So, any medieval games on the horizon?

[Gallifrey]

MTW2 definitely *looks* impressive, but all I've read about it so far just points to bigger and more spectacular battles. They've put religion and the Pope in for 2 but that doesn't really mean much in terms of a better strategy game. Oh, and unit troops have special signature combo moves.

I'm not terribly interested in this one.

[hawk_knight]

MTW2 looks great :cheers:

here is some more info (http://www.totalwar.com/community/medieval2.htm)


and here (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/medieval2totalwar/index.html)


and also here (http://pc.ign.com/articles/682/682437p1.html)

[Picotrain]

Dearmad look out for this one. It is coming this autumn and if it is what it claims to be then it will be a bombshell: http://int.games.1c.ru/13_century/ . You mentioned LOTR3. Is there a forum for that and has anyone tried modding it ever. It was a game with great potentials but silly mistakes.

I've been following this game almost since it's conception. Originally it was to be a game somewhat like Knights of Honor, whereby there was a strategic map and diplomacy and a separate mode for battles. Now it seems to have become a simple battle game, like MTW. Unfortunate. Unless they re-announce that there will be a strategic element to this game, I have lost interest. :-(

[Winrich von Kniprode]

Medieval Total War 2 seems like a must :D! http://www.totalwar.com/community/medieval2.htm

[Angryminer]

Medieval Total War 2 seems like a must not buy.

Angryminer

[Gallifrey]

I'm with Angryminer on this one. Yes, the Total War games give a great combat simulator for armchair generals, but precious little else in terms of an actual strategy game. The developers may spend a lot of time researching medieval warfare and army construction and so forth, but the medieval world was not one battle after another and so on and so forth.
But I guess that's why it's called Total War. It's war, and nothing but. Dead boring in my opinion.

[Ciaran]

Medieval Total War 2 seems like a must not buy.

Angryminer

"Need not" is what you mean, I suppose. "Must not" means it´s forbidden.

If the development process of MTW towards RTW regarding empire management is kept up, then it´s certainly worth watching. I certainly hope so.

[Traveller]

Well, IMHO, it wouldn't be so bad. There's nothing bad in some relaxation with a nice good PC medieval battle. If I wanted a complete historical simulator I wouldn't play KoH either. I would play only CK, EU and the like! But again I'm somewhat irritated by M:TW about the nations available - it's like if they choose this one and only starting period, so that there would be no Balkan states, like Bulgaria, Serbia or at least the Latin Empire! If someone could only make a mix with the best of KoH, TW and CK... :rolleyes:

[Winrich von Kniprode]

Well, IMHO, it wouldn't be so bad. There's nothing bad in some relaxation with a nice good PC medieval battle. If I wanted a complete historical simulator I wouldn't play either. I would play only CK, EU and the like! But again I'm somewhat irritated by M:TW about the nations available - it's like if they choose this one and only starting period, so that there would be no Balkan states, like Bulgaria, Serbia or at least the Latin Empire! If someone could only make a mix with the best of KoH, TW and CK... :rolleyes:

Indeed, If KoH had funnier battles, I would surely never quitted of it. I like a lot of detail in my strategy games, but too much detail is nerdish. I hate ''clean-***'' games like EU (clean-***: a game which possesses so many complicated and picky details in which you probably even gotta clean the *** to your soldiers when they wanna go to potty). TW series, might be simple, but, hey, at least AI is much better than KoH, the unit proportions are much more realistic, and the gamer support is certainly MUCH better than KoH. Oh, and lets not forget the easy-to-mod features.

[Ciaran]

Both have their strong points and each has features I whished the other had. Take the agents (in the broadest sense of the word) of KoH, for example. They are a great idea, but they totally lack character. Now, the Rome family members have a character development, but they can´t do much (govern a city or lead an army. And die.). The diplomatic system as well, I wished in KoH you could make counter-offers in your diplomatic exchange, something you can do in Rome, but all in all the KoH diplomacy system is way more transparent. The campaign map of KoH is unsurpassed, with the non-turnbased gameplay, army food supply, plundering, etc. But I like the RTW battles better (and the MTW battles even more), though I do like the fact that armies in KoH need a Marshal to lead them. And so forth. In my opinion it´s not an "either-or".

[Madmax]

yes, I agree with the last statement.
Even if I think that Rome is actually a step back respect to Medieval TW in terms of tactical battles. Right, graphic is better, but I personally don't care, especially when I have to zoom out to control 16 or 20 units at a time.
I disliked the battles in Rome so much that I almost prefer the ones in KoH :silly:

honestly, I am equally a fun of strategic and tactical elements, and of medieval and roman times, but I stopped to play Rome much earlier that KoH :eek:

Beside, as already mentioned above, if they do MTW2 with the battles of MTW1 and the depth, the possibilities and the fun KoH gives, I will never stop to play it :bday:

Unfortunately I heve read that here nobody believes in a KoH2 ... too bad.

[Mircoslavux]

Hoi, Has somebody played Great Invasions?
http://www.great-invasions.com/int-en/index.php?Location=Home

The map looks bit like KoH'!?
Post you experiences please...

nice day

:go:

[Gallifrey]

There's a review of the game here:
http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/greatinvasions/

Looks intriguing, I may have to check it out. I've been craving a new historic strategy game. The review says there isn't much in the way of diplomacy however, which is a major strike against it for me.

[Lord_Nick]

Firefly, developers of the Stronghold series, just announced a new release for fall 2006: Stronghold Legends.

Release
http://ir.take2games.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=187092

Pics/Screenshots
http://www.fireflyworlds.com/shl_index.php

[Anguille2]

Firefly, developers of the Stronghold series, just announced a new release for fall 2006: Stronghold Legends.

Release
http://ir.take2games.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=187092

Pics/Screenshots
http://www.fireflyworlds.com/shl_index.php

Could be fun....:go:

[Angryminer]

Will propably be even less fun than the last installment of the series. :sad:
And, is that right what I'm seeing? Fantasy-elements in Stronghold?

Angryminer

[qorda]

:yawn: Stronghold series was one of the great flukes in the strategy-war gaming history. Its AI control of war and troops was appalling but its castle building and nice voice acting and graphics got it through as well as active forums and support from the company (something BSS and Sunflower wont understand). Stronghold II has been less lucky and now Firefly by apparently introducing the fantasy element will try to widen the appeal but it will turn off people like me who want realism in medieval warfare. :nono:

[Gallifrey]

Not really "medieval", but still promising - Eurpoa Universalis III
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/europauniversalisiii/index.html?q=europa%20universalis