Medieval II - Just got it and it's ace!

I like medieval 2 but hate some stuff about it, mainly that a group of 15 highest class soldiers can kill a group of 80 most basic soldiers ( militia ), I hoigly doubt in real life they could...

Also annoyed by the animations still, imo the game should focus more on individual soldier combat not group combat ( I mean, keep the ammounts, but enhance the ai for individual units and enhance the animations for individuals...).

But aside that great game, nice mass scale battles :).

As for the campaign mode, I don't like it as much as in Rome: Total war.
 
Last edited:
snowdog said:
I like medieval 2 but hate some stuff about it, mainly that a group of 15 highest class soldiers can kill a group of 80 most basic soldiers ( militia ), I hoigly doubt in real life they could...

Also annoyed by the animations still, imo the game should focus more on individual soldier combat not group combat ( I mean, keep the ammounts, but enhance the ai for individual units and enhance the animations for individuals...).

But aside that great game, nice mass scale battles :).

As for the campaign mode, I don't like it as much as in Rome: Total war.
Click to expand...

but it's true, just look at the battle of agincourt (sp) there was also a welsh castle which held out against a massive english seige force with only 7(i may be wrong, but it certainly wasn't triple digits). also later in history, in the british empire, battles such as Rorke's Drift, where, through superior fire power, and 'more civilized' plan of battle they succeded against far greater numbers. the british square is a good example of superior tactics.

it happens throughout history, the better trained and equiped soldiers will always win, provided they are in a good position (ie not outnumbered 1000:1 kinda thing, and even then, they will take a large chunk out with them)


edit: the britsh square had better be an optional formation in the next total war :D
 
Last edited:
simisker said:
I think it's 'sack' as in take the city, sell all the buildings you can for a healthy lump sum, and then bugger off out of there sharpish. That way, you've deprived a rival of a useful city, gained some quick florins, and don't have to deal with any of those unrest/costly buildup issues.

If it fills up with a stack full of Rebel peasants, great - they're not going to expand, and the city's original owners - now weaker, don't forget - will probably throw stupid amounts of resources at trying to get back an empty shell of a city. Do this to a few of your neighbours' adjacent territories, and voila: one handy buffer zone between a richer you and a poorer rival.
Click to expand...


Yep thats the thing to do if your running low on cash. I managed to sack Paris towards the end of my campaign as the Turks and I must have made about 50k from that city alone. Suffice to say the French weren't happy. :D
 
bringerofdecay said:
bwahahahaha, i love the purple 'GAME' seller, i ordered it on 2 day delivery, but they seem to have sent it next day, meaning i got the expansion a day early...hahaha
Click to expand...

Dam thee!!! :mad:

Mine is packed and waiting for dispatch :D

Now do i skip out on my mates leaving do before he returns to france on the weekend and play MTW2 all night hmmmmmmmmmmmm.......
 
carlazai said:
Dam thee!!! :mad:

Mine is packed and waiting for dispatch :D

Now do i skip out on my mates leaving do before he returns to france on the weekend and play MTW2 all night hmmmmmmmmmmmm.......
Click to expand...


it's absolutely brilliant, really revitalizes an already awesome game, i'm on about turn 40 of a crusades campaign playing as antioch :cool:

edit: i forgot to mention it fits perfectly in the (M2:TW) collectors edition box :D
 
Last edited:
there was also a welsh castle which held out against a massive english seige force with only 7(i may be wrong, but it certainly wasn't triple digits).
Click to expand...

There's quite a bit of difference between being in a castle and squaring up to enemy on a level field - which is what he talks about. There is a point where numbers will just overwhelm. 15 Knights v 80 militia or similar should result in the Knights getting mobbed. I also find it quite annoying, but yet again I kinda treat it like a glorified game of Risk, so some technicalities I ignore :D
 
FirebarUK said:
There's quite a bit of difference between being in a castle and squaring up to enemy on a level field - which is what he talks about. There is a point where numbers will just overwhelm. 15 Knights v 80 militia or similar should result in the Knights getting mobbed. I also find it quite annoying, but yet again I kinda treat it like a glorified game of Risk, so some technicalities I ignore :D
Click to expand...

i also mentioned other occasions, so don't quote me out of context for a start.

also the armour of a knight would have been of the highest quality, whereas the armour of that of a lowly peasent would be rags, added to that the lance would be very effective at causing a rout , form that point the remainder of the unit of malitia could be slaughtered with no additional loss for the knights. a number of other factors come in to play including how tired the unit the knights are facing is, if they are tired they are more slugish, easier to kill, easier to rout etc.

however little you appreciate it a lot of effort has been put in to the balancing side, and while i'm not saying it's perfect, it is a damn sight better than what you have made it out to be.

at the end of the day, it is highly likely that a unit which is better trained, better armed, better armoured and has better moral can and will beat an untrained, quickly thrown together unit of men in rags weilding pitch forks.
 
Calm down, over-reacting like usual. It's not taking you out of context either, you can hardly compare Rorke's Drift with something like this, they had guns for goodness sake. :D
 
FirebarUK said:
Calm down, over-reacting like usual. It's not taking you out of context either, you can hardly compare Rorke's Drift with something like this, they had guns for goodness sake. :D
Click to expand...

i'm not mad :p, i'm just shocked at how good you are at ignoring things i've already mentioned.

and knights have plate, or at least mail armour, a lance, a war horse, the charge. what does a peasant have?

yes i can compare it to rorkes drift, its different time, same un eveness, i also believe i mentioned the battle of agincourt?

look it up on wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

now tell me that numbers means everything.

i'm sure later we find the only reason you're whinging about numbers this and mobbed that is because your peasant army of 1000's lost to a well trained force of elite, but few soldiers.
 
i'm not mad , i'm just shocked at how good you are at ignoring things i've already mentioned.
Click to expand...

your just not very polite :)

i also believe i mentioned the battle of agincourt?
Click to expand...

Then there is the whole issue of how outnumbered the English really were.

The point is, as raised by snowdog, that sometimes things are a little unrealistic. There was even a screenshot I saw (posted on these forums I believe), which put approx 67 men defeating an army of 600+. Highly dubious, even if you take into account moral and training. It appears that all the calculations the game uses go out of control sometimes!
 
FirebarUK said:
your just not very polite :)
Click to expand...

thats not true ;) i've not once mentioned that you are stupid (as an example)

FirebarUK said:
Then there is the whole issue of how outnumbered the English really were.
Click to expand...

not really an issue is it, they were out numbered almost 6:1 yet they previailed.

FirebarUK said:
The point is, as raised by snowdog, that sometimes things are a little unrealistic. There was even a screenshot I saw (posted on these forums I believe), which put approx 67 men defeating an army of 600+. Highly dubious, even if you take into account moral and training. It appears that all the calculations the game uses go out of control sometimes!
Click to expand...

actually, you guys insisted it was a massively unrealistic, but if you want to change tacks, then hey, go ahead.

i just looked at it, 87vs481, not as great as you suggest, and only approximatley 5:1. now, those 87 only killed 284 (not including prisoners, as they would have been routing as opposed to fighting), meaning that, technically they were out numbered by a little over 3:1. now, using the archers to cause a bit of devastation could have seriously weakened some of the enemy units, then all that remains is to repeatedly charge the enemy archers with the general+guard, who all have 3 hitpoints (or more, i dunno) which factors into account the quality of their armour/martial prowess etc then the quality of the enemy troops, as they are rebels i am assuming they were all weak malitia type troops, which are usually a push over.

i know the outcome seems at first glance a bit wrong but when you factor EVERYTHING in, it really becomes far more likely.

don't get me wrong, i agree with you to a certain extent, but things like this can, and do happen, but fortunately it becomes less likely the greater the difficulty you play at ;) :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom