Medieval 2 Total War Plague
The Plague Monks of Clan Pestilens are zealots utterly dedicated to the spread of corruption and decay in the name of the Great Horned One. These devout disciples of disease are unique amongst Skaven society in that they are fanatically committed to their clan and its purpose of creating the ultimate disease.
Rewrite history and conquer the world. This is Total War! Medieval II: Total War Kingdoms is the official expansion to last year's award-winning Medieval II: Total War, presenting players with all-new territories to explore, troops to command, and enemies to conquer. Oct 15, 2004 I have a little problem - the plague broke out in Rome and Capua, right after conquest. Now two of my Generals/Governors are affected: An over 70 aged Financial Specialist (Governor of Rome because of that) and a new, promising General who just took Capua. What can I do to: - Stop the Plague in Rome and Capua?
Once this plague devastates all surface-dwellers, the Skaven can rise up in the ruins and claim their proper inheritance - nothing short of the entire world - and the Great Horned Rat will know who brought his children to their rightful and preordained ascendancy and Clan Pestilens will sit over all and reign supreme. As the foul brethren march forward towards an enemy battleline, their chanting picks up its pace and the Plague Monks seem to incite themselves into a terrible rage. In combat Plague Monks hurl themselves into the fray with a fanatical ferocity, eager to bring death and destruction to their foes. They relentlessly attack with filth-encrusted blades, iron-tipped staves, or even their needle-sharp teeth. A Plague Monk's exposure to pestilence has rendered its toughened, boil-ridden skin immune to pain. The ability to shrug off crippling injury combined with their near-hysterical zealotry means that the only reliable way of stopping a Plague Monk attack is to wholly dismember them.
Welcome to!A subreddit for all of those who love the Total War series. Medieval 2 Total War was my entry point into Total War, and recently, for the sake of nostalgia, I bought it on Steam and launched into a Byzantine Empire campaign (because why would you play as anyone else). I immediately became engrossed in the sheer intricacy of the campaign, all the city/agent micro-managing, the diplomatic chicanery, religious and trade mechanics, etc.And then, after a wee while, I went back to my TW campaign, and it just felt so. Boring, even. Don't get me wrong, I love Total Warhammer, I adore the Warhammer setting; it's my favourite Total War, and one of my favourite strategy games of all time.
But there's just so much much less depth and complexity to the campaign gameplay (which, for me personally, is what Total War's all about). I have mixed feelings. I love both games but M2TW has some glaring issues that just can't be overlooked. Sure the merchants and assassins and guilds and all that stuff was cool but in practice it was just added fluff.The guilds had minimal impact on your cities and you could literally play the entire campaign without ever using agents and do fine. Diplomacy was just as simplistic as other Total War games and the whole Jihad/Crusade mechanic was mediocre at best and just served as a major annoyance whenever I wanted to attack my dickhead neighbors in Europe.The last issue was sieges.
Everyone parades M2TW sieges around like they were the shit but they were broken af. I'd have all of my units of archers on the walls targeting the enemy and 5 men in the unit would fire and the rest would freeze because of the buggy ass AI. Sure it was fun when sieges worked but that was few and far between.The overall campaign map and city building for me was where M2TW really shined though.
Medieval 2 Total War Best Mods
Give me a Total War game with that same building engine and add in the battle mechanics from newer games and we'd have gold. Yeah I mean, I still enjoy playing each game but the newer titles have definitely become gradually more and more simplified and as a result, less interesting. I get that in Warhammer there was an intentional effort made to simplify certain aspects of the game for fear of otherwise intimidating casual players given that the fantasy setting might already be overwhelming for some.
The provincial system getting dumbed down considerably from Rome 2 and Attila is the most obvious example of this.The campaigns back in Med2 and anything older were just so much more interesting compared with what we've gotten since. I hope they bring back that level of intricacy in future games. I went back to Medieval 2 after playing Warhammer and it was the opposite for me. I started playing Total War with Medieval 1 but the one where I sunk a lot of hours was Medieval 2. I played that game a lot, I should have like 1000 hours in that game. I don't think you should be making points of anything related to battles and units here though.
OP isn't trying to say Medieval 2 is the better overall game in every aspect, that would be silly. What the post is trying to highlight is that, back in the times of Medieval 2, the depth of the campaign map was far more engaging than what it is today.A few examples:. Guilds. Each agent chain having their own mini games and goals rather than just different styles of assassinate and sabotage. The Pope, excommunication and Crusades and Jihads. The plague. The new world discovery.These are only a few points, some of which could never be implemented into Warhammer anyway.
But if you look at Warhammer, you can see how it falls short in this regard. Each turn is fairly straight forward nowadays. Build things in your provinces and move your armies around, and beyond that what do you really do on the campaign map? At least in Rome 2 and Attila, building in your provinces was interesting, but now its streamlined and unimaginative. The little things that make a campaign map feel alive and engaging aren't there anymore in Total War and I think they are sorely missed.Of course, beyond the campaign map, Warhammer is arguable the best game of the series and I can't get enough of it. But I don't think we should turn a blind eye to the games weak points. What I mean is that there are no unique mechanics at play beyond tinkering with cities and moving armies.
In Medieval I would think about what guilds I wanted in each town. To acquire those guilds I had to perform certain relative acts that would attract specific guilds. Then I would think about my merchants and figure out if I can set up a monopoly on a particular resource. After that I might see how my priests are doing in order to make sure I'm getting Cardinals to increase the chances of the future Pope being from my faction. Maybe I'm lacking vision so I'll send a general to build some watch towers on the outskirts of my territory. Star wars empire at war crash fix. Oh, the Pope called a crusade?
Maybe I'll take part or maybe I won't.So on and so forth. There was so much more going on on the campaign map in the older games that just aren't there anymore in the newer ones. This obviously doesn't make the newer ones bad but there's no reason they couldn't be improved in this particular area.
Well I tried to complete analyze Medieval, not only a part of it, cause I think it's important to see the whole picture. As I said I agree Warhammer have a problem with the campaign map, but Medieval 2 isn't exactly the best example, Rome 2 and specially Attila like you said could be better.While guilds send you missions, I don't think is a step back since it was simply a special building, (the equivalent in my point of view are things like Myrmidia special temple in Magritta, or the colleges of Altdorf). However I can agree with that, added flavor to that game.While I don't remember the mini games, I need to say that agents are pretty much shit after Rome 2: poison armies or damage them should NOT be a choice. At least I'm not playing Total War to battle with or againts an army competly fucked up, I'm playing to battle againts an entire army and win thanks to my tactical skill. So I also agree with the agents.The pope was something random in Medieval, while it could be a good mechanic in that game, the pope was also allied with the moors and egypt in one of my games, so I don't think it was well implemented.The plagues actually did more damage and was more like holy fuck in Rome 2 or Attila, I don't remember any severe plague in Medieval 2.The new world discovery while it was a good idea, it was pretty meh implemented. By the time you discover it you have the entire world or half of it, and nobody except the player want to go to that place. It's like adding 5 provinces with tons of shit for merchants, but nothing that could change your campaign at that point.Also I think we should remember the movement and diplomacy in that game: for me the most important part of the campaign map are the army movement and the diplomacy, and in that game you take 30 years to reach Jerusalem and diplomacy are probably the worst of any total war I have played.AND I COMPLETLY AGREE WITH YOUR LAST POINT, not only with TWW but with any game: WE CAN'T TURN A BLIND EYE TO A GAME WEAK POINT.
It's not the way to have better games, but go back to Medieval 2 is by no means the way to go in my honest opinion.Actually Medieval 2 have something that I miss in Total War and it's the invasions. Archaon is a fucking child if you compare it with the Mongols or the Timurids. Those were REAL invasions. Just an opinion: but i think that the Chaos invasion's flaw is that they don't take territory. They were a heavy infantry based army that has no real place they can run back to and recuperate. The Mongols took land and church out more troops, and its actually hard to fight them in the field cause cavalry was king in M2.Realm Divide just made everyone hate you and everyone had settlements that they could defend from. The Roman Civil War also took settlements, and they could always fall back.
To that end, the Huns were kind of shit too. Once you can take them in the field, they will never be a threat.