be able to max out on some of the branches. You have to pick a strategy. This adds (a lot) to the gameplay. If you choose well you'll always have an edge over the AI. "

These are words of true wisdom for those embarking on the campaign game. Indeed they should be your motto along with "always have a long term plan". Having and sticking to objectives and plans is quite important in MTW (although flexibility and adaptability don't go amiss either) especially in sticking to "what you build where". Builders who through up structures "willy nilly" will soon run into big problems, as will those who try to build "from the ground up across the board". MTW really benefits those players who pick a very specific route through the tech-tree for each province.

For my latest campaign I have different provinces tasked/dedicated to specific production types - spears here, swords there, mounted here, spies&assassins here... and it pays off big time as you can surge ahead of the AI production in this fashion... it does, of course, rest very firmly on not loosing any of these provinces though or you can loose the whole technology for creating a "type" of unit.

My one BIG concern for the game though rests in the time it takes to construct buildings - not in the above methodology of the tech-tree but in the rate at which buildings are destroyed in provinces that are taken over by opposing factions or rebellions. IN essence the number of buildings destroyed is tied to the size of the castle - the bigger the castle the less buildings destroyed on capture (and if you bribe an entire defending army you get the province intact invariably). Yet seeing 5 or 6 buildings destroyed is far from uncommon and this can relate to dozens and dozens of years of production.

Now at the start of the game this may not seem that important - you have the time to build up. Yet as the game goes on and after so many Revolutions, civil wars and factional invasions there is a tendency for the AI factions to be little more than wooden forts and peasant armies...and this is solely down to internal conflicts and repeat invasions (fights over) individual key provinces.


At higher levels of difficulty this is especially problematic as rebellions and civil unrest are far more likely (as are factions reappearing after death) ..as I said in one forum

"Its disappointing to fight for 200 years to capture Palestine to discover its nothing more than a ramshackle wooden hut with a couple of mangy goatherds guarding it"

Now it should be pointed out that this does NOT always or inevitably happen - the variety in games is huge in MTW and even replaying from an older savegame produces a different "all new" experience - but it is something that occurs a little too often for me to be comfortable with and the blame can be laid firmly at the feet of the Campaign AI - which, not to put too fine a point on things, simply can't deal well with internal controls, loyalty of the population and taxation (and I don't think its builds sensibly either)...but more on this later.

Crusades & Jihad's:

Following on from the tech-tree portion of the game is the "at first rather odd" element that you cant actually build all of the units that are in the game. "Do what?" I hear you say?

Basically the "order knights" such as Templar and Hospitallier Knights, alongside Chivalric Foot Knights, Feudal Foot Knights and Order Foot and Fanatics are not "buildable" in the normal sense of things.

Instead these units comes from a different source - that of "Crusader armies" or are simply the "dismounted versions of their mounted equivalent". Confused yet? You will be....

1) You cannot build Feudal Foot Knights or Chivalric Foot Knights: Both of these units can be "played" though by dismounting Feudal Knights or Chivalric Knights during the deployment phase of a battle though. However, both these units can be "created" as their foot-only unit as part of either a rebellion or a Crusader army.

2) "Order" Knights, either mounted or foot-only, can only come from the creation of a crusader army. They cannot be built in any other fashion and do not appear in rebellions etc (may be some exceptions to this but generally take this as so).

Now, bearing in mind that these "order knighthood's" are the military elite of the medieval period this at first sight seems rather odd... as it also means you can't upgrade them or replenish depleted units. What it does though is "focus" the player (of catholic factions) into the utilisation of Crusades, and, trust me, its worth it.

The strangest part of all of this, as ironically most historically accurate, is that it makes the "Crusades" more of a tactical or strategic element than a religious crusade. What I mean by that is this: Early production of crusader armies grants the player control of an army core that has elite heavy units in it - and certainly in the Early era, units that are essentially "unbeatable" with comparative units (Templars will rock all over feudals, order foot will waste spearmen).

Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself though - so lets first look at how we "make a crusade":

You will need to have built a Keep and a church and Chapter House. The Chapter house allows you to build a "crusade", costing 1000 florins and taking 4 turns to create.
Once created you can drop the crusader icon onto any Orthodox, Muslim or excommunicated Catholic faction and the Pope will ask for a fee to authorise the crusade (or he may allow it for free).

At this point the Crusader army is created based on the Zeal of the province in which it is created. The initial units are those drawn from the "Orders" and will generally comprise some Templars/Hospitalliers, Orderfoot and or fanatics - although the composition is also dependent on province and faction, Spanish seeing Knights Santiago and creation in Rhodes or Malta Knights Hospitallier and in some French Provinces Chivalric Foot Knights etc etc.

Now this army cost NOTHING to support and will "Pull in" extra troops from any of the catholic provinces it moves through on its way to its destination depending on the level of zeal in those provinces. Above 50% and the crusade gains troops, below 50% and it will lose troops. The Crusade must always either move closer to its destination or not move at all, stationary crusades risk loosing troops as well as gaining new ones even in provinces with high zeal so there is an incentive to keeping moving towards your target.

Furthermore Crusade armies are allowed to travel through other faction provinces - certainly catholic factions will rarely if ever refuse them passage, firstly because they'd have to fight them and secondly as the Pope tends to excommunicate any faction that refuses a crusade to pass through. Orthodox factions will allow them to pass invariably also but often drain strength from them due to their innate lower zeal and lack of catholic followers - every Muslim faction and province will fight them.

Now then - IF the crusade reaches and captures its target province then the crusade disbands and all of its troops - including those you have "adopted" along the way from other factions, will become yours to command (and of course you gain the province). If the Crusade fails then they all die/disappear. If the province is taken by another Catholic faction in the meantime then the Crusade disbands but you STILL get the troops! Similarly if the province becomes catholic (above 50%) and is taken over by catholic rebels.

So - in essence a Crusade is an "all in one army" for the cost of 1000 florins that can drain soldiers from opposing factions, capture you a new province and has some elite troops in it.... on the other hand crusades passing through your own lands will strip out your own troops - so pay attention to zeal and where your best troops are!



The clever bit:

If you forget about crusading to the Holy Lands and think just about those lovely elite units you can use Crusades to great factional advantages: Especially the "strategic creation" of a Crusader army the move before you are about to take the target province with a normal army... this means that for 1000 florins you get 1-6 elite units the very next move that you capture the province (as the crusade ends and the troops enter your armies).

Now in the Early Era - with its high Zeal and low technology this can be a huge stepping stone to a rapid advance and an unbeatable set of armies. Of course their are some limitations: You can only have one active crusade at a time for starters and all those elite units can cost quite a lot to support...not too mention that you DO have to actually take your objectives!

The "worth" of Crusades fades with time however - by the High period you will probably be producing troops that are a match (or close to) Crusaders units and certainly by the Late period. Furthermore the global levels of Zeal start to fall dramatically with certain vents: The Mongol Invasion and the Black Death all spark off map-wide falls in Zeal which ultimate result in fewer and fewer initial units in Crusader armies...so the "Life of the Crusades" is wearing down by the High period and is all but over in the Late - indeed any leftover by this point are more of a relic that a fighting force, inevitably depleted by battles and cobbled together into ever smaller fighting units until not worth keeping going and disbanded.

...and if you think about it, from both the historical and political perspectives, that's pretty darn realistic, not too mention creating a nice variable, yet changeable, feature within the game. IT really takes some getting used to though and its such an entirely new feature to the gameplay in STW that it "can" be used to create a radically different gameplay experience.

Of course there's also the "flip side" which is that of the Muslim "Jihad". Unlike a Crusade the Jihad is not an "offensive" tool but rather a "defensive" one. A Jihad can only be called when a previously Muslim province is taken over by Christians (Orthodox or Catholic) and at this point the Jihad forms and marches over to recapture that province. The workings from here on in are roughly equivalent to that of a Crusade other than there is no direct equivalent to the "Order Knights" - although you will get high level Muslim units upon creation.

The final corner of the triangle is Orthodoxy - which has no equivalent to either Crusades or Jihads but which I have termed "The Crusade Killer". Orthodox provinces invariably end up with far lower zeal far faster than other religions - as a result crusades passing through them lose troops rapidly and by the High period launching a Crusade against Orthodox provinces can be a total waste of time - after passing through low zeal catholic provinces along the way if you have to fight through any Orthodox ones with zero zeal you can watch your crusade simply disappear through lack of interest... indeed it is one of the Orthodox factions aims to get zeal as low as possible as soon as possible - as this wont only affect their own provinces but "spill over" into neighbouring provinces, catholic or orthodox or Muslim.

Overall economics of empire building:

We've already seen how trade is a pretty much all-new feature in MTW but invariably the player who comes over from STW will have no real comprehension of its importance in MTW. Not too put too fine a point on things if you do not have a good trade income you cannot afford to build or to create or sustain armies. Farmland production is reasonable in some provinces but even when fully upgraded is often not substantial and certainly only a small percent of potential trade revenue. Now, for the end game where its obvious no trade will exist, the player will have to balance farm income against the few armies it has left trying to maintain the civilian populations, but until then, and especially during the first couple of hundred years a big income is vital to being able to grow fast along the tech-tree and develop multiple provinces (and fund multiple armies).

Once again it is hard to pass over exactly how much "grander" MTW is than STW in terms of scale and the required number of armies, support units and special units. There are far fewer "choke points" where one front-line army can guard half a dozen empty provinces and, indeed, you simply cannot leave provinces empty in MTW or they will revolt. Building castles, pacification buildings (Churches, monasteries and reliquaries) as well as Castles with garrisons is imperative..you WILL need trade revenues and you will need to manage and tend your people, royal line, armies and your generals...and it all costs money.

Generals and V&Vs:

Another new aspect in the game is the introduction of "RPG-like" elements onto some of the characters on the campaign map. Primarily these relate to your heirs and generals who can now "accrue" Vices & Virtues (V&Vs). These RPG elements are awarded for a number of things from their behavior in actual battles down to how well they manage (or mismanage) a province that they are responsible for.... as..in another change you now have "Titles" which can be granted to your Generals:

Titles come mainly from Provinces - e.g. Capture Scotland and you will be able to grant the title "King of Scotland" on one of your units. These titles come with a variety of bonuses from Loyalty through Acumen and Piety to Dread and Command level and they all "improve" those unit leaders. Additional titles can come from building certain buildings within provinces - build a Cathedral as the English as you get the Title "Archbishop of Canterbury" (an obvious slight oversight as Bishoprics are an Anglican/Orthodox title but nevermind we get the gist of it!), similarly an Admiralty will create the title "Lord Admiral" and so on and so forth.

These titles not only "boost" the individual they are attached to but also have a reverse effect on the province. Whomever you select to become the "King of Scotland" will then become that provinces Governor and as such their level of Loyalty, Dread and Acumen will affect that province. For key trade provinces it is essential to be-title units with high Acumen as these can tremendously boost the productivity of that province - I've seen a boost of over 40% to trade and farmland incomes by combining +Acumen Titles with provincial titles and a high acumen general.


V&V s on a General - the highlighted one being "Steward" and note the generals titles which give him bonuses in both Acumen and Command.


Not only this but once "assigned" a title that unit leader (General) takes on a direct relationship with that province. Build up the farmland and buildings and he may gain the Virtue "Steward" which boosts both loyalty happiness and Trade income, similarly sit around doing nothing and he may turn into a Glutton or Sybarite with direct affects on the COMBAT ability of that general. Such V&Vs translate directly too and from the battle portion of the game - V&Vs developed on the campaign map will translate into the game (-4morale for a Glutton who cant get on his horse) and within the battles running away will get you labeled as a "Coward" with both negative Morale and negative happiness in your province.

Indeed the introduction of V&Vs is probably the shining star of MTW and a feature that I think most will come to cherish..its not just that tit adds some much needed personality to your generals its that they take on a life of their own. You grow to care about that "superb general" who hasn't a negative V&V on him and you come to hate and distrust the gluttonous, perverted, sybarite, greedy, corrupt Governor that you REALLY REALLY want to get rid of but also happens to be a 9 star general and utterly dreaded, chivalrous and both a skilled attacker, defender and besieger (so he's a killer battlefield commander but he's ruining his province).


The sheer range of V&Vs in the game (now over 400) goes to show both their diversity and I think reflects the sheer enjoyment that CA have had in creating some of them... The description of an "Unhinged loon" has to be seen to be believed - those guys had a lot of fun doing this part of the game..and yet it isn't a superfluous frivolous RPG element - indeed FAR from it. As we shall see later in discussing the Battle AI, the V&Vs on your generals can radically alter the outcome of a battle - even before they have begun.

The Scene is set: Maps and Provinces

So we now have an outline of the basic units and something of the environment in which they are to be used - what of the map itself?

First thing to note is the size of it - 120 odd provinces and 40 odd sea lanes. Its a LOT bigger than STW every dreamed of.
The next thing to take not of is the vastly different shape of the map, layout of provinces and the sheer scarcity of "choke points"... this is a very open map with the utilisation of sea power meaning that very very few provinces are beyond a move or two from attack.

Next thing to consider is the size of the various provinces and their "strategic layout" in terms of religious disposition:
The Muslims are in the south and east, the orthodox north and east and the Catholics every where else.... the "wealth of trade" lies securely in the Mediterranean and the North Western areas, whilst containing potential choke points and "safe havens" are far from the center of power and need extended and costly sea routes... most high value trade items are in the middle east, key resources are in the Spanish peninsula and the center of Europe is a veritable maze of tiny provinces the taking of which leads you to attack from multiple directions at any one time.

In short: For STW veterans, the rules just changed.

The map itself is nicely detailed and now integrates directly with the battle maps that you fight upon. The exact "painted" border areas are reflected directly onto the battle maps - thus if in crossing a border it looks like you are going over hilly woodland - then you will find yourself fighting over hilly woodland. Just to make this all "ultra-clear" CA have now added in yet another "tooltip" which allows the play to see the exact "type" of map they are likely to fighting over, indicating terrain type, waterways elevations and climate (e.g. Hilly, lush, temperate, river crossing).

Unlike STW this does not result in playing on the same map over and over again. Instead the game generally pulls from a series of maps "of that type". Using the above example we can imagine a "pool" of 6 or so maps that are "Hilly, lush, temperate with a river crossing" and it will "Pull" any one of those maps each time you fight over that terrain. The variety is therefore much greater than in STW where it used one map for each province but it isn't so "random" as to be meaningless. Indeed in some areas I suspect that the pool gets a lot narrower and there may even be some unique maps for certain crossings. The great thing in MTW is , of course, if you fail attacking from one direction there is almost always an opportunity to fight from another and over different landscapes and maps... once again: This is not STW.

The majority of the rest of the campaign map is fairly similar to that in STW, armies are represented very similarly as are special units and ships in a similar fashion. One point to note with the sea routes is that there are also strategic elements here also - with both coastal waters and "deep sea" waters into which only certain ships can pass. Any deep-sea capable ship can move both further than coastal ships AND allow the bypassing of many blockades that are invariably just along coastal waters - this is something always worth remembering as the development of deep sea ships can be a real advantage.

Castles are represented with 3d icons/buildings and reflect their major upgrades and the overall GUI on the campaign map is somewhat improved with a HUGE amount of attention to info pop-ups and mouse-over information and a veritable flood of information available by right-clicks and the various "quick keys" or icons on the screen. It's all till very familiar to STW veterans though and simplistic enough to dive straight into without any major fears or surprises - some note has obviously been taken over grumbles from STW and scrolling from one province to the next without having to close windows, more reactive mouse clicks on the map and combinations of info and ways to get at that info is improved overall. Its still not flawless and can still be very "click heavy" at times - especially the individual attention that needs to be paid to special units at times and chasing around for some information can take time. As your empire expands the lack of being able to call up certain information can be frustrating:

Levels of Zeal would be nice as a "overlay" similar to loyalty (shift key) and the ability to distinguish just farmland production from trade income "overall" would be immensely useful. However the existing economic functions are adequate if not entirely streamlined and the interface certainly isn't"too cluncky" - if the series is to move on to another TW game though this side of things will need extra attention as I'm sure that this will prove to be a bigger gripe than it was in STW despite the improvements.

Campaign AI

So we have the map, we have the units, how does it play? Well the Campaign AI in MTW is actually very hard to distinguish and, to be brutally honest, I suspect that the sheer size of the game an the number of factions hides a multitude of problems that will only come to light with the masses of gamers playing it.

It's not that the Campaign AI is bad "per se" just that I have strong suspicions that if it was used in STW it's shortcomings would be far more easily apparent. In MTW some things the AI does can look totally stupid until saved by the actions of a separate faction or viewed from the perspective of a "mythological papal alliance" - on the other hand they may just be totally stupid AI moves that another faction takes advantage of rather than a planned master strategy... it is really hard to tell.

Some things the AI does do badly: Firstly its auto-build and auto-tax features are, in places a bit grim. Especially don't go near the "auto-train-units or auto-train-spies" - these will simply run into debt and problems - avoid them at all costs.

Auto-build does its job, I guess, but its pretty simplistic, aiming to build "everything in every province" - I would advise against using it unless you want to see how the AI may well build up its own factions (and if it does it goes a long way to explains some other issues).

Auto-tax actually works well - EXCEPT it can also drive you into big problems so you have to watch it closely..but I would still advise actually using it.
What auto-tax does is to set every province to the highest possible taxation level it can without going below 100% loyalty. This works superbly for maximising income with minimal clicking but it doesn't cope at all with Unit loyalty issues:

Whilst the provincial population may be still 100% loyal at whatever tax rate it sets, the loyalty of military units in that province it ignores. Thus those provinces tend to be right on the verge of "unhappiness" with potentially (well, inevitably after a while) unhappy generals sitting in them - a sure recipe for a rebellion. Furthermore the "ever constant maximised tax" generates the "greed" or "avarice" V&Vs for your respective governors - as you are bleeding every last bit of tax out of the population - and this results in negative attributes to income and again loyalty (and thus driving down income).

I believe that it is this very problem that generates the AI issues with what can be perpetual problems with internal factional loyalty. Too often are AI factions ruined with internal dissent and rebellion and I'm sure its the taxation that causes it - its a "spiral of doom" that the play can witness first hand unless they watch for it and every few years deliberately set taxation to manual and put taxes back to "Normal" (or lower) for a few years.
A "variable level" or slider would help tremendously - being able to set an "ideal happiness level" would alleviate a lot of these issues just by setting "minimum happiness 150% for example). When a bordering on unhappy population is combined with lowered loyalty and badly perceived governors its small wonder the AI factions suffer so much internal dissent... and, unfortunately, it is a flaw and a problem.

It isn't a permanent problem though - the AI does seem to cope with this on some occasions but I believe that it does so mainly by ordering in extra troops - again a spiraling cost that can drive a faction into bankruptcy or negative income - and here the AI totally fails to cope. I've seen Factions being beaten back into a few or even one province where they quite obviously are in negative income situations - but does the AI disband those 13 crappy peasants units in there? 'fraid not.

What all this translates into is an AI that is very good at expansionist moves but poor at internal management and poor when on the back foot and very very poor when in desperate straits.
. The bigger problem though stems from the rate of "building destruction" that can occur when a province is taken over... with so many internal rebellions, civil wars and foreign conflicts it is fairly common to see factions fight each other back into the dark ages - resulting in the player (or other factions) mopping them up with little effort as halbediers, chivalric knights and pikemen go up against peasants and urban militia...its not good.

Adding (possibly) to the problem is that the AI seems to be "restricted" from making inroads into trade empires until the start of the High Era (1200s) - this means that most factions ignore the seas, giving the player a great chance to leapfrog ahead....well it would except that it can also meant here are no ports to trade with!!!!

As stated this doesn't always happen and every game I've played has turned out differently (although these concerns were often enough to warrant notice) so obviously the AI "can cope" and maybe I'm being harsh on it and it was just a couple of "bad periods" - likewise I have seen almost 50 years of peace and rapid building and because most every AI faction is expansionist to some degree a few "dark age factions" simply means another faction takes advantage of their weaknesses.

This is precisely what I mean by the size of the game "Hiding a multitude of AI sins" - and I think a lot may depend on whether you are a cynic or an optimist... you could equally say that the AI is excellent as it allows such instances to happen rather than a mundane slug-it-out-fest or all-out-trade-wars.

There is a suspicion in my mind that even when not playing in the GA (Glorious Achievement) mode the AI actually follows its GA objectives.
If it does this is actually quite a clever move in many ways as the various player-faction GAs are well composed to create conflicts of interests - whether or not the non-player factions also have their own GAs (or their equivalent) I don't know - but it seems likely and not a bad idea but it may allow the player to eventually work out ways to avoid conflicts which are, too an extent, soft coded into the factions....which would be a shame.

Strangely, and it is strange, despite my strong reservations about the capabilities of the Campaign AI it almost invariably produces a tough and very very enjoyable campaign game. The way the game is set up to work against total domination, the way other factions at least "appear" to work against you - and the actions of the papacy to protect Catholicism, all serve to make for a difficult, ever changing and thoroughly enjoyable Full Campaign...so, in many ways, even if the AI has its dubious elements it DOES work overall and works well....(even if it sins are just being covered by the sheer number of factions. Or I'm just a paranoid cynic).

Battles

For many the campaign element of the game is nothing more than a space filler for the actual battles and, indeed, the historical battles and historical campaigns all sit outside of the campaign map and AI. So what are the battle in MTW like?

Largely they are unsurprisingly similar to those in STW albeit wider in variety of units and maps.
Unit detail is higher and better, maps are much larger and there are some key and nice additions and improvements to the GUI. Extra unit selection choices, better grouping toggles and bars, better reinforcement handling some extra commands and lots of techy additions and improvements.

Overall though the battles remain the same "good old" battles that we experienced in Shogun bought up too date, at higher resolutions (my standard is 1200 but I've played up to 1600 resolutions) and with better sprites, more variable maps, tied closer into the campaign elements and (if via the campaign) with the added elements of V&Vs.

Once again I'm going to stress the importance of V&Vs and their effects particularly on morale - I have had what seemed like a superb army totally devastated and routed by not paying attention to the generals V&Vs. He may have been rank 5 (a very good general on the surface) but his V&V totals gave the entire army a -9 to morale which meant the moment the general wavered they all routed and were destroyed by a far lesser force.

Morale, morale, morale, morale...watch morale! (ok got that?)


This prince may be a 3 star general but he is also a Coward - the -9 morale will render all but the most advanced troops with negative morale and they will break easily.


Effects of morale modifiers on your general to your army - you can see here that the entire army has morale problems.

Of course the far deeper variety and complexity of military units in MTW adds tremendously to its qualities and the variations in terrain and climate also make for ever changing battles and army requirements. A good army in the snows of Russia may be totally unsuitable to desert warfare - especially any of the heavy European foot and knights which tire so quickly in the heat.

Unit Variety and unit knowledge:

With so many units in the game there would be a distinct advantage I knowing all the units intimately - and indeed this remains true to a degree, but at the same time this level of complexity can be off-putting to the beginner or neophyte TW gamer.

Once again CA have striven hard to "simplify" much of this by adding in a variety of tool-tips and mouse-overs that detail both a units fighting capabilities and the units current staus..so the player knows both what the units are capable of and how they are feeling - knowledge that makes the battles that much easier to get into - although the purists well may argue that it also detracts from the pure strategy of the game at some levels.

It is an inevitable sacrifice however and hardly dents the enjoyment of the "experts" who, if like me, within a short period of time learn to ignore most of the tips as they become second nature, though even now they do at times alert me to problems I had overlooked.

Though I only mention it briefly here, one mustn't forget the siege element of the game - the ability to siege and defend destructible castles of wide variety, complexity and difficulty can't be looked after. Some of these sieges are excellent fun and very very difficult - up to and beyond the periods with gunpowder weapons. Assaulting a Fortress with non-gunpowder weapons remains a supreme challenge and great fun (as does defending it).

Similarly the usage of gunpowder weapons in open battles doesn't spell the end of more traditional units - far from it, and the game does a good job of reflecting this period where the usage of gunpowder weapons was a chancy thing, subject to the whims of nature and the slightest trickle of rain.

As far as actual battle encounters go MTW is in a different league to STW simply because of the variety of units - enabling a far wider range of scenario's and a thousand different tactics dependent on what units you have and what units you are facing, the weather, the terrain, the map the time left to play, the presence of neutral, allied or allied enemy forces... its all "somewhat" or "Much" better than in STW and is definitely a large step in the right direction overall... but with any such game element it all boils down to the AI...is it or isn't it any good?

Battle AI

Included with the AI I am going to mention deployment and deployment areas - they might be better rolled into the previous section but its my review so....

The battle AI in MTW is a more complex beast to gauge than that in STW for a few reasons:

Added variety of units.
V&V effects on generals/armies.
Different tactics available to the AI dependent on difficulty level.
Different tactics available to individual generals depending on THEIR rank and V&Vs.

These four combine to make a clear assessment of the AI rather difficult - the AI does do noticeably dumb things - but invariably its done by a dumb general.
In addition one's playing style affects the choices the AI actually does have... after all if the AI is attacking and I have placed my entire army at the very back of the map on the top of the hill there isn't a lot the AI can really do is there? Its got to crawl up a steep hill under withering arrow fire and slug it out in a frontal assault - it has no choice no matter how good or bad it is.

There are instances where the AI has done patently stupid things though - and in particular its one of our good old favorites - river crossings:

Whilst river bridges have been made wider and troop pathing is undoubtedly better the AI still copes supremely badly with river crossings. Whenever it has been presented with 2 or more bridges the AI has always plumped to attack just one bridge - on once occasion I threw its entire force along one of three bridges where I had it guarded by heavy infantry covered by longbows... meanwhile the other two bridges, one of which was eventually unguarded and the other with 19 peasants were left totally ignored - so 3000 enemy troops in 3 waves trotted on and off the map after being crippled and savaged at the one bridge (presumably because my general was there) - whilst all it had to do was race some cavalry over the one bridge and outflank me - or the very least attack all three.

Even forgiving the AI that basic error and putting it down to a crappy general (although this has happened 5 times now and with good generals) what can't be forgiven is the AI failing to use its ranged units properly - instead trying to march them across a bridge as if they were melee infantry - bizarre and stupid both.

It may be why they is such a dearth of river crossings in MTW - avoid the problem as much as possible being one solution.

Away from waterways the AI is generally much better but still does apparently stupid things - it does try to encircle you, it sometimes tries (and invariably fails but not always) to set ambushes and it often does fake retreats (quite well at times)..but its common fault is a general inability to use its ranged units at all well - far far too often you will see the ranged units marching up after the melee is already underway and laying down arrow fire into its own troops as well as yours. Where it doesn't do this it doesn't recognise when you yourself have run out of ammo and will sometimes just stands there looking at your troops as the clock counts down.

Other times enemy cavalry will charge up to your lines and then stand their like sheep waiting to slaughtered as they wonder what they were supposed to be doing and every so often a couple of AI units will break off from an attacking army and go and hide in some distant tress for absolutely no apparent reason whatsoever - perhaps they needed to go the the toilet? Who knows....



Possibly it's worst trait however is its total inability to pick relevant attacking forces wherever it is attacking with more than 16 units (16 units being the maximum on the field at any one time).
On numerous occasions I have seen what should be a lethal army, with great combined arms, straggle onto the battlefield either without any foot, without any cavalry or without any ranged units - or worse yet send in the first wave of troops with 6 or so units of peasants instead of its prime fighting infantry. Its very odd and big disappointment as it makes these battles far too easy to win but very annoying having to sit through 2 or 3 or 4 waves of attackers who subsequently come on as reinforcements to soon depart with low morale as their general was killed in the first attack with his inferior troops. All in all very disappointing.

Similarly disappointing is the size of the deployment areas. They may be on bigger maps but you can still deploy both armies within spitting distance of each other in the middle of the map - frankly I find this bizarre and a waste of all that extra space of the maps. Surely after so many complaints from long time gamers of STW they would have changed this so that deployment on maps could allow for much more mobility. At times you do get this but on almost every occasion the sheer area for deployment means that you can "always" place your troops "in the face" of the enemy (especially if you defend in a forward position).


Without being overly critical the Battle AI has been improved and its variety is better than in STW..but it still isn't enough to warrant praise in itself and in many ways lets down the (now) far superior campaign play. Battles you should never win against expert generals on expert level you win time and time again just by sitting there...and where the AI does win its invariably by sheer overwhelming numbers or troop advantages than any "generalship" by the AI.

Without being brutal the Battle AI is by far the most disappointing element of the game and is a serious let down, although it IS an improvement over Shogun. It doesn't "ruin" the game by any stretch of the imagination, it IS eminently playable and CAN present challenges, especially to the casual or inexperienced gamer - but STW veterans will walk all over it without much pause for thought and lots of disappointed sighs.

There are improvements though - routing units and the ability to rally troops being two notably improvements which can turn even an apparently lost battle into a surprising victory - I've turned a number of "lost battles" by routing troops and then judiciously picking off the dispersed enemy units that have scattered whilst chasing down those units that fled.


Summary:

A big game, a deep game, an immensely enjoyable and challenging campaign game with superb replay value let down by dubious battle AI and familiar AI issues from the predecessor in the series.

Multiplayer should be bolstered immensely by the tie-in with Gamespy and promised support fom CA/Activision in competitions and leagues. LAN games are great fun with a number of small improvements over STW int erms of battle setup options and controls over troop types. In MTW you can set cash for each "team", the numbr of players and the map type by terrain, climate, season and so forth. You can also select by "Era" which helps to confine certain troop types, particularly gunpowder weapons being restricted to the Late Era. Types of games are not that varied but you don't need much variety as that comes from the huge variation in units and maps - included are innumerous seige maps with castle maps comprising each of every single stage of a castle right from a simple fort up to a mighty fortress with seige cannons and barbican defences.... and these for both flatland and rocky hills (so the castle is also ontop on unscaleable cliffs on two sides!). All in all this makes for some interesting head-to-head games and will add huge variety to the online leagues and casual games.


The destruction of a fortress in the Late era from cannon bombardments - nevertheless the defenders were victorious!

The battle AI issues will detrimentally affect both historical battles and the Historical Campaigns - although the pre-scripted elements to both of these should mask some of the AI deficits and these elements are quite enjoyable and quite difficult.

Built-in map editors and a promised campaign editor for fan-created historical campaigns, including branched campaigns, make for extended playability and longevity alongside, hopefully, a far more active multi-player environment online and far more depth and variation in online battles.

Conclusions:

Medieval: Total War is a worthy inclusion in what promises to be an expanding series, if nothing else MTW has set the foundations firmly for progression of the series into TW3 - as yet unannounced but well on its way forward. The new campaign elements and the lessons learnt from STW and improved in MTW will hopefully be once again further refined and improved in TW3.

Once again though a slightly dubious battle AI spoils the overall game to some degree. It is far from "Woeful", it is far from being "Average" it simply isn't up to the standard of the rest of the game - much of which, from the music and far better voice overs, right through to the complexity, depth and massive replayability of the campaign game are quite superb.

How do you rate a game that is thoroughly enjoyable in most respects and only lets you down in a couple of areas? But for some those areas will be the key elements of the game...

Medieval Total Way is an excellent game - I have been playing various incarnations of it over the last 4 weeks or so now and it still intrigues me and keeps me playing and I've barely scratched the surface of it in overall terms of "doing everything". Indeed I have only really played one of the factions to completion in all of its Eras and more - so somewhere around 10% of the game in 4 weeks.

Value for money shouts at you - or should do - and the variable AI keeps you guessing if nothing else. If the battle AI was more robust and challenging, especially if it didn't do obscure and fundamentally stupid things I would be ecstatic. The Campaign AI may or may not be "iffy" - it really is hard to tell but irrespective of whether it is it still plays very well indeed and can be forgiven its foibles (and may be they will be absent by the time of release).