Medieval II: Total War

9.2
Excellent

Gameplay	9.5	"The game is epic, a brilliant mix of strategy."
Graphics	8.0
Sound	9.0
Value	9.0

By Sam Waldron

ADVERTISEMENT

For so long, I waited for a game that would combine turn-based and real-time strategy. So when I discovered the Total War series, I had a sense of something very, very right. There is something about those battles: the thrill of a dangerous plan, and the moment at which the armies engage, hundreds of men charging at one another – and then the internal cheer as the line is broken, or the loud cursing when your own men falter . . . It’s like a drug.

I loaded up Medieval II: Total War for the first time with a mixture of excitement and disappointment. Excitement, obviously, because I’m a massive Total War fan, and any new game in the series is a cause for joyful celebration. But disappointment because it feels like the Creative Assembly might be going over the same ground here by choosing to revisit the Medieval setting rather than taking Total War into a new era (I myself was really hoping for Napoleon: Total War).

And as I began my first campaign game, it seemed like perhaps my fears of the franchise’s stagnation had been proved true. On first observation, Medieval II seems simply to marry the popular Medieval setting to the excellent gameplay advances made in Rome: Total War. This is true – to a point. (However, even it was completely true, this would still be a great game.)

But the Creative Assembly have also rung out new changes – exciting changes. There are now two different kinds of settlement: towns and castles. Towns generally produce more towards the economy, but cannot be used to train cavalry and missile units. And castles are obviously much more resistant to attack. Recruitment has been altered too; you can now recruit several units in one turn, depending on the size of your settlement, and there are at any time a certain number available of each unit type (and these numbers regenerate slowly). This new system makes a bit more sense than the old, and it also means it is a little easier to build up an army quickly when you need one.

Units are also more varied than in the original Medieval, especially between factions. And the factions themselves have been overhauled somewhat (and for the better); the anachronistic ‘Italian’ faction, for example, has been removed – replaced by the Milanese and the Venetians in Northern Italy.

Medieval II also covers more ground than its predecessor. Literally. Because the campaign runs from 1080 until 1530 AD, the late game incorporates the New World, with all its riches and possibilities. So there is the a new faction there too – the Aztecs – and the potential for even huger battles as European conflicts spill over into the new colonies.

Generally, although it is the sequel to Medieval, the game plays a lot more like Rome; the changes made for Rome were very successful, and they’ve been kept. Medieval II also fixes a number of issues from the previous games. Diplomacy is now a lot easier to handle; it had already been improved in Rome, but had now been augmented further – to the extent that I no longer have any complaints about it. The negotiation screen now features more detailed information on the reputation of your country and the foreign power you’re dealing with. It will also tell you whether a given deal is ‘generous’, ‘demanding’, or ‘balanced’ – this last point is a particularly useful change, as it means you no longer waste valuable time trying to squeeze money out of your rivals when they have no intention of coughing up.

Units from the first Medieval, like Priests and Princesses, are also back. And using Princesses is no longer an exercise in confusion! Everywhere, little changes make this a hugely satisfying game. A Merchant unit has also been added. Here, I must confess myself still a little confused, but basically this guy functions like any other agent, except geared towards acquiring resources (and occasionally engaging in less than legitimate dealings in order to get more money in your pocket).

The quality of presentation is high. Even though the engine doesn’t appear to have been upgraded since Rome, it still looks prettier. More care, I think, has been taken with the world map. And the individual soldiers – of which there are, in most battles, many – have been made more unique by randomising some of their features. Essentially that means you won’t be commanding a clone army – or at least not to the same extent as before. There might be some for who the lack of graphical strides will be a problem, but it certainly looks good enough.

The sounds of war are still all there, along with a great soundtrack comprised of both soft minstrel-ish background music and the rising epic battle music we all secretly want to wield a sword to one day. In addition, I was impressed with the attention to detail in the voices: armies and agents respond in appropriate accents for their faction, and if you click on enemy units, they will indicate that you’re not the boss of them (but without throwing it in your face); and, generally, the voices are more varied, so you likely won’t get as sick of them as in Rome.

At the end of the day, it is basically just a combination of Rome and Medieval, with a few fixes and some bonus material. But it joins what made those two games great so well, and makes playing the Medieval setting over again a joy to do. So, at the end of the day, does it matter? The game is epic – a brilliant mix of turn-based and real-time strategy (which fosters real tactics on the battlefield far more than so many cookie-cutter RTS titles). It’s the best so far in an excellent series, and there’s not really much else you need to know.

NZGamer.com - Medieval II: Total War Facebook