Medieval 2 Total War Factions Unlock

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Luciana

unread,
Aug 5, 2024, 2:48:26 AM8/5/24
to bersvanmoordcha
Iwas introduced to the total war series through Rome Total War and later started playing Medieval Total War 2. In RTW there was an diplomatic option become protectorate but it was solely determined by the amount of cash that you can offer.(Since diplomats gain traits at an astonishing rate).

In the case of MTW2 it different because different aspects are taken into account so I shall be detailing about these aspects and how to improve them in the later sections. Comments? Questions? Please visit this thread.


Here I will mention the primary steps to be followed to get a vassal, most of my readers will be aware of these steps but still I am adding this section for those who have never even tried to get a vassal and know nothing about it. Please note that if you do not follow the things mentioned here you will not succeed in making a faction your vassal as the info in the following sections will only increase the chances of you getting a vassal. Beat down the faction you want to make your vassal to 1-2 settlement. Make sure that the last remaining 1 or 2 settlements are surrounded by your territories OR make sure that there last settlement(s) are near the sea with their ports blockaded- this will result in a heavy hit on their economy.


Factions whose power is weak or very weak (pathetic would be ideal) will only accept to become a vassal naturally no one would want to bow before another when you are strong enough. Economy should be shattered before attempting to make a faction your vassal. Taking a few full banner armies to stand near the last of their settlements is a good idea as well, though not compulsory as it causes devastation- again shattering the enemy economy.


The reputation of your King is a quite decisive factor when you try to make a faction your vassal. To be specific, other factions will more easily agree to become your vassal if you have a chivalrous King rather than a Dreadful King.


The most effective, sure-shot and quick way to make our King chivalrous is to sent him on a crusade. While sending him take care that you sent him to a near by place so that you can save certain number of turns wasted on traveling- I often persuade the pope to call a crusade on a near by rebel settlement for this propose. Persuading the Pope have many advantages. First, you can fight a rebel or an enemy of your faction rather than making a neutral faction your enemy (Usually when pope calls a crusade you are forced to declare war on that faction if at all you wish to join the crusade). Second, you can specify a near by settlement saving a few turn of journey.


The last thing on crusades is that you should never send the same person again on a crusade, as he will not get bonus retinues and traits due to him already owning them. The Pope may some time request for the same person in, that case you may be forced to assign that general to crusade but make sure that you have another crusading army and that army will do the fighting.


Diplomats with higher influence are bound to extremely useful particularly to negotiate a client kingdom agreement. Once, I was playing as England and was running out of turns- I needed 15 territories in 6 turns, which is quite a difficult task. Then I had a high ranking diplomat I sent him to negotiate vassalage with Spain which had around 7 settlements and quite formidable power. Still they agreed to become my vassal for a meager 15,000 florins. Thus that diplomat did saved the day. I hope now it is as clear as a crystal how good diplomats can be a treasure when coming to vassalage negotiation.


To train a good diplomat is a very difficult task and your only agent who can enter negotiation other than the diplomats are princesses who are even more difficult to train. Further more there is no guilds for diplomats in the game (that is quiet natural when relating to the medieval times history.). There is actually no sure shot way to get a great diplomat, in this aspect luck surely plays a huge role.


In case you are playing as a non Catholic faction you can use the same strategy on any ally. That will be enough to make a good diplomat.( though you will not be able to shoot 2 birds with one arrow).


In the start of the campaign you will be neutral to all other factions and so you can easily forge alliance with almost all the neighboring factions, but refrain from it. Doing so will later bring down your reputation, as after a few turns some of your allies are bound to fight each other (since you have too many with conflicting interests), and then you will have to pick one side to favor. This effectively means you are breaking your alliance with the other, resulting in reduced reputation. Even if you are not in such a situation, you will eventually (as your military power grows) have to attack some of your allies to expand your empire so try to keep the number of allies to a maximum of 3.


Thats all, hope this will help you make some vassals. After all it is great having vassals since we get money bonus and some territories will be gained without having to fight for it, more over it gives more satisfaction to make a faction your vassal than destroy it.


And no, this isn't a troll thread or one simply made to start fights, it's actually a thread that's going to lay down some of cold hard facts as to why the idea of CA making a Medieval 3 is a bad idea.


I don't think that the medieval era simply won't work for a TW game, but rather that it's not as simple as trying to recreate Medieval 2 but with some new bells and whistles. Because there's a LOT of things that need to be factored in to trying to force the entirety of the medieval era into a single campaign or game even.


But I'll try to keep this fairly simple, with just two of the biggest problems with the medieval era that would make trying to cram it all into a single campaign or game, and why splitting it up into separate campaigns or even games a far better option.


You see guys, the problem with the idea of trying to cram all the medieval era into a single campaign or game is that many of the factions that people would like to see simply didn't exist back at the start of Medieval 2's campaign, which I'm pretty sure started in 1066, after the Battle of Hastings of course.


I remember seeing a few people saying stuff like wanting to see the Kingdoms of Moldavia and Wallachia. Trouble is, neither of those kingdoms even existed back in 1066, and they can't just pop up if you've already conquered most of eastern Europe and all that, as that would just be a really stupid way to design a game.


I mean, exactly how is someone going to be able to just transition all of their armies from mail armored knights and such of the early period to objectively better plate armor of the high period and then to pikemen and so on of the late period without it all being a giant mess?


That question. That question right there shows exactly the kind of factors that the vast MAJORITY of people don't think about when crying for a Medieval 3. They don't stop to think about the colossal amount of stuff that would need to be factored in to properly make a Medieval 3, they just expect CA to magically make it overnight, as if it's really that easy.


This is kind of why I now think that CA should just make 3 separate somewhat smaller TW games that just so happen to each be set in one of those three periods of the medieval era. That way, CA could sort of give all the misguided fanboys what they want and make a lot of money in the process.


What's so difficult about building kingdoms over time? in 3k, the kingdom of wu will only be born if the conditions are right otherwise it will be something else. the same thing will be for the kingdom of Wallachia: this will only exist if there are requirements, leaving the player the freedom to work on it.


even for the evolution of the army, where is the difficulty? in empire you start with pikemen and end with line infantry, unlocking the appropriate technologies. all you need to do is add a cap to old units over time.


Unit changes has already been solved for over 10 years now. Technologies unlock new unit types that replace older ones allowing us to upgrade if we choose. Have different tiers of buildings to unlock other units and so forth.


Being able to play faction X or Y is an issue with all time frames. Yeah the general view of Medieval is larger in scale being 400-500 years where the bigger issue comes down to the turn time than factions. They could break it in to three games which is just going to cause problems with the community even more, or go like originally and have 3 different start dates. They might be a pain to support but with planning can work out and give the best of both worlds and plenty of DLC options.


the appeal of a tw campaign covering a broader timeframe is that the player bar covering the map with his colour could instead opt to build high and technologically superior as long as its closer linked to buildings not time capped via tech tree (some tech might be hard capped with dates). additionally, provide starting dates for factions that appear later in history. if the player covers too much of the map, victory conditions are met and the game officially declares victory. player can decide whether to continue a concluded campaign or not but from that point its hard to put blame on a now defunct campaign progression.


atilla already introduced a unit progression system which would be easily applicable, even a major selling point to a broad spectrum medieval 3 game. i dont think the supposed dumb "MAJORITY" ask for the impossible. instead of selling 3 separate deliberately limited in scope games, medieval 3's expansions and dlc imo should build towards and upon each other. thats why fots is great that build upon shogun 2, thats what made wh a success in the first place and that is the cardinal mistake made with pharao that should had build upon and enhanced troy. build upon and enhance from a solid foundation. not sell piecemeal that are not even incrementals.

3a8082e126
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages