Talk:Medieval: Total War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article is on a subject of High priority within strategy games for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
Strategy games To-do:
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
CVG To-do:
|
||
I'm reverting the Oberiko edits. "Grand strategy" has been removed from Strategy game (Talk) and the changes to the header levels are apparently pointless. -- Perey 22:43, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Changed back the word 'rebellious' to 'opposing', as the player can side with either the current ruler or the rebels in a civil war, and hence it's the faction opposing the player that's the minor faction(s). (That's according to the manual, anyway; it's never happened to me!) -- Perey 21:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Colours
I'm not certain about some of the colour descriptions. When I wrote out the single-colour version, I went for the colour used to draw a faction's borders and shade their region on the minimap. (That was largely because I wasn't certain I could remember the secondary colours reliably...) Now they've all been given secondary colours, even those where the unit bases use only one (like the English — I'm not sure you can accurately call yellow their secondary colour, even if it's on the banner). So what do you think: should we compromise and use just the colours on the base ring of a faction's units? -- Perey 21:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Colours and Rebels
I removed the secondary colours, as you say they're not as important as the primary colours. Also thanks for placing the Burgundians in alphabetical order, something I overlooked, I was surprised they weren't already mentioned. On another note, perhaps we should use a different term instead of "opposing", it seems a bit ambiguous to me. Feldmarschall 13:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure it's necessary to remove all the secondary colours, just those for factions with a solid-colour base, like red for the English, yellow for the Spanish... are there others? This is what I meant about not being able to remember... (And for what it's worth, I've never seen the Burgundians, myself, so I couldn't comment!) -- Perey 19:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind putting the secondary colours back in, but I don't really care either way as compared with the primary colours they are rather unimportant. As for the Burgundian faction, you can find reference to them in game files if you look (I modded the game to play as them once, it was interesting). What I'm more interested in is the terminology used for the rebel side in a civil war, to me "opposing" just seems inadequate. --Feldmarschall 20:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm. 'Rebellious' is clear, but not quite accurate. Perhaps 'the side opposing the player'? Well, that doesn't cover rebellions against computer-controlled factions. If you really like 'rebellious', I can swallow my pedant's pride and live with it. :) (As for secondary colours, they do make it a little easier to describe the differences between, say, the Sicilians and Swiss, or the Spanish, Egyptians and Papacy.) -- Perey 22:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I came up with "the side in a civil war currently not holding the throne". I'll admit it's a bit cumbersome, but it's a more accurate description than both "opposing" and "rebellious". What do you think? -- Feldmarschall 10:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed and done. -- Perey 22:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rolled-back edits
Neutrality, I'm changing a few of your edits back to be the same, or similar to, what they were before.
- on a map to on a tactical map — "fight against each other on a map" sounds clumsy. The map article has little relevance to a 'map' in the computer game sense, and it is the tactical and strategic halves of the game that are being contrasted.
- map to strategic map — Same emphasis on a particular aspect of the game.
- Switzerland to the small Turkic states — Switzerland never begins as a minor faction, and its independent existence sees it become a major faction. The small Turkic states of the east outnumber the scattered ones in Western Europe and merit a mention.
-- Perey 00:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Comments on Difficulty
Having played this game quite a lot, my experience is that the English are one of the hardest factions to play as (they're described as moderate) while the Egyptians have, in my opinion, the best position in the game (they're described as difficult). I know these are the difficulty levels that the game has when describing the factions when you go to start the game, but quite frankly, they're not too accurate. I didn't change it though, since it could just be a matter of opinion... Does anyone else agree?
- I based my assessments partly on experience and partly on the game's nominal difficulties (and tried to preserve NPOV). It is fairly subjective though; I've never had a problem as the English, whereas I find the Egyptians are hampered by terrible provinces like Arabia and the Sinai, not to mention sitting on Crusade goals. You're welcome to edit in a compromise assessment, of course! -- Perey 02:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- I find the Russians as one of the toughest to play especially because of the arrival of the Horde. The Russians do not even have provinces with good economy and hence it becomes real difficult to make a big army to fight the Horde. santa 11:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)]
[edit] Gothic dab war
I've removed the wikilink on 'Gothic knights'. Clearly, we've been targeted by a frothing horde of rampant disambiguators here. ;-) And they don't read the edit history. More importantly, however, the Gothic article, while it does have a couple of reasonably relevant definitions of the term, doesn't ultimately have anything I feel is useful to say about the knights in the game. And inasmuch as it does, a link to a disambiguation page is still not a great way to help people understand the term. -- Perey 08:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, and thank you. I don't think it was done through ill intention, just a bit too much zeal. There is a page dedicated to removing disambiguation links, and it must have popped up there a lot. Though I wish people would examine the links they change to see if it's entirely appropriate before doing so. Feldmarschall 13:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Real-time strategy game?
I must admit I'm no gamer by any stretch of the imagination, but the opening paragraph claims that this game is both a real-time strategy game, and a turn-based strategy game. To my understanding these statements are mutually incompatible. Surely this is a turn-based game? I will change it, if I'm wrong then please change it back.Alun 17:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
the game has different modes, so it could fit into both classifications. I've added both, though it may seem somewhat confusing. Feldmarschall 04:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it's best if we just call it a strategy game and then allow the latter half of the paragraph to explain its two halves. -- Perey 07:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
does anyone know some cheat codes 4 medievel Tw?
Where is the campaign map? The cheats are .deadringer.-million florins .badgerbunny.-all units and buildings .matteosartori.-full map
[edit] Plagurism?
I was looking for a tech tree on the turks in this game, and i went to this site first http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/m/me/medieval_total_war1.htm then to this site, and i noticed word for word the same paragraphs in them. Just letting you know.
- AbsoluteAstronomy's encyclopaedia (which now appears to be offline) was sourced from Wikipedia. It's not plagiarism, it's legitimate reproduction under the GFDL. -- Perey 09:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding 'Not a game guide' deletion
I'm reverting Proto's deletion of the faction list on the following grounds: What Wikipedia is not lists "video game guide" along with instruction manuals and how-to guides. That is not what the faction list is. Listing the factions available in the game, along with some historical context, is perfectly valid. There is, I agree, some excessively game guide-like material in that section, but wholesale deletion is not the way to remove it. (I will, however, remove the edit after Proto's that added a cheat code.) -- Perey 08:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lithuanians and Finns
how come this game does not contain The Lithuanians and The Finns, i'm half Lithuanian myself and i'm sure they were a power back then. somebody please tell me why?
- You'd have to ask the developers, but they are in there (sort of) as minor factions (rebels). You just can't control them. Bronzey 05:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is the Lithuanian province, which I loved to control. Meant with that province I could create awesome axe men. Oh yeah! Mathmo 16:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Awesome? Heh. Marginally less sucky than the ordinary Woodsmen. Lithuanian Cavalry are fun though - they're hard to build unfortunately. Lithuania's quite profitable too, reasonable farmland and good trade prospects. I usually bring Lithuania into the empire if I can.Captain Pedant 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is the Lithuanian province, which I loved to control. Meant with that province I could create awesome axe men. Oh yeah! Mathmo 16:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Footnote: Check the fan sites. There is an "XL Mod" download out there which makes the Lithuanians playable. On having checked Wikipedia's page on Lithuania, it seems they were quite a major force from about 1250 for a couple of centuries. Finland on the other hand has never been much of a player on the world stage other than as a vassal of Sweden - also Finland would make a dire starting position, with little money, resources or prospects for expansion; the M: TW map doesn't allow land movement from Finland to Sweden, which means the Finns would have to go play with the Novgorodi and probably get dumped on.Captain Pedant 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Royal Infantry
The section on the Swiss mentions that the Swiss Armoured Pikemen are the only royal infantry unit in the game "except Viking Huscarles". This depends on what you mean by "royal". True that Huscarles historically had strong ties to the royal household, but what's meant here by "royal" unit is the unit type used for the Kings and Princes, and the Swiss are unique in that respect. Danes, like other Catholic factions, have Royal Knights as their royal unit. Captain Pedant 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Unless, of course, we're talking about Huscarles as the Royal unit of the Vikings in the Viking campaign. Move along, nothing to see here. Captain Pedant 12:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Sicilians
"The Norman Sicilians armies are identical to those of the Italians." Not on the evidence of the game in which I'm currently playing them. No Italian Infantry and no Mounted Crossbowmen. I suspect there'll be no Gothic units available either. AFAICT the Sicilians have "vanilla" Catholic units only, except that they have the "galley" fleet units. Captain Pedant 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
