安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
2 
举报此帖
[nods furiously]
MTW2 is a childrens' game in which tiny units buzz about the battlefield like bluebottles. Pretty graphics. Negligible realism. And lousy AI.
Gryff
This is 100% false on every level possible.
1) Large troop formations behave very accurately in Medieval II. Units stay in formation, wheel about in a cohesive manner, stand their ground when you tell them too, chase units when you tell them too, attempt to wrap around a enemy unit when fighting aggressively in order to apply pressure on flanks, etc. Units also behave and act as humans, having different reaction times and judging the battle accordingly.
2) Formation matters alot in Medieval II. So much infact, you can create combined arms formations and advanced battlelines that i have yet to see happen in Medieval I. Also unlike in Medieval I, units will adapt to the situation, so when they get flanked they wont just stand still in a square like in medieval I when you tell troops to hold formation.
3) Fatigue matters greatly in Medieval II. One great example of this is cavalry charges. Heavy cav at Fresh can flatten an entire unit of light infantry and even heavy infantry with ease in a charge, while if you were to compare it when they are Exhausted, they hardly make a dent to heavy infantry in a frontal charge and light infantry will survive with the majority of their unit intact.
Fatigue decreases at a faster rate when going up steep inclines, restores faster if your resting while the unit is not already exhausted,
4) Units don't move at lightspeed like in rome. in medieval 2, they move at realistic speeds and manuvering can also take a while there.
5) The fact that you think flank attacks are lethal in comparison to medieval 2 is quite funny i must say.
6) Medieval 2 is most cerainly not a childrens game at all. Units behave, attack and act realisticly, they throw vulgar insults at each other on a daily basis, general speeches can be quite interesting to a childs ear if they were to ever hear it, there is a great amount of tactical and strategic depth in med2 that has been unrivaled in total war for decades, etc. Realism is very much present.
The only point of yours that is correct is lousy AI, but then again that's litteraly every total war game in existence, so that's not really a argument to try and say med1 is better then med2.
You clearly have never played much of Med2 before. I suggest learning it before you try and go against it.
(there is no objective argument you can make that medieval 1 is better then medieval 2 or rome in terms of the battle map.)
MT1 have a more powurful ambiance, the maps in paper give a aspect of boardgame, and it's very differente on a lot of point.
The graphical are cheap, but they are globably in harmonie. It's a paper/old/dark aspect what I love.
Afther, the systeme for moving to a region of another it's good but not realy pleasant sometime (the navy suck)
MTW1 don't succefully become older, bug , and lag are more present than I have on MTW2 (Battelle are so lagy, it's like the guy make war in honey...) and I have a pretty strong computeur for play a game like that!
MTW1 was more complexe than was it's seem, but the tutorial are absente and you have to find the manuel on paper or you will forget a lot of important thing.
The MTW2 are funny, but the difficulty it's very bad compare to a MTW, the rebelions it's something very easly to manage compare to the one, and the micromangement on the campagne maps because very anoyng afther 100 turn or less.
The AI suck, but in each case you can find mods (XL for the first, and Sintless steel for the second)
The battel are more funny into MTW 2 because it's more reactif and the better graphique give better sens for perception, weather ect...
At last, for me it's two different game, and I don't take the same pleasure, and that it's great.
ps: I am french, my english suck
I liked the simplicity of the map, the warm wood feeling I got from a table being the edge. It broke the fourth wall subtly that you were reminded you were playing a game.
I also hated watching armies march. It's just a repeated pointless animation.
Battles have been covered by others succinctly and repeatedly, so MTW defies the law of math insofar as 1 > 2