"Sir we are besieged! We have three men and a wheel of cheese!" "This situation is hopeless!" (Legend) "Give me the cheese a knife and follow my orders.." (Legend eats cheese as flames slowly consume the enemy camp in the distance..)
And people say the ai in the newer total war games is bad. "Lol guys lets all just stand in a line and let the enemy rear charge us one at a time. That sounds like the best tactic ever."
You act as if the people who say M2TW is the best don't realize the AI was shit. It was just everything else, the options, the feel, the mechanics, the no bullshit approach to just many things that made it just that much superior. And I could break each of those categories down into why I find each one at length far superior to the modern titles. No one said the AI was ever smart, not any fan. That is strawmanning us.
The more pathetic fact is that CA hasn't improved the AI even slightly in the 15 years since this game first came out. It's far more excusable for a game that came out in 2006 to have bad AI than for a game that came out last year... Also, I've never seen anyone claim that the AI in the older games is better than the newer ones. I think you're literally making shit up here.
That first battle is literally the reason why I play Medieval 2 with auto-resolve these days. Tactical AI is so bad that battles are basically one huge exploit making any difficulty a cakewalk. Don't take it the wrong way, Legend definitely needs manual combat in this series of fked up situations, but a campaign played properly from the start is just too easy.
In Rome 1 i don't because population is subtracted from every unit you build. Pikes are also a larger unit so if you have a city spitting out pikes in the early game you end up bleeding the city dry.
Out of my 200+ hours on M2TW I didn't know that the 1 shotting a general was possible using a cav charge, I always thought he would be saved for some reason
Legend, since you mentioned that Medieval 2 isn’t as challenging as other tw games. I was thinking which ones you find to be more challenging. Excluding extremes like “this is total war” campaigns or like western romans in Attila. More which ones are more challenging in general, barring artificial difficulty. Imo Warhammer 2 has been the one I found to have the most balanced difficulty.
Hard to say. Most total war games, especially Warhammer 2, have extreme degrees of artificial difficulty. Taking out all the bonuses from the ai and then judging which is the most competent is difficult but I would have to go with Shogun 2. I suppose since in essence its a simplistic total war game with few unit types and cultures the AI is able to juggle the mechanics without tripping over their own feet which is all to apparent in almost every other instance.
*starts video* “The word of the day is, ‘I bet you can’t turn this around.” *Skips ahead near the end* “So, we started off with one settlement. And now we have ten.” I laughed so hard.
I do have to say, the way you exploit the AI passivity is brilliant. The most I've done with it in the past is march out artillery to fire lengthwise through the lines of besiegers, which is fun enough watching 30 guys in a rank of infantry all dying from the same cannon ball, if laborious. I don't know why I've never tried your method - probably because I don't tend to deploy as much cavalry. It just never occured to me it was possible to snipe units from behind with cav.
Notify @LegendOfTotalWar, that should signifigantly beat his record of playing M2TW "as if it were warhammer" - by autoresolve armies. I mean you could do it, but it would be bad and inefficient. 20 turns? That seems like a huge exaggeration. I believe the name his video was playing medieval as if it were warhammer.
@@adrianbundy3249 I think it is possible to do it, with mercenaries, cheesing the campaign AI, and overwhelming numbers. Like, always swinging around two full armies together.
Command stars of the leading general indicates the auto resolve %success chance, crusader campaign you have multiple leaders who start with max command stars. Also spears are given huge odds in autoresolve aswell
Oh, you mean the campaigns where you only need 15 settlements, and you can speed blitz with or without autoresolve usually within an hour or two? Those are pointlessly short to me, so I forget they exist most of the time. Granted, suuuuper long campaigns bore me too. I like the happy medium.
Hmm. That sharp incline in territory on the Egyptians graph shows some funny meddling before this game was sent to you. Either the player neglected his military or deleted them before hand as well.
I wonder how many saved campaings where later continued and succesfully ended. After all this is the point of the whole series. Great series by the way. It would be nice to see if someone has actually learnt something, came back and comment (e.g. "Thanks for turning this around. Look what i've been able to achieve with your help...."). I may ask for too much but hell... world would be a better place :)
Hospitaller Sergeants have more men than the Templar Sergeants and have the exact same stats. I’ve always preferred to play Antioch to be honest. Love the hospitaller uniforms.
Those rookies are always funny with their "i bet you can't win it". I like Shogun 2 much more then Medieval 2 but seeing situation even I would turn around it pretty easly XD
If only it worked like one great Medieval II campaign. Legend would single-handedly restore Roman hegemony over Europe and then some. Caliphate, you say? Deus vult!
May be at the start. The guy made a run for it trying to take a settlement because he figured may be the last settlement was a lost cause and tried to get some distance to regroup and then strike back.
Funny the Crusaders found that out when they ran out of food in Anatolia and had to resort to canibalizing the dead Seljuks. Which was why by the 3rd they stick to the coast.
@@forickgrimaldus8301 I see that you heard of Siege of Maar'at (lead by Raymond De St-Gilles and Bohemond) which was followed by acts of cannibalism. (this, as you said taught the crusaders to be more protective of their supply lines too). Such event shocked many in the region and even europeans.
@@Mohamedamazigh726 yah that also explains why it had a bloody climax in Jerusalem at least partialy (Sacking a city that did not surrender was normal for the middle ages even the Near East too that was just the world they lived in)
@@forickgrimaldus8301as for the sack of Jerusalem, many factors are in play : the hatred for heathens, the zeal fueled by ignorance, the fact that leaders of the crusade didn't have complete control over their masses (infantry and peasants), the frustration of three years roaming around in hunger and under a rough weather. The sack and massacre of Jerusalem's population was a massive strategic error, since it made many cities refrain from surrendering to the Franks fearing slaughter,which made their fight even more harder.
@@Mohamedamazigh726 funny (in a lovecraftian way) before that the Seljuks just allowed them to move straight to Jerusalem where it was taken over by the Fatimids after the sacking the Fatimids tryed to retake the city but were defeated at Aleppo it struck a blow to the Fatimids who ironically tryed to talk to the Crusader to join forces and attack the Seljuks which the Crusaders confused by the offer declined not knowing the Fatimids were the Seljuks rival next to the Byzantines. In the latter periods however the Crusader states did try to form a stable relationship with the Byzantines and the Muslim states cause they realized that they were heavily outnumbered even adopting the tolerant ways of the local Muslim rulers.
Hey legend, what do you think of a Total War game based on the ultra ancient historical periods? Like back when Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, and the Hittites being power players competing amongst each other? We already know a state during this period that has some influence in between some of them - in the Israelis and co. This would be the 2000-1000bc era. Personally, I would like Akkadia, but I think that just goes too far back to blow up any pretense of trying to make it somewhat historically consistent; and those in that time frame I don't think have as much history to draw from for good game play.
The Doom From Latveria who exactly would thease games be targeted towards? Majority of western players dont give a flying fuck about thease factions and players who could relate to thease factions are from 3rd world countrys
all hail! Xybetrion!!! The representative of all western total war players! We elected to the high mantle of giant dick butt so he may speak for us all!!!!
I often thought this time period would be a really good small price TW title or better yet a mod. It may not have a wealth of unit rosters for factions but I would still play it, rewrite history so we can keep these once great advanced civilizations alive and lot them become third world countries apparently.
+Xybetrion, First, in those days - your western countries were largely the backwaters, the "third world" of the day... Second, as a western player, and a friend of a few western players, I can tell you I am not alone in finding it interesting. In fact, I even nailed the eastern one they just came up with - the whole war of the three kingdoms thing, because I said that is one of the non-medieval, non-japan, non-rome ideas they should entertain when wanting to get other things, because everything about that conflict was of epic scale, not to be seen from that point to more than a thousand years anywhere on earth, approaching the modern era. At least of massacres, warfare, disease, mass starvation, of millions, etc. I was happy when I saw they were doing it. Then I saw them screw the pooch, so I am still kinda annoyed with that. This here is another one of my ideas, and I was wanting to ask legend what he thought. I know damn well I am not the only one - but that wasn't why I asked. I wanted to see what LEGEND thought. Because he is my favorite TW youtuber, it's just the truth.
I think it would be interesting if the guys who sent Legend these campaigns showed how things went after he sent the files back to them. Maybe they could send the file back to him after beating the campaign/otherwise done with it, and he could make an episode where he shows a few of them at some point
@@xxyourgirlcallmedaddyxx5770 Same with my computer. I play on normal because it is in-between fitting your men where you want them to and more options in terms of target selection (2 archers instead of 1). It also seems the most grounded representation to me.
Maybe those guys who surrendered at Banyas were allowed to leave. And then they went to a farm out in the countryside where they could run around without a leash and chase cats and such. You know how it works.
I am like 60 percent sure, that the person who sent you this fucked up on purpose so you would save it. I really can't believe anyone would be this bad.
There’s 2 bridges that you could easily hold as Jerusalem defending against Egypt. Egypt will never get past those bridges if you can defend them. And that shouldn’t be too hard considering a bridge defense is practically a guaranteed win.
Suicidal, in a trance, a religious army Fight without an uniform and hide in the crowd Call it holy, call it just, authorized by heaven Leave your wounded as they die and call it "God's will"
Someone should send Legend a campaign where you are down to one settlement, it is completely surrounded by several enemy armies, and all he has to work with is a few units of peasants.
I usually play on 'high' unit settings, partly because my computer has trouble handling big matches with several thousand men, and partly because I think 'huge' unit sizes are cumbersome and annoying to manage. High is a good middle ground for me.
when there's something strange in your game file who you gonna call ? legendOfTotalwar! when there's something weird with your campaign who can i call ?
I have faith in legend, but I doubt Sun Tzu and Zhuge Liang would just stand there overwhelming army still and let a few Calvary units butt fuck there rear one by one.........but he is legend soooooo maybe. Just maybe
Real life war campaigning is very different from games like total war due to some major points, such as having absolute control over your units in games, hovering over the battlefield, commanding all units in real time, all at once. You typically have complete knowledge over the map, seeing where the enemy units are (unless they are hiding in the woods). Morale, resources and politics at home are way less important in games. You're also the only one in charge, being all-powerful and omniscient. Just some things to keep in mind.
I hope you realize abusing stats and numbers is not at all how real wars are fought, short of logistics and actual manpower. Which are important, but definitely not the end-all be all. TW is very simplistic in it's design.
I understand everything you're all saying. You gotta keep in mind though, that Legend has no remorse for his enemy whatsoever, if he was back in the day, educated in warfare and strategy irl. You have to realize that the game restricts you a lot more than real life, in real life you could pull the most disgusting and dishonourable rouses, strategies and God knows what other plans. In my opinion Legend would be more than willing to sacrifice his honourable side in order to win at whatever the cost. This type of man is very dangerous. he would be among the top generals.
Glizdus, the Assyrians were famed for their brutality, sacking their enemies cities, razing them, piling body parts of corpses, like head and testicles in huge ass mounds outside the city as a symbol for everyone... It kind of does remind one of Ghengis, well before him - and while war was especially brutal then, in a similar fashion to the Aztecs - they invited their own enemies. Being seen as too willing to be dishonourable in real life - has HUGE implications when it comes to diplomacy and empire building not quite like in the game; where they will arbitrarily forgive you quickly, or if too powerful, never; where in real life - it would be realistic constantly. And in the long term case for Assyria, the complete destruction of Nineveh, their capital - by a coalition of some of their previous subjects (like the Babylonians) - that did the exact same thing to them that they did to others, proving a point - and to the cheers of most every other city-state in the region. Never be that guy. Never be the Aztecs, they guy who Cortez didn't conquer with his own conquistadors - but used some 95% of the troops from the surrounding city states that hated them. The moment fortunes ever turn in a position where it is a favorable gambit - and now because you are dishonourable in real life, and seen as an absolute villain, threatening everyone ruthlessly, to the point of being seen as disgusting and vile... That earns you no favors long term. Short term, it might help. Long term, it historically and consistently fucks everyone over. From rulers who were given "the mad" title (many) and being driven from rulership by their own people sometimes; to coalitions forming if their own people didn't drive the madness from power, and it was the people themselves being cruel.
General sniping :) Me and my friend put our generals into other infantry or cavalry just in case one of us overextended forces into killing the generals bodyguard :D
This isnt even close to a total disaster, I am currently surrounded with about 5 large Egyptian armeis in Jerusalem, my faction leader is dead, and all 4 of my large armies are getting picked off. I literally cant do anything I do not want to play anymore. And all of this started because of my stupidness of losing Ascalon and not pushing anywhere in the map because I was a total noob.
Hey guys, I've just installed M2TW back again and noticed that I always need a Noble Man/General to manage my cities. How do I change it to have it like LegendofTotalWar?
I know Legend is the Medieval 2 God and I shouldn't question him. But at 29:08, wouldn't it have been far better to just rear-charge the enemy's line instead of challenging the general?
Rear charging does some short term damage and can cause a bunch of enemies to retreat. However, by killing the general you can make his entire army retreat. He's gotten a bit unlucky by how long it took to kill the general; with a bit of luck, that could've gottn muhc faster.
Normally I'd agree. But he had to use a lot of time just to get to the general, and he could've started a mass-route by the time he even reached him. And in the meantime he could use his archers to shoot at the general, even if he didn't have a good angle. (I agree on the unlucky part though).
It's based off a preset of AI strategies. Not very intelligent AI. If the player sally out, the game is switching to the logic preset that the player is the one attacking, and the AI is defending. Thus the AI does not attempt to take the city and will not attack. Instead its strategy is one of two objectives 1: Wait for the time to run out. 2: force the player to attack a stationary formation, which is normally difficult without cavalry.
Is it even possible to fuck up a Crusades campaign? Everyone starts with a shitload of settlements, generals and troops, you seriously need to be a total noob to fail.
Well he did recently do a FoS campaign and he did a FoS save your disaster.....so I would say no. He does not "group" FoS with Empire and Napoleon. Must likely because FoS isn't a buggy ass mess unlike the later. So if you got a FoS disaster to give him, send it!
FoS also doesn't rely as much on line warfare tactics as Napoleon and Empire which Legend stated at one point he disliked or wasn't good at it, don't remember which.
