Medieval II Total War - Is this game too hard for my simple brain?
sethjoh...@yahoo.co.uk
Downloaded the demo for Medieval II, seems a pretty cool game, I know
there are a lot of fans out there. Just playing the first scenario and
I seem to get my arse kicked good and proper regardless of what I try,
how steep is the learning curve for this game supposed to be?
I've got formations with all my projectile guys stood firing behind
lines of soldiers guarding but ultimately I end up getting wasted,
often with my archers/muskateers just standing around even though i've
tried every combination of fire at will/guard/melee.
I'm normally pretty good at games so this getting to me. Anyone got any
quick tips to get me started enjoying the game on a slightly deeper
level?
Cheers,
S.
mcv
>
> Downloaded the demo for Medieval II, seems a pretty cool game, I know
> there are a lot of fans out there. Just playing the first scenario and
> I seem to get my arse kicked good and proper regardless of what I try,
> how steep is the learning curve for this game supposed to be?
I have no experience with MTW2 yet (need a bigger PC first), but for MTW1,
my advice would be to play the campaign game first and do all battles
automatically, except for small, easy ones and the ones where you have a
good defensive position, like a bridge. That way you've got time to
figure out how the different units work.
> I've got formations with all my projectile guys stood firing behind
> lines of soldiers guarding but ultimately I end up getting wasted,
> often with my archers/muskateers just standing around even though i've
> tried every combination of fire at will/guard/melee.
Do your projectile guys have line of sight to their targets? That could
matter quite a lot for their accuracy. I don't know MTW2 yet, but I can
imagine firing blindly over the unit in front of them hurts their
accuracy.
Does it help to pause the game and give your archers/musketeers explicit
firing orders?
mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
space...@yahoo.com
sethjoh...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> Downloaded the demo for Medieval II, seems a pretty cool game, I know
> there are a lot of fans out there. Just playing the first scenario and
> I seem to get my arse kicked good and proper regardless of what I try,
> how steep is the learning curve for this game supposed to be?
>
> I've got formations with all my projectile guys stood firing behind
> lines of soldiers guarding but ultimately I end up getting wasted,
> often with my archers/muskateers just standing around even though i've
> tried every combination of fire at will/guard/melee.
play the campaign first.
put the projectile guys on a higher spot. leave some space between them
and the garding units, you don't want your archers to kill your
solders.
> I'm normally pretty good at games so this getting to me. Anyone got any
> quick tips to get me started enjoying the game on a slightly deeper
> level?
are you good at medieval total war 1 or shogun TW?
put the spear man in the first row. put some swordsman behind or
inbetween to protect them. your archers behind them (leave space) and
horsman on flanks or in the back.
you should position your army as higher as you can.
try to keep you army in straight lines or some other regular shape. you
won't get anywhere with a mob.
try to surround the enemy with horsman or just pass them and charge
from behind.
you should inspect what units the enemy sends in the first lines so you
could make your first line to correspond.
if you put your swordsman in the first row and the enemy sends cavalry,
whoopsy.
if you put your spearman in the first row and the enemy sends
swordsman, there you go again (but you have a slightly better chance).
there are some good totorials on MTW_1, with lots of unit info. it
would be helpful.
> Cheers,
> S.
cheers too.
ps - may the no-dachi be with you.
Tuold
<sethjoh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1166302178....@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
It seems to me the key to winning most battles in this game (as well as in
RTW) is to let the enemy charge in (ineffectually) then bring your cavalry
units around to flank and get the enemy to panic and rout. The only real
hard part of the demo scenario is repelling the attack from the rear.
mike
space...@yahoo.com
> RTW) is to let the enemy charge in (ineffectually) then bring your cavalry
> units around to flank and get the enemy to panic and rout. The only real
> hard part of the demo scenario is repelling the attack from the rear.
>
> mike
that's the way i do it 80+% of the time. sometimes you'll have to try
very hard and can't just wait for the enemy to rout. especialy when
they hit you with elite infantry units that have a sky-high morale.
cavalry, no matter how strong, usualy losses to regular spearman.
if you put your army on a better position, you are already wining.
for repelling rear attacks keep two reserve multirole units. something
with polearms (naginata / halberdiers), they are good at stoping
everything.
when on a mountain high position, one must not chase the enemy from the
field. have 1/4 or 1/3 of the units with polearms and the rest of them
archers (also the reserve). just keep the enemy coming, there will be
plenty of dead.
search for Frogbeastegg guides.
sethjoh...@yahoo.co.uk
first demo battle and realised that as mentioned, having my ballistic
guys (muskets) firing from too close behind their defending soldier
guys does seem to be pretty futile.
Actually one thing I wasn't expecting was that if I basically left all
the musket guys in the open with a free range of fire then even though
we were being charged at, the enemy ranks kept attacking the slightly
closer ranks of soldiers and merceneries. It seems odd because watching
it you really wonder why they don't go hell for leather against my
muskets as those are the guys totally wasting them and giving me the
only chance of winning. Yet even though they have a clear line to
charge, they end up in hand to hand with my soldiers even when my
soldiers are only slightly closer. I used my mounted soldiers to attack
any of the enemy ballistic attacks that got comfortable.
There's also a weird thing when my musket guys had a nice high position
and could easily hit the enemy archers shooting them, they would take
one shot then dance around a bit getting ready for the next shot but
then just not do anything until eventually i'd order them to shoot
again.
I spent a lot of time on pause rushing around the battlefield!
Anyway it's a pretty cool game and thanks again to you all for the
tips. Now to try the next battle in the demo.... ! :-)
Cheers,
Seth.
P.R. Vanfleet
Holy Roman Empire now, and i have grown too large.. forces spread out
too thin across my frontiers. Now that i have been excommunicated
rebellion is prevalent in my inner provinces.. i have to conquer and
sack a city to maintain my armies.. that's bad news for France but
still its turning into a headache.. still its a lot of fun.
Patrick
I played through the two tutorials yesterday, and I've ended up with
mixed feelings. My first impression is that it may be a great game but
the tactical battles are annoying. I may have to follow a suggestion
from this thread, and just play the campaign game, resolving battles on
automatic.
All the 3D scrolling around on the tactical map is dizzying for me.
And I've never been big on real-time games anyway; I'm more a TBS fan.
I prefer tactical battles to be more like in Master of Magic or
Disciples II -- small and stylized, rather than vast and "realistic."
--Patrick
Patrick
After going through the two tutorials day before yesterday, last night
I played a Quick Battle. Here's about what I experienced:
I noticed that my army was arrayed within wooden walls, and I saw the
enemy army lined up across the open plain. I wasn't sure if the walls
were real, or if they were just there to mark off the area where I
could do my setup. But at any rate, I could only set up my units
within the walls. So, I tried moving a few units around. Didn't seem
great to have mobs of religious fanatics up front, with trained
spearmen far behind -- so I make a few attempts to correct that.
Curiously, only half my orders seemed to be followed. I guess there
was too much crowding and some of the troops couldn't get to where I
wanted them. So after a few minutes I gave up and just clicked Start
Battle.
At first it looked like nothing was happening, so I sped up the action.
Then suddenly the enemy had blasted several breaches in my wooden
walls (they turned out to be real after all), and I slowed time back
down so I could look around and see what was going on. Moments later
the enemy army was charging into my "fortress," and it looked like I
was losing, so I paused the game and took a closer look.
I kept hitting the wrong keys. When I wanted to scroll forward, the
map kept rotating; and when I wanted it to rotate left, it always
rotated right -- and I kept losing track of what I was looking at. It
took me a while just to get the breakthrough area centered on my
screen.
At that point, I gave up on making any organized effort. Obviously I
was going to have to fight where I was, since the enemy was already
upon me. So I just started clicking on idle units and ordering them to
attack the enemy. That seemed to get a few units in motion at least.
But when I moved the cursor around, the battle reports were all gloomy;
they said only a military genius could win this battle.
Somewhere along the line I got lucky and killed the enemy leader. That
was encouraging. But a few turns later, I ordered my general and his
bodyguard to attack some enemy flankers who'd gotten around behind most
of my army. They won, but my general was killed.
Around this time I noticed that all the action inside my fort had come
to a standstill. There were a lot of bodies lying around and a lot of
exhausted units standing around. But outside the fort, enemies were
riding around in circles shooting arrows at somebody; and a few other
enemy units were off in the distance, near their starting line. That
seemed odd, so I moved the cursor around looking for units that weren't
yet spent; and I found a few and ordered them to attack whatever
enemies I saw out in the field.
I was losing track of what was going on, since the fights were
dispersed all over the place. But the enemy seemed to have retired to
their starting line. So I clicked Ctrl-A and ordered my whole army to
converge in front of the fort. Then I started my cannons and
trebuchets firing at the distant enemy.
When my remaining reasonably fresh troops arrived, I moved them toward
the enemy one by one till they all seemed to be within striking range.
Then I stopped my artillery from firing and ordered the infantry to
attack (my cavalry must've been off pursuing somebody, or else it was
spent). One of my units was routed, but the others evidently won.
Soon a victory screen popped up, much to my surprise. Somehow I'd
managed to salvage this fiasco.
I was given a chance to pursue the enemy or just end the battle. The
other day during the tutorial, I tried to pursue, but the pursuit
seemed to go on and on forever. So this time I just ended the battle.
Next I tried to start a Grand Campaign, just to see what it looked
like. A few minutes into it, I decided it was far too complicated for
me to bother with right then, so I wanted to quit. But I couldn't find
a Quit button! There was apparently no way to get out of the game. I
resorted to Ctrl-Alt-Delete and closing the game using the Task
Manager.
So, that was my second impression of Medieval II Total War, FWIW.
--Patrick
BobW
"Patrick" <patrick19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167231240.6...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> sethjoh...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
<snip> Next I tried to start a Grand Campaign, just to see what it looked
> like. A few minutes into it, I decided it was far too complicated for
> me to bother with right then, so I wanted to quit. But I couldn't find
> a Quit button! There was apparently no way to get out of the game. I
> resorted to Ctrl-Alt-Delete and closing the game using the Task
> Manager.
>
> So, that was my second impression of Medieval II Total War, FWIW.
>
> --Patrick
>
button to bring up the menu screen. Finally tried <escape> and there it
was.
As far as camera work goes, the options screen lets you select between RTS
and Total War camera controls. I think it defaults to RTS. Since I never
move the camera in any of the few RTS's I've played, I selected Total War
camera controls.
I looked around for a Total Realism mod but it appears to be some ways off
from completion. I ended up using the Medieval Lite mod although I also
downloaded the Lands to Conquer mod.
Bob W.
bob
"BobW" <bl...@columbus.dropthis.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4592acd8$0$20025$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
You should read the manual. All that stuff is right in front of you. It is a
hard game, I've never won,yet. But it has that "one more time" playabilty.
Don't waste your money on one of those books you can buy, The manual has
every thing you need.
Kevin O'Donovan
"Patrick" <patrick19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167231240.6...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
As the other posted indicated, you really need to look at the manual a bit,
to get started
> I noticed that my army was arrayed within wooden walls, and I saw the
> enemy army lined up across the open plain. I wasn't sure if the walls
> were real, or if they were just there to mark off the area where I
> could do my setup.
As you later realised the walls were real. It seems your quick battle had
you defending a castle, possibly not the best way to start learning the
tactical part of the game. Also, the quick battles tend to give you a lot of
units and it can be pretty overwhelming at first. I'd suggest you'd be
better off starting with a custom battle (not in front of the game or manual
at the moment, so may have the name wrong). Going this way, you get to
choose everything about the battle, including how many points both sides can
spend on their troops, which troops to use, were to fight, etc. Start off
with just a few troops and get the hang of controlling them first.
> upon me. So I just started clicking on idle units and ordering them to
> attack the enemy.
Not necessarilly the best idea. Not only is it important not to attack with
innappropriate troop types (eg, attacking spearman with cavalry), but things
like the direction of attack and whether or not a unit is already engaged,
etc, can make a big difference. Again looking at spearman and cavalry, a
frontal charge into the spearman would result in a dead cavalry unit, but
hitting them from the back or sides whilst they're already engaged from the
front with a suitable infantry unit would have an entirely different
outcome.
> But when I moved the cursor around, the battle reports were all gloomy;
> they said only a military genius could win this battle.
These reports apply only to the status of the unit you are hovering over. If
one of your units is in that state, but you send another unit at his
opponents flank, things could turn around very quickly
> Around this time I noticed that all the action inside my fort had come
> to a standstill. There were a lot of bodies lying around and a lot of
> exhausted units standing around.
Probably a lot of units had routed?
> I was given a chance to pursue the enemy or just end the battle. The
> other day during the tutorial, I tried to pursue, but the pursuit
> seemed to go on and on forever. So this time I just ended the battle.
Use the minimap to locate any enemy units, and hunt them down. Probably not
worth the hassle in a one off battle, but as part of the campaign it allows
you to capture prisoners and ransom them back for cash, or to ensure that
the enemy's stragglers don't get to reform and cause trouble for you again
later in the campaign.
> a Quit button! There was apparently no way to get out of the game.
As already mentioned, the Escape key brings up a menu. Not sure if there's
also an icon on the screen somewhere. You could really do with at least
skimming the manul. The game isn't that complex, but it's complex enough
that you'll have problems just jumping into it.
Kev
Mekton Zero
wrote:
>> I was given a chance to pursue the enemy or just end the battle. The
>> other day during the tutorial, I tried to pursue, but the pursuit
>> seemed to go on and on forever. So this time I just ended the battle.
>
>Use the minimap to locate any enemy units, and hunt them down. Probably not
>worth the hassle in a one off battle, but as part of the campaign it allows
>you to capture prisoners and ransom them back for cash, or to ensure that
>the enemy's stragglers don't get to reform and cause trouble for you again
>later in the campaign.
Cavalry are excellent for this. Nothing like killing 1/2 of your enemy and
then capturing nearly all the rest of the other 1/2 as they try to route off the
field.
I tend to go the good guy route, if it's only a couple of hundred guys or so
(more if they are mostly militia or peasants), I just let them go. They will be
just as easy to beat the next time. If I get a bunch of high value elite units
(or an enemy family member) I still don't want the dread hit for executing them
outright, I'll just offer the ransom (about 95% of the time it will be declined)
and you end up killing them anyway. :)
Patrick
> "Patrick" <patrick19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1167231240.6...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> As the other posted indicated, you really need to look at the manual a bit,
> to get started
Yep -- thanks.
I did finally get around to reading the manual. Then, for the last
couple evenings, I played at a campaign game -- just letting all the
battles be automatically resolved for now.
Guess I'm starting to get the hang of it, but I wonder if I have the
patience for this kind of game anymore. I'm an old-time board wargamer
who's been spoiled by computer games (to the point where nowadays I
even jump in without bothering with the manual). But I don't feel I
have the kind of time to spare that I used to. I squeeze most of my
game playing in a half hour here, an hour there.
Anyhow, things are going well enough for a newbie like me in the
campaign game I started. I successfully led a Spanish army on a
crusade to capture Antioch, and the Moors have been pushed off the
Iberian peninsula. Now I just have to pull my main army back from the
Levant or else build a new one to fight my ex-allies, the Portuguese,
who've suddenly turned on me (but been excommunicated in the process).
One of these days when I've got more time on my hands, I'll try the
tactical battles again.
--Patrick
Matz
I have a stressful full-time job (taking care of mainframes -- more
accurately, taking care of people who take care of things), and play to take
my mind off work.
I've been playing only one RTS game consistently over the years (Red Alert 2
/ Yuri's Revenge and the various mods) and have been recently looking for a
replacement with more depth. I'm getting tired of beating 3 bots at the
hardest level all the time. I tried Rise of Nations but really got turned
off by the click-fest. (The game is a complete anti-thesis to the axiom of
'keeping it simple stupid').
Medieval 2 seems to have a lot of depth. The main problem I'm seeing in it
is that it appears unresponsive to which I think you mentioned already.
There's a lack of "Yes sir, I'll do it NOW, sir!!!" type of feedback, and
hence combined with the large scale of the battles, amplifies the sense of
having loss control (by the way, this reminds me of work. I work for a huge
corporation). I feel like an observer and overwhelmed by it all. Good
graphics --- but as an observer, I don't feel any involvement. No different
than watching TV or Braveheart for that matter -- which means my mind
begins to wander after awhile, as in -- "$hit, I hate year-ends, and the
high volume tsunami transactions that go along with them...'
> Guess I'm starting to get the hang of it, but I wonder if I have the
> patience for this kind of game anymore. I'm an old-time > One of these
Julian Barker
Matz <doo...@doormat.com> wrote
>Patrick, you're taking words out of my mouth! I know exactly how you feel.
>I have a stressful full-time job (taking care of mainframes -- more
>accurately, taking care of people who take care of things), and play to take
>my mind off work.
>
>I've been playing only one RTS game consistently over the years (Red Alert 2
>/ Yuri's Revenge and the various mods) and have been recently looking for a
>replacement with more depth. I'm getting tired of beating 3 bots at the
>hardest level all the time. I tried Rise of Nations but really got turned
>off by the click-fest. (The game is a complete anti-thesis to the axiom of
>'keeping it simple stupid').
>
>Medieval 2 seems to have a lot of depth. The main problem I'm seeing in it
>is that it appears unresponsive to which I think you mentioned already.
>There's a lack of "Yes sir, I'll do it NOW, sir!!!" type of feedback, and
>hence combined with the large scale of the battles, amplifies the sense of
>having loss control (by the way, this reminds me of work. I work for a huge
>corporation). I feel like an observer and overwhelmed by it all. Good
>graphics --- but as an observer, I don't feel any involvement. No different
>than watching TV or Braveheart for that matter -- which means my mind
>begins to wander after awhile, as in -- "$hit, I hate year-ends, and the
>high volume tsunami transactions that go along with them...'
>
I am in a similar position have a stressful job and too little leisure
time. I have played board games for 34 years and computer games for 23.
The last couple of years I have found it very difficult to enjoy any new
games. It seems also flashy graphics and attempts to overwhelm the
player without giving proper control or feedback. I find I keep
returning to the original MTW.
--
Julian Barker
"Many battles have been fought and won by
soldiers nourished on beer,and the King does not
believe that coffee-drinking soldiers can be
relied upon to endure hardships in case of
another war."
Frederick the Great, 1777
Matz
> time. I have played board games for 34 years and computer games for 23.
> The last couple of years I have found it very difficult to enjoy any new
> games. It seems also flashy graphics and attempts to overwhelm the
> player without giving proper control or feedback. I find I keep
> returning to the original MTW.
I think what we need is a thorough, detailed, step-by-step walkthrough -
tutorial combo that'll show us how to play a typical game from start to
finsih ie. complete.
Something like:
1. Make sure that you have the correct version. To check your version,
press...
2. To get updated versions visit: ...
3. From the main menu, press this button. The button looks like....
4. After pressing the button, you'll get this screen. Got it? If not, go
back to the main screen. Repeat step 1.
Doing what I'm doing in real life, documentation is a big thing. Call me an
oldie, but the docs provided only answer theWHAT and the WHOs. In other
words it's a reference manual. Hey game producers: how did you learn how
to drive your car? Would you have been able to do it by just reading the
car owner's manual?
Patrick
> I think what we need is a thorough, detailed, step-by-step walkthrough -
> tutorial combo that'll show us how to play a typical game from start to
> finsih ie. complete.
Actually I have a very good first impression of M2TW's tutorial,
manual, and online help. The manual is well written and so far seems
to be comprehensive. The two tutorials made decent introductions, I
guess -- but since I played them before reading the manual, I still
ended up feeling I didn't really know what all was going on. The
online advisers have been useful in reminding me about features I read
about in the manual but then forgot.
The main problem for me, I think, is that the game is just too big --
bigger than I really have time for. I can find time to play at it, bit
by bit, on weekday evenings. But to really enjoy a game like this, I
think you have to do what I used to do with wargames when I was
younger: dedicate a whole day or weekend to playing. And then keep
coming back to it and playing every weekend, for hours on end.
Now that I've reached a stage of life where time is moving so much
faster (maybe because I'm slowing down), I find that games of this
magnitude are beyond my comfort zone.
The more I see of big, elaborate computer games, the more I admire
classic board and card games. They're reasonably small, short,
fast-paced -- and yet sometimes deep and challenging.
The escapist part of me is still drawn to M2TW and such -- and I'll
probably keep playing at it for a while. But I have to admit that my
favorite thing about Civilization IV (compared to the three previous
versions) is that it's possible to play a short game of it in an
evening.
--Patrick
Matz
>Actually I have a very good first impression of M2TW's tutorial,
>manual, and online help. The manual is well written and so far seems
>to be comprehensive. The two tutorials made decent introductions, I
>guess -- but since I played them before reading the manual, I still
>ended up feeling I didn't really know what all was going on. The
>online advisers have been useful in reminding me about features I read
>about in the manual but then forgot.
Sounds like I need to give it a second try.
>Now that I've reached a stage of life where time is moving so much
>faster (maybe because I'm slowing down), I find that games of this
>magnitude are beyond my comfort zone.
That's what I'm looking for -- to break out of my comfort zone.
>
>The more I see of big, elaborate computer games, the more I admire
>classic board and card games. They're reasonably small, short,
>fast-paced -- and yet sometimes deep and challenging.
I used to play a lot of chess.
>The escapist part of me is still drawn to M2TW and such -- and I'll
>probably keep playing at it for a while. But I have to admit that my
Me too. The graphics are fascinating. I'm determined to learn this
game, within reason. It's probably the state-of-the-art for strategy
games (anyone think otherwise? -- please let me know) l I have 2
new year gaming goals: really get into MS Flight Simulator and
upgrade my RTS game to something deeper this year. M2 seems worth
getting into.
bob
"Matz" <noad...@incaseitaintobvious.com> wrote in message >
> I used to play a lot of chess.
>
>>The escapist part of me is still drawn to M2TW and such -- and I'll
>>probably keep playing at it for a while. But I have to admit that my
>
> Me too. The graphics are fascinating. I'm determined to learn this
> game, within reason. It's probably the state-of-the-art for strategy
> games (anyone think otherwise? -- please let me know) l I have 2
> new year gaming goals: really get into MS Flight Simulator and
> upgrade my RTS game to something deeper this year. M2 seems worth
> getting into.
>
I've been plying MTW2 for 2-3 months now. I'm not a genius, but I have never
been able to win, even with the AI turned all the way down. The computer
seems gets a lot of goodies. I mean I'm just able to build my firts arrow
shop and the computer has city wall, siege equiptment and an army. Too much
difference. Anyone else notice that? Or maybe it's a game ment to only o/l
against other people?
Matz
>I've been plying MTW2 for 2-3 months now. I'm not a genius, but I have never
>been able to win, even with the AI turned all the way down. The computer
>seems gets a lot of goodies. I mean I'm just able to build my firts arrow
I hope the game doesn't 'cheat'
Anyone know what a 'sally' is? Thanks.
von Schmidt
IRL 'sally' means the besieged force coming out of their castle/city
(often through a special sallying gate) and attacking the besieger.
Usually to cause some damage and then rapidly withdrawing behind the
walls again.
No idea how this is modelled in the game, though.
- von Schmidt
Matz
>IRL 'sally' means the besieged force coming out of their castle/city
>(often through a special sallying gate) and attacking the besieger.
>Usually to cause some damage and then rapidly withdrawing behind the
>walls again.
>
>No idea how this is modelled in the game, though.
>
>- von Schmidt
Thank you. Does the game have the ability to create 'waypoints'?
Also, let's say I have a group running to a destination, what do I do
to prevent them from walking and continue running when I change the
destination?
Werewolf
Hold down the shift key while right clicking to set a destination and
that makes waypoints.
As for forcing them to keep running I'm not aware of any way to do it
and besides its best not to have your troops running everywhere anyway -
they get tired out and that's not a good thing.
Loren Pechtel
I haven't tried the game but in the real world a sally is when the
defenders of a fortification go forth to attack the seigers.
Matz
In the tutorial, Caen is being attacked by rebels. I'm told I should
sally. But how do I do that in the game? Thank you.
Matz
>Hold down the shift key while right clicking to set a destination and
>that makes waypoints.
>
>As for forcing them to keep running I'm not aware of any way to do it
>and besides its best not to have your troops running everywhere anyway -
>they get tired out and that's not a good thing.
That's a nice feature, simulating physical stamina, very cool! I need
to spend more time playing the game and figure out if there is a meter
of some sort that measures that -- physical condition.
Sean Black
<noad...@incaseitaintobvious.com> writes
as I remember, you need to select the city, select one or all of the
units based in the city to form an army, then drag your army onto the
besieging army, which should give you the attack icon and ask you if you
want to sally.
--
Sean Black
Matz
Before I invest a lot of time and effort learning this game, can somebody
tell me if the game cheats? If yes, how?
By the way, I'm learning the campaign mode now. The game advisor tells me
that I should attack York, north of London and Nottingham. I selected my
army in London and right clicked on York, but it wouldn't let me attack
York. Why is that? I had to bring my army first to Nottingham which is
closer to York. Was this a pre-condition to attacking York?
So I attacked York and won. I'm back in the main menu of the campaign map
and I click on the Mission icon, but there are no missions listed. Nothing.
What do I do next?
bob
"Matz" <doo...@doormat.com> wrote in message
news:uBRoh.4158$ji1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>> >>>I hope the game doesn't 'cheat'
>
> Before I invest a lot of time and effort learning this game, can somebody
> tell me if the game cheats? If yes, how?
I'm beginning to think like you. I like to play 'Kingmaker", starting at the
'Peasent' level' With the AI turned all the way down The compurer has walled
cities, small armies, etc. I haven't even been able to build my first arrow.
I find this very hard to believe and would pass on it, if I could do it
again.
Kevin O'Donovan
"bob" <fa...@fake.com> wrote in message
news:CwYoh.61278$wP1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
campaign game (though I have played all the other games in the series),
playing as England. If anything I'm finding the armies the computer is
sending against me are too weak. I've currently taken the UK, northern half
of France, and have a decent foothold in the area around Jerusalem. Can't
remember what difficulty I'm on, but I usually start a game on whatever
equates to the normal/average difficulty level. France keeps throwing
absolutely pitiful armies against my castles, and against any armies I have
in the field.
You mentioned the computer having walled cities - did you not have any too?
When I started the game the English cities were all developed to some level
to start with, including the odd wall. If you're being attacked before
you've even got the capability to build a unit of archers, then you're doing
something very wrong.
Kev
Kevin O'Donovan
>
> that I should attack York, north of London and Nottingham. I selected my
> army in London and right clicked on York, but it wouldn't let me attack
> York. Why is that? I had to bring my army first to Nottingham which is
> closer to York. Was this a pre-condition to attacking York?
>
its range for that turn is highlighted in green. If York was outside that
area then it would take an extra turn to reach it. If that was the case then
you wouldn't have needed to move into Nottingham, you could have stopped
anywhere within your green range (though ideally somewhere that would put
you close enough to get to York the next day).
> So I attacked York and won. I'm back in the main menu of the campaign map
> and I click on the Mission icon, but there are no missions listed.
> Nothing.
> What do I do next?
>
The game lets you make your own decisions, though you will occasionaly be
given missions from the council of nobles or the pope. Completing these
missions usually gives you money or units, or keeps you in favour with the
pope, but you need to choose your own targets in general. Try taking the
rest of the rebel owned cities in wales and the south of england, then move
on to dublin and whatever the rebel city at the north of scotland was. Keep
an eye on your territories in France whilst you're doing this, at least to
the extent of keeping a strong garrison in Caen. Your next step might be to
take out Scotland. When I got to this stage they only had the one city,
though it was fairly well fortified. I sent in a spy to keep an eye on who
was inside it. When it was mostly empty (the scottish armies in the field),
I attacked it and won easilly. I now held the UK, so after a bit of
consolidation/construction I turned my attention to France.
Finally, if you haven't at least skimmed the manual, then you probably
should.
Matz
"Kevin O'Donovan" <not....@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:6P-dnZxdH98ZJznY...@giganews.com...
> Was York to far for your army to travel in one turn? When you select an
army
> its range for that turn is highlighted in green. If York was outside that
> area then it would take an extra turn to reach it. If that was the case
then
> you wouldn't have needed to move into Nottingham, you could have stopped
> anywhere within your green range (though ideally somewhere that would put
> you close enough to get to York the next day).
The game tells me that I can't continue and it has to be done tomorrow (I'm
guessing because of the distance which you've explained). Does that mean
one turn? But each turn is equivalent to 2 years? That doesn't make sense.
> Finally, if you haven't at least skimmed the manual, then you probably
> should.
I've spent a couple of hours reading it already.
I'm doing the easy(?) mode and I'm accepting offers of peace and trade.
I've also defeated York. I'm into my 9th or 10th turn. Since I'm at peace
with all my neighbors and I've not been given any missions, what do I do
next? Should I just keep pressing the 'end of turn' button? How many
times?
Matz
> again.
I've not jumped to that conclusion yet. I'm determined to find out why
there's a lot of folks praising this game. I'm not sure why they're liking
a turn-based game in this day and age of real time strategy games (I'm
thinking about Company of Heroes). There's something about turn based that
I'm not understanding. How can it be addictive if you're not under time
pressure?
Ed
Because each turn represents about 6 months. But you can fight
individual battles. My favorite was defending with only 20 mounted
guards against 120 men. A unit of xbow and 2 units of dismounted broken
lances. My first charge against the xbow I lost two men but the charge
broke the unit and it routed. I had my unit break off the attack,
regroup and flanked one of the units. It broke and routed. I still had
16 men left. One last charge and the last unit routed.
Ed
> Since I'm at peace
> with all my neighbors and I've not been given any missions, what do I do
> next? Should I just keep pressing the 'end of turn' button?
What ever you want. Generally you need to find all the rebel controlled
areas and take them. Nobody gets mad at you for that. Next. Well you are
gonna have to decide who's your weakest neighbor and take em down. I
usually like to leave me enemies with one area and not to totally wipe
them out.
Matz
>Because each turn represents about 6 months. But you can fight
>individual battles. My favorite was defending with only 20 mounted
>guards against 120 men. A unit of xbow and 2 units of dismounted broken
>lances. My first charge against the xbow I lost two men but the charge
>broke the unit and it routed. I had my unit break off the attack,
>regroup and flanked one of the units. It broke and routed. I still had
>16 men left. One last charge and the last unit routed.
I thought each turn was 2 years?
Patrick
> "Kevin O'Donovan" <not....@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:6P-dnZxdH98ZJznY...@giganews.com...
> guessing because of the distance which you've explained). Does that mean
> one turn? But each turn is equivalent to 2 years? That doesn't make sense.
Someone else says each turn represents about 6 months. You have to
realize that moving an army from place to place involves more than just
marching. You have to rest your men along the way, forage for
supplies, detach elements to garrison bridges and other vital points,
and so on and so forth. There's a lot going on behind the scenes, but
you don't have to worry about any of those details; all you have to do
is say where you want your army to move to sometime during the next
6-month period. The computer takes care of all the logistical details
invisibly.
> I'm doing the easy(?) mode and I'm accepting offers of peace and trade.
> I've also defeated York. I'm into my 9th or 10th turn. Since I'm at peace
> with all my neighbors and I've not been given any missions, what do I do
> next? Should I just keep pressing the 'end of turn' button? How many
> times?
Do as you please. Scout around, conquer more towns, have merchants
claim resources, plant spies in enemy cities, build stuff, create new
armies -- whatever.
Patrick
> I've not jumped to that conclusion yet. I'm determined to find out why
> there's a lot of folks praising this game. I'm not sure why they're liking
> a turn-based game in this day and age of real time strategy games (I'm
> thinking about Company of Heroes). There's something about turn based that
> I'm not understanding. How can it be addictive if you're not under time
> pressure?
Because there's so much you're free to do. A whole world full of
cities and resources -- things to build, places to conquer, resources
to claim, missions to accomplish. . . .
Besides, you *are* under time pressure; you have only so many turns to
win the game, so you'd better make the most of each turn.
Personally I've always preferred turn-based games. Real-time games
seem to play themselves, and all I can do is chase around trying to
catch up with what's happening. In a turn-based game, I can look
around, make my own plans, carry out operations as I see fit, and
generally make things happen the way I want them to happen.
This game, though, is both turn-based and real-time. It has something
for everyone.
--Patrick
Kevin O'Donovan
>
> "Kevin O'Donovan" <not....@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:6P-dnZxdH98ZJznY...@giganews.com...
>> Was York to far for your army to travel in one turn? When you select an
> army
>> its range for that turn is highlighted in green. If York was outside that
>> area then it would take an extra turn to reach it. If that was the case
> then
>> you wouldn't have needed to move into Nottingham, you could have stopped
>> anywhere within your green range (though ideally somewhere that would put
>> you close enough to get to York the next day).
>
> The game tells me that I can't continue and it has to be done tomorrow
> (I'm
> guessing because of the distance which you've explained). Does that mean
> one turn? But each turn is equivalent to 2 years? That doesn't make
> sense.
>
turn. You'll also notice that the movement line changes colour if you select
somewhere far away as a destination. Each change of colour represents one
turn's movement. As for making sense, you could certainly try and
rationalise it one way or another, or you could just accept it as part of
the game. It's pretty standard for this sort of game - look at civilisation,
for example.
>> Finally, if you haven't at least skimmed the manual, then you probably
>> should.
>
> I've spent a couple of hours reading it already.
>
> I'm doing the easy(?) mode and I'm accepting offers of peace and trade.
> I've also defeated York. I'm into my 9th or 10th turn. Since I'm at
> peace
> with all my neighbors and I've not been given any missions, what do I do
> next? Should I just keep pressing the 'end of turn' button? How many
> times?
>
You need to decide what your strategy is. Consolidating a hold on England
wouldn't be a bad start, so maybe attack scotland. Also, don't forget that
rebel owned cities are fair game. There are 7 cities up for grabs in the UK,
if memory serves, and there's a very good chance that scotland only owns one
of them. If Scotland is suitable vulnerable you might consider taking them
out first, as the pope wouldn't have time to stop you. Alternatively you
might want to take some of th rebel owned cities instead, and save scotland
until you've built up more.
One thing you don't want to do is to sit there waiting for missions.
Remember, you are the King, you tell people what to do, not the other way
around. The missions are optional - you'll get a bonus if you complete one,
and potentially a penalty if you don't. Accept them or reject them as you
see fit
Kevin O'Donovan
"Ed" <edwar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:cyaph.58135$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
I had a couple of good ones last night. The garrison of one of my captured
french cities was getting worn down, and since it was a city I couldn't
retrain them. I decided to send some reinforcement from Caen, then ship the
old garrison back to Caen for retraining. I sent 2 levy spear, 3 dismounted
feudal knights, some archers, 3 mailed knights and 1 hobilar. On the way
they were attacked by a much larger french army (about twice the size) but
with a lot of artillery troops and a fair number of peasants. After some
consideration, I tried to decline the battle (I was on a specific resupply
mission after all), but they followed me. Found a nice hill to start from
and managed to wipe out the first army for about 30% losses to my troops.
Particularly enjoyed watching his trebuchets accidentally hitting his own
troops as they made their way up the hill. I was then attacked by another
similarly sized army, but was able to defend from the same hill again. This
time the battle went down to about 30 of my men remaining across 5 units,
and a more or less unscathed unit of archers. All in all, took out 4 times
the troops we lost, including two french family members. Great fun, and more
than enough pressure, thank you. Had to send the remaining troops back to
Caen of course, as they were in no position to reinforce any garrison.