Talk:Medieval II: Total War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Faction Difficulty Ratings

Are the difficulty ratings given in the section on Factions official or just somebody's opinion? If it's the former, then a footnote would be handy, if not then it really shouldn't be there. Gh0ti-2 22:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is official, since the former total war games had a indication of the difficulty given in the description of the faction :) Mallerd 16:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Did they carry through this however to Medieval 2? I don't think I've seen it written anywhere whilst playing the game. Cooperp1 19:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

the strongest faction: opinions(open to all)

Completely POV. Someone whith knowledge of this game care to clean it up?

El Cid

Does that realy deserve Trivia? Plenty of other historical faces are in the game. 70.59.74.196 01:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

El Cid was also in MTW1 as a rebel character and it is a bit of a 'in-joke' to have CA put him the sequel. El Cid was a mercenary to Muslim and Christian countries (thanks to his Castilian exile) after 1080 and is therefore not a general for Spain. This instinguishes(sp?) him from the historical generals found with other factions, such William the Conqueror for England.--Nachlader 18:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I relabeled that section as "Historical Figures" for now. Note that the Manual of Style says that Trivia sections are to be avoided- so other "trivia" bits should be integrated into the article, not listed in a separate "trivia" section. Here is the MOS to which I am referring: WP:TRIV. I also respectfully think that if you are going to claim it was an "in-joke" to include him and that this makes him different from other figures, you should provide a reference for that. --DarthBinky 23:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect References to the Reader in General

This article, I believe, suffers from a bad case of tenses and points-of-views. It's supposed to sound like a database, an encyclopedia, not a novel. There are some points in this article that uses "you'll" and "we've".

Allow me to point some out: "Medieval 2 introduces the option for players to develop their settlements either as a city or as castle. They both offer advantages and it’s a question of balancing the use of your settlements to suit such factors as map location, proximity to possible enemy factions and whether the player adopts a militaristic or economic approach to expansion. To put it simply castles emphasize the military, and cities the economic. Build lots of castles, and your armies will be extremely potent. Build lots of cities and you’ll have to rely on dubious militias or mercenaries to protect your lands. On the other hand, you’ll have the money to buy off your opponents. Castles will require less management than cities but as the game develops cities will become more important, but redeveloping castles will be costly so the transition will need to be carefully managed. As a result there is a great deal more strategy involved as you expand your empire across the campaign map."

And this is only by glancing at the article.

Someone fix this by not hindering the information but presenting it in a clear and crisp, professional manner, not some kind of casual forum speak. It'll need lots of overhauling, so it'll have to be done incrementally and as such, please do not use that kind of tense or "first-person"-like tones. Just refer to "you" as "the player".

Update: I worked on eliminating references to the reader whenever possible and cleaning up elements of grammar and punctuation. I may have missed a few things, but I think the article looks much more professional now.

Name of article

I've redirected Medieval II: Total War here, since this article was easily the more complete. But since the promo materials thus far use II instead of 2, I'm wondering, should this be located under that title instead? Is there any kind of policy on this? -- Perey 16:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The official logo is Medieval II, but the official name is Medieval 2. I suggest keeping Medieval 2. But it's nice that you've redircted it. - XX55XX 21:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I should've spent more time looking at the press release and less drooling at the pretty pictures... ;-) The former does indeed use a 2. -- Perey 10:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also redirected Medieval Total War 2 here as currently both M2TW and MTW2 are in use amongst the fan community. Epistolary Richard 13:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, just today, it got moved back to 'Medieval II' instead of 'Medieval 2' by Thunderbrand. I was going to question that here, but totalwar.com now seems to consistently refer to it as 'Medieval II' in text as well as logos. (On the press page, the last reference to 'Medieval 2' was on 10 November; everything since is 'Medieval II'.) I guess I should go fix the new double-redirects (of which there are 12)... -- Perey 16:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Egyptians

I've changed the Faction "Egyptians" to link to Egypt (ians) since there is no "Egyptians" page. If the reference is inteded to be to Ancient Egyptian culture, you should link to Ancient Egypt. -- Iggle 07:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This was changed (probably long ago) to link to History of Arab Egypt given the 11th-15th century span of the game, but in case anyone happens across this, the Egyptian faction in the game specifically lists the Fatimid Caliphate who ruled the region in 1080, the year the game starts in. Luatha 09:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

External links

Removed * The Un Official Medieval Total War Fansite from external links.

Wikipedia policy on external fan site links is as follows: "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)"

This fansite appears to be in the process of starting up - there are several far larger Total War fansites which have been established for several years, one of which is already linked to.

I'd also mention that the strange spacing in the word 'unofficial' could mislead readers who, at a quick glance, might believe they are visiting the 'official' website. Epistolary Richard 10:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This same link has been added again - this time just as * MedievalTW. Have removed it again based on the policy cited above. Epistolary Richard 17:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This same link has been added (and removed) again. Epistolary Richard 12:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Another fansite link removed. Totalwar-Turkiye Total War Community Fan Site. --Nachlader 21:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Edited to include the three major fansites and organize the external links a bit. Professor420 20:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I add a reference to Machinima for Dummies here? It's currently the most complete source on Medieval 2 Total War filmmaking, and the chapters on that were prepared directly in collaboration with Peter Brophy at Creative Assembly. However, I'll wait and see if you guys think that's appropriate. - Hugh Hancock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.237.228 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't really see how its directly related, but I will pass it onto the totalwarcenter community, I'm not sure how many people know about it. However as its a pretty specific aspect of the game and not about the game in general, I can't see how it'd be relevant (it'd be like linking to a tutorial).

On another note, I noticed an anonymous user with a proxy removes specifically links to Total War Center from M2TW page and RTW page, is there any way to stop these things or does it just amount to a war of attrition? I strongly believe the two major fansites, with Gold Affiliate status from CA- the Org and TWC and I'm not sure if heavengames has it but I am not going to edit them out lest I be accused of bias- should be listed as they contain oodles of useful info (in fact TWC's forum is used as a reference in the EmpireTW article). However if this nonsense doesn't stop I'd imagine all the fansite links will be taken out eventually like an annoyed mother taking toys from bickering children. - Professor420 00:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the links of TWC and The Org again. They are the most important fansites out there and contain tons of information that can be useful to those who are interested in this article. - Gampie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.222.165 (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cut-and-pasting

Guys, having read this I've realised a lot of material has been simply lifted from the M2 FAQs page. I noticed this because before I made a few edits, the page had the same spelling and grammar mistakes as on the link provided. This is not good enough, so it's important we re-write the page. We can use the information but we must also write our own account, not just be lazy and paste stuff in.

Thanks, John Smith's 23:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

cleanup

I took it upon myself to make a pretty drastic cleanup of this article, including Mr. Smith's concerns and those of the anon poster at the top (it's funny because I had the same issues with it, and didn't read the talk first...). It could probably still use some work, but I'd like to think that it's at least a little better now. Some things I ran across/fixed (I'm mentioning them because the summary space was too small):

• talking to the reader and informal tone (such as misuse of contractions), per the anon user
• it used a lot of stuff lifted directly from the FAQ, per John Smith's
• factual errors- it stated that the Senate in Rome: Total War granted crusades, that Medieval ended before the Renaissance (which, according to Wikipedia's article about the Renaissance, began in the 14th century; Medieval ended in the mid 15th century), and that Barbarian Invasion allowed you to send priests to other settlements to convert them (priests were simply battlefield units that granted morale bonuses to nearby troops).
• I italicized game titles, since that's standard practice.
• I removed a big chunk which was devoted to unsourced/unverifiable speculation about why Creative Assembly decided upon the new turn system rather than the year/season system.
• I broke up some overly long paragraphs
• I removed Judaism from the list of religions likely to be featured in the game. It's not that it's not an important religion, but no nation featured in the game will likely follow it (since none of them historically did), and it will probably only play a very minor role, as it did in Medieval 1
• I removed some redundant stuff, such as one of two sections discussing the same stuff about how characters will work
• other minor grammatical/spelling issues, such as capitalization of random words (like "general" or "cardinal").

Cheers --DarthBinky 02:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a note on the use of "Renaissance": I'm pretty sure the view that says M:TW ended at roughly the start of the Renaissance uses the traditional view that the Middle Ages (the medieval period) and the Renaissance were roughly separate periods, with the latter starting some time in the 15th century. The Renaissance article reflects a more current view, but I think it's fair that the games reflect the traditional perspective. After all, if "medieval" is falling out of favour in technical historical use, are we going to call the games Early Modern: Total War? ;-) (I seem to recall some material from the publishers supporting the idea that the game periods are based on traditional history, saying how the 1452 fall of Constantinople caused an influx of Byzantine scholars into Italy; or else this might have been turned up in my own background reading of the period around the time I got really interested in M:TW and its historicity.) -- Perey 13:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to make a big thing of it (because it's not really important in the grand scheme of things here), but the article here claimed that that was one of the differences between Medievals 1 and 2- that 2 will end during the Renaissance and the first did not, when the Renaissance had already started or begun to start (at least in Italy) in the 1300's. I simply removed that short mention (because, at the very least, there's disagreement about exactly when it began) and left the sentence as stating that the exploration/colonization of the Americas is partly included in M2:TW and wasn't in 1 (which is entirely true, the Viking excursions aside). --DarthBinky 14:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say the cleanup tag can be removed now, eh? I compared the current version to late June and the difference is night and day. I'll remove the tag now. Krupo 01:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest changing "Like the original Medieval, it will focus on medieval warfare," to "Like the original Medieval, it focuses on medieval warfare," in the introduction, but I can't edit this.

Speculation

A couple of small points, there seems to be a lot of unsourced speculation in this artical, although as the game has not been released i guess that cant be helped. Also are the Seljuk Turks and Ottoman Turks seperate factions or not, as at the moment its not clear. Still a very good artical. --Boris Johnson VC 12:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You could add that the demo will be released with the pc gamers magizine on october 26.

Second 'New World' faction?

I've just remembered that the Aztec Empire only ruled most of nowadays Mexico and not even that close to America, but when it comes to the natives of the New World my knowledge however is limited. So don't start a response to this theory with the word 'You', please. Thanks. --Nachlader 21:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but the game ends in 1530, and by then most of what is now the USA hadn't been explored. Only the Aztec empire and South America had been seen, so possibly the South American peoples (like the Incas) will just be rebels in the game. Then again, they might have a faction of their own. Bronzey 08:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The 3 provinces of North America, Carribean and Brazil are filled with rebels but three provinces in the middle are under aztec control. So in total there are 6 New World provinces are subdivided into 3 regions seperated by a large body of water. It possible however for the Aztecs to expand and take over the other three regions but if the don't then its only 3 provinces in central america that they control. - Patman2648 22:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting to know (it would help if you left your signiture btw, Patman). I'm not trying to be skeptical but where did you get this info? --Nachlader 21:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Map of Campaign game in MTW:II

There are screen shots of the entire map online, I'll upload one of the images here. Click to see original image and look at bottom left to see the entire map revealed. This was one of the earlier screenshots and was meant to represent the initial layout of countries you started the game. Since though Creative Arts has taken away the province of Hamburg from the HRE making them tied with France for having the most provinces (6). - Patman2648 22:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense, I suppose... but why would the Aztecs conquer South America when they didn't know it existed? Anyway. So there's only 6 New World provinces? Bronzey 06:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again Patman and your info may well be confirmed if you look at the world map behind the King(?) on the recently revealed game cover. So the Aztec empire does only own nowadays Mexico in MTW2 after all. --Nachlader 21:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

while playing hit ~ the put in toggle_fow and then scroll over on the campain map. You'll see the cities all the way over.67.162.76.82 06:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistent dates

At the top of the article, it says the game will be released on the 24th November in Europe. On the table below, however, it gives 10th November as the release date for Europe. I was given to understand it would be the 10th - can anyone clear this up? Bigdaddy1204 18:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the dates to reflect the chart dates which are correct. The 10th is the correct date for the European release. - Patman2648 18:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Naval transports

I guess whether it will still be possible (like in RTW and MTW) to transport whole army with single barge. Has anyone information abou this? – Yarp 08:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it is, I haven't run into any problems putting an entire crusade onto two ships. Basmandude 13:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A fleet of one or more ships may carry an army of one to twenty units. It would be appropriate to think of a ship as representing a group of vessals. A fleet with one ship is always big enough to carry an entire army.

I agree the ships were huge and had a lot of extra space for transport.Sam 09:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember that it took a pretty large fleet to transport the crusaders during the fourth crusade. To bring up another issue: the transported troops in a fleet do not participate in a fight in the game. In the real middle ages they certainly did. Boarding was the main form of naval warfare. -Sensemaker

Look, each ship unit in M2TW represents a fleet of ships. 121.44.29.90 08:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox christianity?

I didn't see this religion mentioned in the manual for the game (I have MTW2 but I need to improve computer first) and I was wondering if it is the game itself and what stance it takes? Thanks. --Nachlader 21:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire is Orthodox, as are the Russians. As far as I know those are the only two. Bronzey 01:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

They also do not take part in Catholic Crusades, as they have their own Patriarchs. Chronolegion 19:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Minimum Specs

I've changed the minimun specs in order to run the game a lil' bit. I bought the game and in it's readme the min specs are: - English version of Microsoft® Windows® 2000/XP

- Celeron 1.5GHz Pentium 4® (1500MHz) or equivalent AMD® Athlon 64

- 512MB RAM

- DVD-ROM Drive

- 9GB of uncompressed free hard disk space

- 100% DirectX® 9.0c compatible 16-bit sound card and latest drivers

- 100% Windows® 2000/XP compatible mouse, keyboard and latest drivers

- DirectX® 9.0c

- 128MB Hardware Accelerated video card with Shader 1 support and the latest drivers. Must be 100% DirectX® 9.0c compatible*. The Nvidia® GeForce 4 Ti 4400 or the ATI Radeon® 9600 SE is the recommended minimum video card.

- Monitor must be able to display 1024x768 resolution or above

So I changed the min ram in this article from 256 to 512, and the hard drive space from 11GB to 9GB. Cheers! AnoreX

The specs on the back of the case disagree with the read me and internet articles. Some internet articles (and the back of the case) states the minimum processor is 1.8 gigahertz. However, other articles and the read me state the required processor at 1.5 gigahertz. which is correct? Random Raider 86.144.16.91 11:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Revamp the entire article...

Looks to me as if someone from the creative assembly is coming in and removing some criticisms...not acceptable.

We need a balanced article that is fair and cosistent..this reads too much like a press release from the developer..

Neutral is needed badly, re-do the whole thing!

I don't know what you're talkign about (re: Creative Assembly removing criticism), but the criticism section needs to be NPOV as well. The criticism section should contain criticism from verifiable sources- for example, critiques from major game sites like Gamespot or IGN are perfectly fine; comments from random fans about what they wanted to have in the game or minor problems that they have are not acceptable. I removed such a comment yesterday (someone decided that Napoleon Total War should have been made instead- which is nothing more than their own opinion), and it looks like more have been added since.

That said, I do agree the article needs a rewrite, since much of it was written before the game was released (although it still isn't released here in the US), and that might be why it seems a bit like a 'press release' (although I think that's overly dramatic- it's not that bad). It should be updated to reflect the fact that it is now out. Cheers --DarthBinky 23:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who added the section with the nepoelonic war and yes its all over there offical forums by fans. And so many plans for community mods on it, its a clear wide-held fan view, not just my rabble. Offcial site reviews are buy one fan, big site all small. The fact is EVEYBODY knows that there should have been naval battles, EVERBODY knows that it should have been the nepleonic war (infact including naval battles and the nepolionic war are the same thing in a sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.206.9 (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Inquisition

Are there characters that may not be executed by an Inquisitor? How far up the family line are they allowed to go? Chronolegion 15:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The manual says that they are allowed to burn Faction Leaders. Is that realistic? I'm not a history buff, so can someone give me a real-life historical example of a leader of a large nation who was burned at the stake for heresy? Also, what will happen if the Inquisitor manages to burn every male family member of age? Chronolegion 13:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This really isn't the place to discuss, but the Inquisitor is one of the most unbalanced characters in the game. I lost a game over the weekend because he killed my last male heir and then the next turn my 65 year old king died...--Samsmithnz 14:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I bought the Medeival II looking for a cool war-game, and I am disappointed to find that it is too often a not-fun religious brown-nosing simulator. Unless you play the hidden game (not i.e., how to do it is not documented) of brown-nosing the pope, you can expect such gaming nightmares as being excommunicated for defending your own terrain against foreign invasion, or having an Inquistor destroy an entire and very expensive Crusade that you have just launched by killing the leader. What I am dying to know is this: what beta-testers told them that a brown-nosing simulator is what the war-gaming public really wants to buy?

I haven't played the game yet, so I cannot really say if this sucking up to the pope necessity ruins the game or not. If there are plenty of people who do not like it, maybe you could ask for a patch that makes this religious business optional. It is understandable if some players want to concentrate on the wargame stuff. However, this "keep on good terms with the pope"-stuff certainly seems historically accurate. Suck up with the pope and you could get away with pretty much everything. Fail to do so and he will do his damnedest to make your life difficult no matter how much good you do. Fredrick II is a good example. When illness caused him to delay a crusade the pope excommunicated him for the delay. When he went the pope repeated the excommunication because we went on Crusade without the Churchs blessing. He recaptured Jerusalem almost bloodlessly and it still wasn't enought to get the pope to lift the excommunication. Here is a link [[1]]. -Sensemaker

The reason the Pope didn't unexcommunicate him, was that Emperor Freddy was dead. He drowned in a river in the middle of Anatolia after walking through a desert for days, and diving into the river with full armour on. Phalanxia 16:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're mixing up your Fredericks... Frederick II didn't drown, that was Frederick I (Barbarossa). Accodring to Fred II's article, he was pretty much killed by dysentary. --DarthBinky 16:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, hehe, I saw Hohenstaufen on Frederick II and assumed it was Frederick I. Sorry! Phalanxia 16:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in this game Faction Leaders are executed by inquisitors, which is historically false. Excommunications, yes, executions, no. 82.182.115.181 02:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking I think the inquisition rarely executed people at all, I remember reading that they typically had the secular authorities do the actual dirty work. There are plenty of exceptions to this however. Anyway I cannot recall any member of a royal family being tried and/or executed by the inquisition. -Sensemaker

I'm sure a player mod will be released soon to remove the Inquisitor from the game or, at least, to only allow him to attack non-royalty. Chronolegion 14:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The new patch (1.1) has reduced the power of inquisitors. I don't know how much though as I haven't had the chance to play the new patch and because I was one of the few who didn't have any problems with the inquisition Xander 14:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Strictly speaking I think the inquisition rarely executed people at all", strictly speaking i think they suck. Maybe its just me but they really p*** me off! They burnt my heir and then burnt my king the next year!!! Turned out they were the only two male family members of age i had left!!!!

Patchless fix for the Inquisition: Assasinate the Inquisitor. Or better yet, the Pope. Yes you'll risk getting Excommunicated if the assassin fails, but if you may lose the game anyway, why not? BTW, lots of major European powers disposed of inconvenient Popes back then.

No they didn't. Not in the Middle ages anyways. Krastain 11:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty the role and power of the inquisition has been romanticized and overplayed in modern folklore. The inquisition was founded as a way to help people with heretical beliefs to get back on track. It only became violent around the 1500's and the reconquista. The novel and movie "The Name of the Rose" I think is its name, does a very good job of explaining this. Also the Inquisitors Manuel has been published in english which shows the guidelines of how they functioned. Even if you were condemed by the Inquisition it was very VERY easy to escape execution. one of their guidelines was if you repent they have to spare you (and they gave plenty of chances, before trial, during interrogative, during trial, when you were convicted, before your execution etc..) They were not able to walk the streets of Europe pointing at royalty, or really any one and say "burn them". This view was propagated by anti-catholic sentiment after the Protestant reformation and has been romanticized. When I play the game if I see an inquisitor (this dosnt always work though cause sometimes they surprise you) I just move my faction members out of the area and send a priest in which will usually make them move on. Assassinating them can be very hard, in fact I find it easier to assassinate the Pope. Or you can just not piss off the Pope and jump through the hoops which is sometimes more difficult than others. 131.230.146.135 (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)10/27/08

Criticism in the article

I just removed a bunch of fan criticism from the article.

We need to keep it to sourced criticism- that is, reliable websites, magazines, and so forth discussing the game. Notice that I did leave referenced criticism from PC Gamer, Gamespot and so forth. This is not a messageboard for fans to complain about every little problem that they have with the game. If you have complaints, take them to an actual messageboard- or better yet, tell CA so they can take steps to fix it.

And for the record, I am not an employee of CA or Sega (or any other company for that matter- I'm currently unemployed). So I'm not trying to censor things- I'm striving to keep this NPOV. Cheers --DarthBinky 00:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sad to hear that. Good luck in finding new employment, DarthBinky. -Sensemaker

Added note to commentary about the patch which indicated that applying the patch might require reinstallation, then said that some users still had to deal with bugs because they were unable to apply the patch - reading the forums (as I have had issues) all patch problems are resolved by a reinstall, and typically due to user modification of game files. Thus, the only reason, as could already be inferred from the article text, that users must deal with pre-patch bugs, is because they are unwilling or unable to reinstall, not because of any defect with the patch/game. If you revert this or disagree, please indicate some evidence to the contrary, either from the forums or otherwise, but anecdotal complaints about the patch being poor are insufficient. The patch was a major change to the game, complaints about the size aside, reinstallation resolves all outstanding issues with the patch afaik. -dynamic ip only (anonymous) 7/23/07

Overhaul

I initiated the overhaul of this article tonight. I changed a lot- too much for the little summary line- so I will discuss what I changed here.

• Changed the tone to reflect that the game is out; a lot of what was there was discussing it in the sense of "this is what it will be like when it comes out".
• Cut out a lot of unnecessary info. The article does not need to be a rehash of the game's manual (bear in mind Wikipedia is not an instruction manual). So I cut all that needless info describing minutiae of how diplomacy, agents and religion work, among other things. The article should be brief, and give non-players an idea of what the game's about without getting too in-depth.
• Cut out more uncited fan criticism. Most was already gone, but I found a little more. As I said earlier, we need to stick to sourceable, reliable criticisms, not minor gripes from pissed off fans.
• Cut out the historical figures section. It seemed kind of silly to me to have a whole section dedicated to exactly one historical figure featured in the game- especially since there are many. A list of all of the historical figures also seems pointless to me.
• Cut out some fan sites, per WP:EL

There may be other things I did, but I'm very tired and that should give an idea of what I did. Cheers --DarthBinky 07:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is now....that there is no mention of the rather bad AI bugs..I think it should be kept in, as not only fans have complained..but it has been mentioned in reviews also. I agree there was too much junk in there, but now it is too far the other way.

Being blunt this game is great but bugged as hell....darn makes RTW look good at release!

Change it back a bit.....it isnt balanced IMO —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Barryfitzgerald (talk • contribs)

I will not be change it back. Please provide links to reliable sources talking about all thse "rather bad AI bugs" and add mention to the criticism section. I've not run into any major bugs- yes, there are some bugs (mainly relatively minor things like pathfinding, typos and graphics- which Rome also had a problem with), but nothing that makes the game unplayable; reviews I've read also don't mention these mystical "rather bad AI bugs". Like I already mentioned twice- this isn't meant to be a forum for you to gripe about minor problems with the game. Cheers --DarthBinky 14:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This isnt meant to be a fanboy doing an article either! Balance...I dont desire the article to be hyper critical...and thank the lord many of the compared to RTW parts are gone now.....

But..consider this:

Pathfinding issues:

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3155243

AI bugs..gameplay criticisms..esp passive AI issue:

http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/medieval-2-total-war/746647p3.html

AI/Pathfinding issues again:

http://www.actiontrip.com/reviews/medieval2totalwar_2.phtml

Then of course user feedback:

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=71821

I am not suggesting shoot the game down....but I think some of the issues should be mentioned at least. It is fair to say in general it has got good reviews..but clearly many users are irritated at the level of bugs present....maybe even more so than RTW was at release.

It's not a "fanboy doing article". It's just that so far, people keep putting criticism in the article without backing it up with any sort of reference. You should put those references in the criticism section- that's great, and it's exactly what the article needs, not random comments that the game is bugged. Cheers --DarthBinky 15:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work DarthBinky, if an article gets too long it just misses the point of being an Encyclopedia Entry. Also, i own the game and know it's crippled by bugs to an unbelievable extent, but that needs to be put in a specific section. Also, a patch is coming out, let's have a bit of patience please. Sir Dante 12:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

More Units

Would anyone object if anyone (not particulary me but id do it) put in the information for all the units, provinces and maps, building browsers and indepth stuff like that? Xlegiofalco 21:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a good idea. First and foremost, Wikipedia is not a game guide- that's information that belongs in a game guide. Secondly, take a look at featured CVG articles, especially StarCraft- they don't have big lists of such info. It doesn't hurt to use a featured article as a model for other articles. ;) Cheers --DarthBinky 21:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Add "original research" tag to the "Historical inaccuracies" section

Some of the supposed "historical inaccuracies" are quite questionable and subjective.

"Witch-burnings in Europe was more a feature of the Protestant regions in the Enlightenment period than the Catholic Medieval period"

There most certainly was witch-burning and heretic burning which occured in many catholic countries during medieval times. Agreed, there is not as much documentation as during the enlightenment period but that does not mean it didn't exist (there is evidence that it may have been even more wide-spread in some areas then).

There is a somewhat well-known text from early 12th century Flanders, the Murder of Charles the Good by Galbert of Bruges (which is widely available in English translation), that describes a 'witch' who cursed a military leader, and was subsequently executed for her effort. There are also some 9th and 11th century accounts of witchcraft being used to harm the family of king Louis the Pious, in France.

I can also think of PLENTY of examples of heretics being prosecuted, and either 'corrected' or executed, beginning in the eleventh century. The big difference is that it was LOCAL RULERS using heresy accusations to keep their foes and rivals in line, and it had nothing to do with the Papal Inquisition, which came about MUCH later. On that note, would it have been fun if your faction could have its own inquisitors, to launch against rebel generals or the governors of cities that you claimed to own?Eschew obfuscation 13:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The statement about cities not existing during that period is pretty incorrect, or at least misleading; for example the city of Budapest is the modern amalgimation of three cities, one of which (Óbuda) was indeed at the time a pretty important city, militarily. Helsinki did exist at the time (despite as the Wikipedia article states, being "founded" in 1550), there was a big battle in the 12th century to capture it. Stockholm also existed at the time, although it was in a different location to its present day location.

Although as with pretty much everywhere, the names were different at different times and by different groups. I'm not saying that to be completely historically accurate the cities shouldn't be named differently or neglected for other then more important cities, but the present statement claiming they "did not exist" is inaccurate.

I'll make an attempt to fix the "non-existent cities" one. As for the witch-burning point, I agree, that one's particularly bad, but I wasn't sure what to do with it, so when I did the big rewrite a few days ago, I left it as it was. Cheers --DarthBinky 23:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

To top this inaccuracy off, age of enlightenment typically refers to the 18th century according to wikipedia. By the start of the 18th century witch burning had pretty much ebbed out in Europe. If I remember my history correctly, it is typically thought that witch burning culminated in the 17th century which is sometimes called the "age of reason" (according to wikipedia). -Sensemaker

I removed the part about dinasty system and religion because they deal more with gameplay and not with historical accuracy. Dinasty system: the game displays a bloodline dinasty system, in the real medieval times it was different but this isn't a dinasty simulator.

Religion: that's original research and doesn't belong to this article. IMO the historical inaccuracies in the game are wrong time tables and abilities you gain before their historical appearence; there are also some geographic issues. If you have royal barracks you can have musketeers in 13th century for example. Milan start as an own faction but at the time it was part of the Holy Roman Empire, at least formally. As a famous italian historian said "traveling from Milan to Genoa required to pass 3 different borders until 19th century", which makes Genoa under Milanese domination quite silly. If anything the section needs a well written introduction, but i don't think my written english is good enough for an encyclopedia- i'll leave it to you. Sir Dante 12:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

On further thought, I agree (I think the removal of the religion and dynasty things was good) and I'll try to get to that sometime today.--DarthBinky 14:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding cities misplaced (in time); Helsinki (1550, trade rights 1560s) is a prime example of a city misplaced even more than Stockholm. Certainly there was some kind of settlement before the 16th century, but as to include it [in the game] at the expense of say Turku (13th century) or other early medieval towns of the eastern side of Sweden-Finland (or today's Tallinn) is certainly a mistake on the developers part. So if we'd like to highlight some inaccuries then Helsinki is a good example. Scoo 08:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the new section as it is now, it's short, gets to the point quickly and isn't just a list of historical inaccuracies. Citing some examples is good, a list of historical inaccuracies isn't. One more thing: remember it's a videogame and not a PHD dissertation about middle age, historical inaccuracies are needed to make the videogame playable. From a videogaming point of view the game is pretty historically accurate, the anachronisms/errors in the game aren't macroscopically evident, and are probably given by the difficulty of displaying a vast span of time within a single game. Sir Dante 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to read a list of historical inaccuracies. I found it among the most interesting parts of the previous articles on previous Total War games. It certainly was the most educational part. On the other hand you are right in that a long list of historical errors would create the impression that the game is full or errors. You are also right in that this would be more than a little unfair. It is primarily a game and from a videogames point of view pretty accurate. They certainly don't claim to be more accurate than that. It's a dilemma. Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be a full list of historical inaccuracies followed by a comment that it is still quite historically accurate for a video game. -Sensemaker

I have added some text to the list of historical inaccuracies trying to create a distinction between understandable simplifications of Medieval things intended to create a playable game, and what appears to be genuine mistakes from the makers.

-Sensemaker

Swedish historian Peter Englund's review

People might find it odd that half of the "critical response section" is now about the response from a person from some obscure European country who is not a professional game reviewer. However, this man is Sweden's most famous historian and a member of the Swedish academy. Furthermore, he is clearly impying that the release of Medieval 2 Total War is a moment of some art historical importance! Now it certainly is not every day you hear a reputable person say that about a computer game, much less argue very persuasively for this.

Someone asked for a translation of Peter Englund's review. I'll see if I can find time to provide that.

Sensemaker

"the response from a person from some obscure European country"

Oi, don't knock Sweden! :) Canderra 13:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm Swedish myself. Let's be realistic. To the English-speaking world, we are an obscure country in the outskirts of Europe. Let's live with it :-) Sensemaker

DarthBinky claimed that according to a translation he read, Peter Englund only praised the aesthetics of the game. I don't know what translation he is referring to, but I am Swedish and I have read and reread the original (as well as most of Peter Englund's books so I am familiar with his style). While Peter Englund certainly lauds the aesthetics of the game, let me assure you that the geist of the article is that a genre has now found its true medium.

Sensemaker

As I mentioned in your talk page, the translation gist I used is your own. As already stated, your section puts far too much emphasis on Mr. Englund's review. I'm going to cut it down again, but I'll try to mention "find its medium" thing. With all due respect to Mr. Englund, I just don't see why he should get a full paragraph which recaps his review, but major game websites like Gamespot and IGN only get a sentence each- remember that we're talking about a computer game here. And if we recap every review in such a manner, then the criticism section quickly becomes unwieldy.

We need to keep these short, and provide links to the articles (found an English translation yet?) so that the reader can read them for himself. --DarthBinky 13:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter Englund's comment should get a full paragraph, not because he is a more important game reviewer -he certainly isn't. He should get a full paragraph because he is saying something so much more profound, interesting, original and important. I have read tens of reviews that praise one game or another, but I have never before read a reputable historian clearly impying that a game has an art historical importance (and arguing quite convincingly for this being the case). Have you? Let me once again emphasize the point, just to make sure you get it this time. It is not *who* says it that I consider important, it is *what they say* that is important. If Gamespot or IGN said something as interesting as Peter Englund did *they* should get a full paragraph.

Perhaps you would be happier if I gave Peter Englund a separate heading such as "An art historical perspective?"

There is no translation of the review. I shall have to do it myself if I find the time and consider it important enough.

Sensemaker

You're showing POV right there- you're saying "he is saying something so much more interesting". Just because you think it's so interesting (and I happen to agree that it is), that doesn't mean Wikipedia should push that viewpoint. You are making a judgement call, and that is against Wikipedia's stated goals. Let the reader read the article himself and decide if his article is interesting. Cheers --DarthBinky 15:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We are making judgement calls all the time. You editing my article is certainly a judgement call. Claiming that I show POV is another. Nothing wrong in that. You cannot write anything (except copying or transcribing or taking dictation) without making judgement calls as to what is and what isn't important and/or interesting. For instance you cannot write someone's biography without making jdugement calls as what events in this person's life was important and/or interesting. It doesn't make sense to forbid all judgement calls.

If you dislike the word "interesting", when just substitute it with "unusual". It is not unusual that a game critic gives a game a 10 in his review. That a reputable historian implies that a game has art historical importance (and argues persuasively for it) is highly unusual. (Though probably not unprecedented.) -Sensemaker

What I meant is that you are showing favoritism towards Englund- you're saying that he is interesting (because he's a historian rather than a game reviewer), therefore his opinion is more valid and deserves more space than IGN, Gamespot, the Australian game magazine, etc- I object to that on the grounds that it's your POV. If his opinion is so interesting, then mention he has a different opinion, and link to the article- we don't need to give extra weight to his opinion.

Sorry to be nagging, but once again, it is because *what he says* not because he what he is or isn't. (Though I must admit that his credentials as a historian gives his historical arguments some extra credibility.) -Sensemaker

And I made a note of what he says and kept the link to his article. Anything more than that is adding undue weight to what he says- you are saying he and his opinion is much more important than everyone else's. Also, your paragraph was very repetitive- it kept restating his opinion in different, overly-florid ways. --DarthBinky 16:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You made a fairly clumsy summary which was also factually wrong. Do you truly consider 1632 to be medieval? My article was perhaps not very good and perhaps longer than necessary, but a commentary on art rarely lets itself be boiled down to a sentence or two. I challenge you to make a better and shorter description of the peculiar aesthetics of depicting a battle with all its contradictions. You're the bachelor of art, I'm the engineer.Sensemaker 18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. "Commentary on art" does not lend itself well to such, that's why we mention it and link to it, instead of taking up significant portions of this article trying to explain it- let the reader read it himself (I keep saying that, and you seem to keep missing it). I don't know Swedish, so if my treatment was factually wrong, then you have to look to your own translation skills, because I based it on the translation you provided. At this point, I'm half of the mind to just not mention the Englund article at all until a reliable English translation can be provided- WP:EL says we should only use websites that are in English. I'd rather not go that route though. --DarthBinky 18:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The translation I provided specifically mentioned Lützen 1632, you interpreting that as "Medieval" is your error alone. You cannot pin that error on me.

However, their might be a point to your idea of art historical comments not lending itself to the encyclopedic perspective. I cannot agree fully, however, I have seen good art historical comments in articles on film and paintings.

If I made a full translation of Peter Englunds review, could it be made available on a separate page in wikipedia, somehow? Wouldn't there be a copyright issue? -Sensemaker

If we gave every person who isn't a game reviewer their own paragraph just because they're not a game reviewer and are presenting some other spin on the idea, then that section becomes VERY big, VERY fast. Then it raises the question of who is worthy of mention in such a case. --DarthBinky 16:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you required the "spin" to be as well-thought-out, original and credible as Peter Englund's the section certainly wouldn't expand much. Who is worthy to mention is a judgement call which I believe you suggested was forbidden. :-) -Sensemaker

That's exactly my point- it's against the aims of Wikipedia. --DarthBinky 16:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have already explained why I think your idea that all judgement calls are unwanted in wiki is unreasonable. Please direct me to the specific rule you think says this. Sensemaker 18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not "judgement calls", rather, undue weight to one opinion- which is a violation of WP:NPOV. "Judgement call" was my term for what you said, saying that Englund's opinion is "interesting" and that it should be expanded here. --DarthBinky 18:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Other game reviewers offers opinion. Peter Englund offers a point or and an art historical perspective. If you consider Peter Englund's point "just another review" when your perspective makes perfect sense. -Sensemaker

Also note that we're both coming up on WP:3RR. So any further discussion should take place here. --DarthBinky 15:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, I'm goign to ask the Wikiproject CVG for more editors to provide input on this. That way it's not just the two of us arguing about this. --DarthBinky 15:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a request at the Wikiproject talk. Let's wait for whatever assistance they give. Cheers --DarthBinky 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. -Sensemaker

I would also suggest looking at other articles to see how they handle criticism sections. A good place to start is with Featured Articles- here is a list of computer/video games which are Featured. Notice that no game listed there gives significant coverage to one critic over the others- each gets about one sentence, including a link to the article. I don't think Englund's should be any different. --DarthBinky 19:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already read several criticism sections -and written to a few too. You on the other hand, I suspect have edited so many that you do it by rather unreflected routine. That makes you fail to see the uniqueness of this situation. You say that in other articles no one critic gets more than about one sentence. I counter by asking, did any one of these offer a perspective and a point even remotely similar to Englund's? If so -please direct me to the article. If not, I fail to see the relevance of your point. -Sensemaker

It doesn't matter what I've done. And it also doesn't matter if Englund's perspective is so radically different. You keep ignoring my main point- he and his opinon have been mentioned, and his article has been linked. That is the point of linking to the article- the reader can go read the different opinion for himself. It's not our job to elaborate that opinion here- unless that opinion is the subject of the article (like, say, Marxism).--DarthBinky 10:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We'll first, I think it is very hard to sum an art historical perspective up in a single sentence. I certainly don't think you succeeded. Furthermore, you cannot on one hand argue that a link is enough and on the other hand argue that there shouldn't be a link since there should be no links to non-English sites. That's self-contradictory. I on the other hand am arguing that since there is not English translation we need to sum up the most interesting part of his perspective in a few sentences and preferrably add a link so at least people familiar with Swedish can have a look at the original. I might accept you argument that a single sentence and a link was enough if it was a really good single-sentence summary and a link to an English translation, but it isn't so I won't -Sensemaker

{unindent}That's not my argument; no strawmen please.

A strawman is a *deliberate* misrepresentation of the other person's view for rhetorical purposes. Deliberate misrepresentation is in less polite language a lie. When you are implying that I am using straw man arguments you are in any reasonable interpretation accusing me of lying. I resent that. Furthermore since a straw man argument only works when there is an audience apart from the two debating people, you are also implying that I am dumb since I am using a method that only works towards an audience when there obviously isn't one. I resent that too. Rest assured that I have tried to understand your position as good as I may. -Sensemaker

The problem is that A: I don't know Swedish, so if it's wrong I can't make a better one and B: that sentence DOES sum up what you said- you keep saying it doesn't, but it totally does.

I'll grant you that it is probably an honest attempt to sum up what you thought I meant. I do not accuse you of lying. -Sensemaker

Your summary gave a long, florid recap of the article, but when you really look at it, all your summary said was that he felt the aesthetics were the ultimate depiction of medieval warfare. That's it. Look at what your section said, copied directly from the article's history:

"He claims that with this game, a genre has found its true medium. The genre is the depiction of a battlefield with its peculiar tin soldier aesthetics of both teeming masses and extreme detail both capturing a moment frozen in time and at the same time displaying movement and force, adding that "anyone who has been lying down with a magnifying glass to study a copper engravement of Lützen 1632 knows what I am referring to." Many media have been used to depict this, such as tin soldier dioramas, battle paintings, copper engravings, tabletop miniatures, games and finally film. All of these fell short in one respect or the other. However, now that the Total War series have soldiers that are no longer clones and have more realistic movements, he claims that graphic computer simulation with all its possibilities (freezing or accelerating time, actually playing the battle, moving the camera, etc.) this genre has found its most favorable medium."

The first two sentences give a long description that say that he likes the aesthetics of the game for their depiction of the warfare of the period-

No, the second sentence is a description of a genre and how its peculiar aesthetics works. He is neither giving an opionon nor talking about the game yet. Besides, where do you get the "from the period" part. 1632 is not Medieval. He is obviously talking about battle depiction in general, not just depictions of medieval battles and certainly not only about the game's depiction in this particular sentence.

ok, we understand that, and it's an interesting point, so we'll mention it.. Then it gives a short history of depicting warfare- totally unnecessary for this article, and can be condensed to say that the "genre of depicting medieval warfare had found its most favourable medium", which is what I put in the article..... Then it goes back to saying he likes the aesthetics of the game; that he likes the way the game portrays medieval soldiers- ok, you already said that, why does it need to be said again?.

It's repetitive and overly long. Any more than a sentence, based purely on what you said, is unnecessary and gives undue weight to his opinion. Do you now understand my view on this? --DarthBinky 13:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe I understand that you have honestly tried to summarize what you thought was the point. However, in summarizing you have forgotten that the person reading your sentence has not read the full story. He (sorry can't be bothered to remember writing he or she all the time) who reads your sentence will not understand the peculiar aesthetics we are talking about, he will not understand that it is an aesthetic and art historical point he is making, he will not understand why other media have failed or why this medium (the computer simulation) is succeeding. As a matter of fact, he might think that the failure in depicting medieval warfare is a comment of historical accuracy, a comment on game design or a comment on pedagogics. As a matter of fact, I think it is fairly unlikely that the reader will understand that this is an art historical comment. -Sensemaker

But the problem is that your translation didn't say any of those things either! I just went over what you said, and what it means. Once again, if the article doesn't match that, then it's your own fault for providing a faulty translation. Which leads back to something I mentioned earlier- in the absence of a reliable translation, perhaps we should not mention Englund at all until one is. I don't want to not mention it; but if you are unable to give a reliable translation, then we are doing him a disservice. --DarthBinky 15:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore I fail to understand why you limit his comment to *Medieval* soldiers and expand his comment to Medieval *soldiers*. Neither he nor I did that. He is talking about artistic representation of a battle (any battle not just medieval ones and only battles, not soldiers in general) finding its true medium in computer simulation. Furthermore, he is only talking about the battle. He is actually less than happy about the strategic part of the game -but you had no way of knowing that. (I didn't think that part of his review was very original, so I didn't bring it up in my text.) -Sensemaker

I mention "medieval soldiers" because that is what the game is about- it's called Medieval Total War. If he's not talking about medieval battles, then he needs to reevaluate the game. --DarthBinky 15:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the CVG people seem to be busy, I listed this at Wikipedia:Third opinion.--DarthBinky 10:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that the third party is a reasonably neutral person i.e. not a friend of yours or mine, and reasonably experienced in wikipedia and actually reads the entire argument, i.e. not just your summary, including my larger summary of his review, I pledge ot accept his or her opinion on this matter as the final verdict if you do the same. -Sensemaker

That's the idea- read the page I linked. ;) --DarthBinky 12:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read the page and I was familiar with the method before you pointed it out. However, I think you will agree that there is a difference betwenn *pledging* to follow a third persons opinion and just asking for a guideline. -Sensemaker

Sorry to stick my nose into this duet, but i think the right solution is in the middle. IE, since Professor Englund isn't a game reviewer but a historian is opinion on the game is dually interesting because: a) He isn't a professional reviewer, meaning that the fact he made a comment about the game is a unique event and b) he is a historian talking about a game set in another historic era. But i don't think he deserves his own paragraph; instead, starting a paragraph with non-professional reviews of the game could be interesting. Sure he isn't the only one that has talked about the game. Sir Dante 13:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, your "intrusion" is most welcome, and you actually make a really good point (wish I had thought of it). Lemme do some digging and see if I can find some more- if you or anyone else can provide some, that would be fantastic. --DarthBinky 13:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the article as it looks today, 20:17 GMT+1 29th october 2008. Peter Englund is by many (and I mean many!) considered to be Swedens best popular historian, and has written I don't know how many books about different historical events. Maybe it is hard for people not from Sweden to understand, but the fact that Peter Englund actually does a review of the game is rather incredible! Keep the article as it is today and hopefully we'll all be happy 80.217.105.223 (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What's an 'indirect' sequel?

Trollderella 16:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write that, but I assumed it's that a Total War game (Rome Total War) was released between Medieval 1 and Medieval 2. So Medieval 2 is indirect. --DarthBinky 16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Might be worth making that clear in the opening for those of us who don't follow these things closely. Trollderella 17:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I took it to mean that while it does succeed the earlier Medieval, the game content itself does not follow on. That is, it is a sequel in that it revisits the setting (a later game, with more advanced gameplay, and the ordinal 'II' in the title), but it is not a 'direct' sequel because it does not pick up where the other left off (in fact it repeats basically the same period). If this is what is meant, it too could probably be expressed better. -- Perey 17:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise on the Peter Englund comments

Taking into consideration the third party comments, I redid the criticism section in an attempt to compromise on this issue- I added a new section for reviews from people who aren't game reviewers, redid the Englund sentence, and made it a section stub (to encourage people to include more non-game rewiewer reviews). I really want to resolve this peacefully. --DarthBinky 14:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I thank sir Dante for taking the time to make the third party solution to our disagreement. It is also good that DarthBinky tries to implement his or her suggested solution. However, honesty demands that I point out I am not happy at all with the solution suggested by the sir Dante. :-( I think that his or her opinion overemphasizes who Peter Englund is and fails to see the uniqueness of what he says. However, I have pledged to follow his or her verdict if he or she did indeed read our entire argument including the longer version of the text. I would appreciate if sir Dante could confirm that he or she did so. However, once sir Dante has done so, honour demands that I agree to limit the part about Peter Englund's comments to something significantly less than a full paragraph -perhaps a sentence or two. However, I reserve the right to disagree with you as to exactly how that one or these two sentences should look like. We have neither asked for nor received an opinion from a third party as to exactly what that sentence or these sentences should look like. I am afraid I am not happy with its current form. I will probably edit it in a day or two to something more to my liking and add a comment on this discussion page as to the reasons for my edit. -Sensemaker

What exactly are you looking for? Tell us exactly what you want- keep it short and simple, because wordiness isn't helping (I can barely understand what you just said). And if you choose to edit against the consensus (note that I'm not saying one has been reached yet), then it will be reverted. Cheers --DarthBinky 15:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You will see my edit when it is there and an explanation as to why it is the way it is. I ask to remind you that the only thing we asked a third person to arbiter was if it should be a full paragraph or not. I shall concede this point as soon as sir Dante confirms that he did indeed read the entire argument this point. It shall only be a sentence or two. The consensus never extended to what these sentences should be. Both you and I can without going down on our word, edit each other and other people's writing on this subject as long as the text is significantly less than a full paragraph. -Sensemaker

I'm not sure what you're getting on about- Dante was not an arbiter of any kind, he was just some guy who poked his head in and had a good idea. He's not under any obligation to you to do anything. --DarthBinky 16:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that was new. I thought he appeared as the third person we have been requesting. Well, that changes the situation. -Sensemaker

As to what I am looking for, please read above for my comments on your interpretation of what I wrote. In your summary it is very hard to even understand that this is an art historical comment. I want a sentence or two that explains that this is a aesthetic, artisitic genre that has existed for a long time, but that now seems to have found its true medium. Hopefully the reader should also understand what aesthetics we are talking about and why this is such a superiour medium. -Sensemaker

I did mention that aobut other media, and linked to examples of it. You are being very unreasonable about this- it seems you want it to be exactly the way you have in mind and nobody can convince you otherwise. --DarthBinky 16:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe you had not mentioned other media when I wrote the previous comment. Now you have, good, we are getting somewhere. However, I must point out that I do not think I am unreasonable in this matter or in most other matters. I ask to remind you that I have already conceded the most important point -the length of the article. That is, in my opinion, certainly not an act of a "very unreasonable" person who "want it to be exactly the way you have in mind and nobody can convince" -Sensemaker

Except you made it sound like you were only accepting the shorter length because an official arbiter had forced the decision upon you. That's beside the point, so let's drop that and move on.--DarthBinky 16:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

An unreasonable person wouldn't accept an official arbiters verdict. If "nobody can convince" me to give in,"nobody" certainly excludes an arbiter.Sensemaker 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I just made another attempt to compromise on this, but I'm not holding my breath. --DarthBinky 16:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A significant improvement. I believe we can agree that the sentence or two sentences should say: 1. that a genre has long existed in other media when computer games 2. that it is an artistic genre with peculiar aesthics, and finally 3. that this existing genre has now found its most favourable medium. I believe we are nearing consensus. -Sensemaker

It does mention those three things- it mentions "older media" such as tin soldiers (with a link), it talks about the fact that he lauded the aesthetics, and that this is the most favourable medium. What is it still lacking? --DarthBinky 16:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not much, just a bit of clarity, I think. Please have a look at my suggestion. -Sensemaker

Sensemaker, yes i did read what you and DarthBinky wrote. By the way, i'm a man so you can stop saying he/she :) I want you to remember some of the Wiki guidelines, expecially in game entries; i can summarize them in the "keep it simple" policy that has been agreed upon. It means that a Wiki entry doesn't have to, and doesn't need to, be a game guide or a collection of every fact regarding a game. As for what Englund said, the question here would be: is it relevant? And how so? In my personal opinion it isn't relevant in a Medieval II: Total War Wiki article, but i can perfectly be in a Wikipedia Peter Englund article, or a Game Aestethics wiki article. It is, however, worth to be mentioned if people believe that it is relevant. However, the best thing i can think of is: implementing a section, citing what Englund AND others said/wrote, give wiki link and external link, if possible with annected translation in english. Also please take your time to log in or register, it's much better for everyone involved in this discussion. Sir Dante 16:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that Sir Dante and for liberating me from the he or she stuff. Here is now my suggestion. "In addition to game reviews, historians and other critics have commented on the game. Swedish historian Peter Englund brought up an art historical perspective: the depiction of battles have long existed as a genre with peculiar aesthetic in older media (such as films, or even older media such as tin soldiers or paintings). However, all these have failed in this depiction in some way, but Medieval II now clearly represents the most favourable medium.[7]." By the way, is it really necessary to link to tin soldiers or films. Will someone really want to got to wikis film article for this? -Sensemaker

I fixed up the language a bit (some of your expressions didn't sound right). I suppose the link to film could go, but the link to tin soldiers probly should stay- not everyone knows what those are. --DarthBinky 16:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right: film link goes, tin soldier link stays. (Though I would certainly be happier if the tin soldier article was longer, now I don't think it really offers much. Though there might always be someone who doesn't even know what tin soldiers are, just like you say -so there is reason to have that link there.) Your language improvements are good. We are now very near a consensus. The only thing I am missing is the fact that the genre has a very peculiar form of aesthetics. I do understand that there is no way I could describe this aesthetic and stay within the one or two sentence length we agreed upon. However, I was hoping we could mention that the genre *has* a unique form of aesthetics. -Sensemaker

What do you mean about "unique form of aesthetics"? It's not really unique- it's pretty much the same as Rome Total War. Only two things have change (granted, they're kind of big): 1. The system of rendering soldiers as individuals instead of clones (which is mentioned in the Battle System section) and 2. the system for rendering the actual fighting (which is also mentioned in the Battle System section). What is it exactly that you are referring to? You're not being very clear on this, and just mentioning "unique aesthetics" means nothing without some frame of reference.--DarthBinky 17:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to that the genre of depiction of battles as a genre (regardless of what medium is being used) have a peculiar and unique form of aesthetics. It is different from say, the genre of expressing transcendence. You are absolutely right in that Medieval 2 does not have a unique form of aesthetics. It is not really that different from other computer simulation or from other ways of depicting a battle. However, once again, all forms of depicting a battle have a similar and unique form of aesthetics. To be even more clear: Medieval 2 has a form of aesthetics, but it is not unique to the game Medieval 2. It is however, unique to the genre of depicting battles. To make a parallell, the genre of still life [still life] has a unique form of aesthetics regardsless of medium (photo, painting).Sensemaker 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

On another note: what is peacock terminology? I haven't found that term in wikipedia. -Sensemaker

My mistake, the term wasn't a peacock term, it was in the list of words to avoid. The term in question was "clearly". Don't use it! :) --DarthBinky 17:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, no more "clearly".Sensemaker 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What about this:

"In addition to game reviews, historians and other critics have commented on the game. Swedish historian Peter Englund brought up an art historical perspective: the depiction of battles have long existed in older media, such as films, or even older media such as tin soldiers or paintings and formed a genre of its own with a unique form of aesthetics. Englund states that these older forms have failed in the depiction of battle in some way, and Medieval II now represents the genre's most favourable medium.[2]."

Sensemaker 18:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say cut it down to this:

"In addition to game reviews, historians and other critics have commented on the game. Swedish historian Peter Englund wrote that the depiction of battles as an art genre has long existed in older media, such as films, or even older media such as tin soldiers or paintings. Englund states that these older forms have failed in the depiction of battle in some way, and Medieval II now represents the genre's most favourable medium."

It's short and to the point, and doesn't drag in the junk about aesthetics. The problem with going into art stuff is that Englund isn't an art guy- he's a history guy; so emphasizing his opinion of the aesthetics that much is a strong case of appeal to authority. --DarthBinky 18:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see that aesthetics is junk. Besides, art history is history too. We can do without a explicitly pointing out that this is an art historical comment. It should be obvious. I can agree with that reduction. When it comes to removing the 'peculiar aesthetics' part I remain sceptical. I would like to emphasize that battle depiction is a special and unique art with its own characteristics. Englund certainly does and it is an important part of his article. What would you say if we edit the last part of the sentence to: "the depiction of battles has long existed as an art genre of its own in older media, such as films, or even older media such as tin soldiers or paintings." note the addition of 'of its own'. I think it is a good compromise. You get to avoid the aesthetics part which you obviously shun for reasons I do not quite understand, while I get to emphasize that this a peculiar genre which is an important part of Englunds message. Sensemaker 18:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant "aesthetics junk" as a euphemism- of course I don't think it's actually junk. The point is that Englund isn't an art expert- not even art history- so his view of the art/aesthetics involved is not as important as his view of the history; like I already said, it's a form of appeal to authority. I'll add the "of its own" if that'll end this excessively long debate, although it's not really necessary; it's already implied in the language used. --DarthBinky 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I ask to remind you that I have constantly de-emphasized the importance of who Englund is and emphasized merits of what he is saying. That is the very opposite of an appeal to authority. On the three small words, I believe this discussion has amply demonstrated that a an extra bit of clarity, even if it might be technically redundant, can be absolutely vital to human understanding. I'm adding the three small words. Please stop writing like the addition of three small words represented an enormous sacrifice on your side. I ask to remind yo that I have given up an entire paragraph. Sensemaker 19:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that by mentioning his view of it, you are implicitly emphasizing who he is. Otherwise, why does it matter what he says? If he were Peter Englund, the McDonald's worker from Stockholm, who would care what he thinks? If he weren't a famous historian, nobody would care what he thinks about the game and we wouldn't be having this discussion. I already added the "three small words", by the way. --DarthBinky 19:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the need to insult McDonald's workers, they are having a hard time enough without flak from us. As to your question, if a McDonald's worker said something as profound and wise as Peter Englund did, I would certainly care. If Peter Englund said some nonsense, I would not care. I guess we just judge people by different criteria. Sensemaker 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The important thing is that we agree on the final form of this section and I now bid you farewell. Farewell. Sensemaker 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not goign to continue responding to the above, because it's moot at this point. I'm just thankful that we have laid this to rest, and would like to wish you a good rest of the day- now I can get back to my game as the Byzantines. :) Cheers! --DarthBinky 19:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I know I've come late to the discussion, but the above is an absolute mess. We're comparing a respected historian to Mcdonald's workers? Have you lost the plot? I'm OK with the paragraph as it stands, I think it should be given more weight over IGN and gamespot and the other reviews, because they pretty much say the same thing. Whereas England is offering a fresh viewpoint from academia. If he was a McDonald's no one, then I would absolutely discount his opinion, the fact that you bought that up shows that you absolutely fail to comprehend the need for reliable sources and ignore expert opinions. - hahnchen 17:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said: "I guess we just judge people by different criteria". In my experience it is generally not very constructive to discuss the cultural values we were brought up with -such as the standards but which we judge a person's worth. This thinking is subconsciously ingrained by our respective cultures (I'm Swedish by the way) and people usually resent having their basic values questioned. Furthermore, values are to some extent axiomatic in nature and thus hard to analyse deductively. I say: I'm OK with the way the article looks, DarthBinky is OK with the way it looks and you're OK with it. Let it rest at that. My apologies but I will not take the time to discuss by what criteria people should be judged. I am sure you can find a philosophical or anthropoligical discussion group on the subject if you feel like bringing such things up. I am afraid I must insist that this is not the right forum. -Sensemaker

Just for sake of argument- it has nothing to do with our culture dictating such things. Wikipedia's policy is pretty clear: WP:RS. We aren't supposed to use articles written by anyone; we need to use sources that are reliable. Admittedly, that's a bit of a subjective concept, but some guidelines are listed to help determine who is "reliable". That was my point earlier with the McDonald's thing- Englund is reliable, because he's a well-established historian; an average "Joe Sixpack" is not. --DarthBinky 13:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read the link you sent me. First it is a guideline not a policy. Second, please point me to the exact section of this guideline that you think verifies your claim. Third please explain why you think this particular section of the text verifies your claim that an average person's perspective (let's stick to saying "average person" so we don't come across as elitist and disrespectful of ordinary people) or "spin" as you call it should not be put in a wikipedia article, no matter how profound, witty, fascinating, informative or enlightening this perspective is, should not be included. By the way, we are now discussing a wikipedia guideline and have removed ourselves pretty far from the subject at hand. Should we change to a more suitable forum? -Sensemaker

"Spin" is something else- this isn't spin. Secondly, you're right, it's not policy but it is a guideline, and should be followed most of the time because it directly relates to two of the most important policies- WP:NOR and WP:V. Third, if you disagree with it (which apparently you do), then you are free to discuss it at the guideline's talk page. Cheers --DarthBinky 15:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't disagree with the guidelines the way I read them, but I disagree with the guidelines the way you read them. Perhaps we could ask for clarifications on these guidelines. -Sensemaker

Incidentally, the link we really should have hear is a link to a really good battle painting. That would explain the aesthetics unique to the genre of depicting a battle. However, I am not sure we can work such a link into a text in a smooth way. Sensemaker 18:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's a bad idea. This is an article about Medieval II, not about the aesthetics of depicting warfare. If you want to post stuff like that, then go ahead and make a new article for it (if one doesn't exist already). Cheers --DarthBinky 18:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, the aesthetics of depicting a battle is pretty much the Total War series entire appeal. Most reviews I have read also seem to emphasize this. Saying that the aesthetics of depicting a battle has no room in an article about Medieval II is like saying the mechanics of simulating everyday life has no place in an article about Sims 2. However, I am not about to enter a lengthy article on the aesthetics of depicting battle in the Medieval 2 article. Nor do I really know how to include a link to a battle painting in a way that does not disrupt the flow of a text. There is no point in arguing about a hypotehtical case. Sensemaker 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As i said before, this is an article about Medieval II and not game aestethics. You can briefly mention it but it's not the case of starting a whole section, a lenghty one too, about it. Besides, the amount of books & articles published in the world mean that you can't just quote all. This is an encyclopedia, not a factbook. Sir Dante 10:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Could not such a brief mention include a link? That's all I'm suggesting Sir Dante. -Sensemaker

A proper review

I wandered into this article yesterday and saw the reference to Peter Englund's review of the game in Dagens Nyheter, which I read when it came out back in 2006. It was rather awkwardly placed under a separate heading called "Other perspectives", and I thought it better to incorproate it with the other gaming reviews. My changes were immidiately reverted, including my tweaks of wording and the improvement of the referencing.

In the rather long and very detailed discussion about importance and wording, I think something very important got lost. For one thing, what Englund wrote was not just some random arts and culture column, but a bona fide game review. Even if you don't know Swedish, you can clearly see the system reqs and the entire text is labeled as a spelrecension ("game review"). The idea that the entire review is somehow limited to some narrow aesthetic perspective is pure nonsense.

Englund is an experienced writer, and what he explains is merely his own experiences as a military history buff who has written several best-selling books on the topic. That's just an introduction, though. Something like 2/3 of the text focuses specifically on various aspects of the game, such as the great variety of units, the nature of the AI and Englund's annoyance with the unpredictability of the actions of the Holy See. This isn't a first for Englund either, since he wrote a review about Europa Universalis for Dagens Nyheter back in 2001.

However, the most important thing here that needs to be stressed, is that Englund is not merely a professional historian and writer of several best-selling books on history, but also a member of the Swedish Academy. That means he is one of a handful of people who decides who gets the Nobel Prize in Literature, and that makes his review pretty darned unique.

In a North American context it would be roughly comparable to Gore Vidal writing a review of Riven. Filing this kind of attention under "Other perspectives" just because Englund isn't a professional video game reviewer is doing the topic massive disservice.

It merely confirms the prejudice that video games are for only dedicated nerds, and has nothing to do with "real" high culture or what people in that sphere think of them.

And just to anticipate any criticism, I'd like to point out that I enjoy playing video games myself, though I don't spend much time editing articles about that topic on Wikipedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"In the rather long and very detailed discussion about importance and wording, I think something very important got lost. For one thing, what Englund wrote was not just some random arts and culture column, but a bona fide game review. Even if you don't know Swedish, you can clearly see the system reqs and the entire text is labeled as a spelrecension ("game review"). The idea that the entire review is somehow limited to some narrow aesthetic perspective is pure nonsense. "

Nobody is saying that. However, the noteworthy part of the review is the art historical perspective. That is unique, no other game review that I have heard of has made such art historical statements by someone who knows art history. The rest is just another game review that deserves no more mention than other game reviews and are not noteworthy enough to be included.

"Englund is an experienced writer, and what he explains is merely his own experiences as a military history buff who has written several best-selling books on the topic. That's just an introduction, though. Something like 2/3 of the text focuses specifically on various aspects of the game, such as the great variety of units, the nature of the AI and Englund's annoyance with the unpredictability of the actions of the Holy See. This isn't a first for Englund either, since he wrote a review about Europa Universalis for Dagens Nyheter back in 2001."

Like I said these parts of the review are not noteworthy.

"However, the most important thing here that needs to be stressed, is that Englund is not merely a professional historian and writer of several best-selling books on history, but also a member of the Swedish Academy. That means he is one of a handful of people who decides who gets the Nobel Prize in Literature, and that makes his review pretty darned unique. "

That a game review is written by a famous person does not in itself necessarily make it noteworthy. The fact that Peter Englund is taking up a unique perspective does.

"In a North American context it would be roughly comparable to Gore Vidal writing a review of Riven. Filing this kind of attention under "Other perspectives" just because Englund isn't a professional video game reviewer is doing the topic massive disservice."

It is not under "other perspectives" because it is written by a famous person or a non-professional. It is written under "other perspectives" brings up a different perspective -the art historical perspective. No other game reviewer brings up that perspective. That makes this part of the review very much a different perspective. That is also the reason the article is noteworthy.

"It merely confirms the prejudice that video games are for only dedicated nerds, and has nothing to do with "real" high culture or what people in that sphere think of them."

That prejudice was alive and well ten years ago, but dead as a dodo now. These days game reviews are routinely found in under the "culture" heading in major daily newspaper. You are beating a dead horse.

"And just to anticipate any criticism, I'd like to point out that I enjoy playing video games myself, though I don't spend much time editing articles about that topic on Wikipedia."

I fail to see the relevancy of that to the matter at hand. -Sensemaker

I disagree that the Englund's perspective is as specifically art historical as you claim. The way he explains that MII is an improvement over previous war depicitions is an introduction to the review, not the main part of it. If Englund had written these comments as part of a column in n scholarly periodical or as general commentary on the game in some other context, it would certainly have been an "other perspective". But since he makes his comments within the confines of a game review labeled as game review, it's a critical response as good as any.

As for noteworthiness, I think it's very noteworthy when a person who is noted outside of gaming makes a game review. A lot of people read Englund and the uniqueness of being a member of the Swedish Academy shouldn't be brushed off so lightly.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked the text somewhat since it wasn't an entirely accurate representation of Englund's review. Most importantly, Englund doesn't actually make direct comparisons to tin soldiers as a form of battle depiction, but describes old copper engravings and paintings as having a "tin soldier style" (tennsoldatsestetik).

Peter ^Isotalo 12:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop the straw men, please. I have never claimed that Peter Englund's review is exclusively art historical, nor that it is the largest part of it. I claimed that the noteworthy part of the review is art historical. The rest is just another fairly competent game review. The fact that it is written by a person who is moderately famous for something non-game related is not noteworthy. I have seen reviews by celebrities many times before (such as the Swedish supreme commander ("ÖB") reviewing "Full Metal Jacket"). That a review is made by a celebrity does not necessarily make the review noteworthy. However, if the review brings up a new and unusual perspective, new and unusual claims and the celebrity in question is very well qualified to give such a perspective and make such claims those and only those parts of the review were he makes such perspectives and claims becomes highly noteworthy. -Sensemaker

Actually, I'd say that a scholarly celebrity reviewing a video game automatically means a different perspective, and I would say that it's per definition fairly noteworthy since it's a rarity. It adds a dimension that makes the topic more relevant to people who otherwise aren't particularly interested or aware of the video game genre. I'm bothered that Englund's are "othered" so overtly when there is very little need for it. The critique section is already brief and Englund's comments are in a separate paragraph, so the sub-section heading really just adds a rather awkward POV distance.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop abusing historical inaccuracies...

"Another oddity that has been noticed is that each turn in the game's campaign mode, 2 in-game years pass, yet game characters only age by one year, every other turn. Choosing between the short and long campaign does nothing to change this." What has this got to do with historical accuracy? Nothing. I'm gonna delete it. It's also poorly written, but it doesn't matter since i'm gonna remove it from the very first to the last letter. "Though in real life the Ottoman Empire was formed within the historical periods covered by the game, the Medieval 2 does not introduce the Ottomans as a faction(though the game faction of the Turks has access to Jannisaries, who were soldiers for the Ottomans)." I'll move it to geographical/political section above, also needs to be rewritten. Sir Dante 10:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well looks like Darth noticed it at the same time :) Sir Dante 10:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, yeah. I added a mention of the 2 year turn-1 year aging quirk in the turn system thing. I'll make a note of the Ottoman thing in the faction list.  :) --DarthBinky 11:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

D'oh, it's already mentioned there. --DarthBinky 11:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

AND PORTUGAL?

Portugal come a nation in 1080.

The Collector's Edition

The only listed way in this article of getting it is as a pre-order and it's only listed about aquiring it in Australia. In the UK it is available in shops next to the normal edition. Can anyone confirm this with their own experience and/or tell me about it's availability in other countries so this part of the article can be made more informative? LunaShroom 17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This sounds to me like someone (specifically, JabbaXErnie) saw a specific deal at their local retailer (not an unusual one at that: "preorder the game and get bonus stuff!"), and thought that (1) this was universal across all Australian retailers (and perhaps exclusive to Australia), and (2) this was the only way to obtain the Collector's Edition. It's not entirely unlikely that either or both of these assumptions are true, for Australia at least, but without references, they remain mere assumptions. Just make it say, "A Collector's Edition is also available, containing ...", and perhaps, "In Australia, (some retailers?) made this edition available by preorder only." -- Perey 15:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In Canada I think they called all new boxes the "Collector's Edition", which, I surmise, is because of the implication that when the game is re-issued down the road, it won't have the fancy maps. Nor, I suspect, will it have the soundtrack (the two posters, a map poster and a unit poster, plus the audio CD, comprise the "bonus" in the Canadian "Collector's Edition). HTH Krupo 04:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Protect the page?

After a recent semi-vandalism act (check "informations collected from m2tw forum), written in poor english and containg a list of inaccuracies & worthless informations, i think it's time to protect the page from unregistered users. Or not? Sir Dante 10:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism... again

An IP anon user keeps adding a large, very POV paragraph where he claims that he "collected info" from the M2TW forums and uses this "info" to strongly attack the game. Someone else and I have removed it a few times at this point. I went to the official TW forums, and I saw no such info- most of the problems I saw there involved people using illegally downloaded copies of the game, OS issues (mainly that it can't be played on Vista) and hardware issues (ie inadequate video card, CPU overheating, etc). I saw nothing that was mentioned in this paragraph.

So, to whoever it is that keeps re-adding that paragraph, please cite whatever source you're getting this info from. Simply saying that you "collected info" from the Total War forums is not adequate- it constitutes original research, which is a huge no-no. As I said earlier, we need to post reviews from verifiable sources. Criticism that has been referenced (ie someone else wrote a review or criticism etc) is totally fine- but we are not supposed to post our own made-up criticism.

Cheers --DarthBinky 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Defeating Mongols

Is it possible to eliminate the Mongol faction in the game? They keep sending massive well-trained armies against me, which means they are somehow spawned. I was only able to fight them off with cannon towers, as they are, apparently, ill-equipped to take over cities. Five times already they sent armies nearly a thousand strong each to take Jerusalem held by me, which I managed to build up into a huge city with cannon towers. Each time I spend about 30 minutes just watching as the towers slowly killed them off until they ran away with 75% casualties. I also keep sending assassins to take out their leaders and generals, and they keep getting more. Are they supposed to keep coming until the end of the game, or will they stop eventually? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chronolegion (talk • contribs) 16:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

This isn't a messageboard for talking about the game; this page is meant to be used to discuss how to fix the article about the game. We don't give out hints here. I would suggest going to a messageboard for the game, such as at totalwar.com or totalwar.org (there are probably other sites which you can find on google.com) and asking them. And, because I'm a nice guy- short answer, yes, I have seen the Mongol faction get destroyed. Cheers! --DarthBinky 17:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for hints on defeating them. I just wanted to know if it was at all possible. Thanks for the answer. Chronolegion 20:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Darth just wanted to give you general Wiki-education; talk pages aren't meant to provide 'hints', even if you may think it's worth asking here, it's really not the right place. Fortunately this was answered in a civil manner so everyone's happy. Krupo 04:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Timur Inconsistency

The game is being slightly inconsistent with Timur the Lame, the leader of Timurids. He is called Timur in the actual game, but there is also a quote written by Tamerlane. I know they are one and the same, but the game creators could've kept the names consistent. Chronolegion 17:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Major Game Events

Should the major events that happen in the campaign be listed in the article? If so, should the turns at which they happen also be included? The only such events I know of are the Mongol Invasion, the Timurid Invasion, and the discovery of the Americas (haven't reached that point yet). Chronolegion 18:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also the discovery of gunpowder. Minglex 19:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Missrepresentation of Islam

I think that the game falsely portrays Islam as being a very violent faith, using lots of jihads, whereas Islam is known to most of its followers as a religion of peace--Muhammad Omar 31 19:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Read page 62 of the manual for the game.  :) Cheers --DarthBinky 19:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but page 62 still does not show the barbarity of the Crusaders, which are glorified in the game, and how inhumainly they treated prisoners, even rapeing Muslim men. --Muhammad Omar 31 20:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

well then you'll have to take that up with CA. This isn't the place for it. Cheers! --DarthBinky 05:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I would'nt say it is glorified but the context it uses are just to fit the role of the game. Such as the message the comes up when a crusade is called is made to look like a justification that would be made at the time. Also really these acts, while reprehensible to us, were simply just the nature of the times, and some one argue its unfair to hold either side up to a standard of morality that did not yet exist (not my views but I'm saying some people may think that). It was the middle ages a time period were mass death was around the corner. Violent acts were not uncommon and people were desensitized to it, plus these were soldiers. Many on the Crusades had to dedicate a majority of their lives to fighting it. Thus is the nature of war, warfare was an up close personal ordeal where some one gets stabbed and bleeds to death for 10 minutes it was just violent, It was not really saying look how amazing these people where for killing people of a different religion. 131.230.146.135 (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

whereas Islam is known to most of its followers as a religion of peace Oh yeah and thats why yall fly airoplanes into buildings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.238.41.186 (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

This isn't the place for unhelpful comments like that either. Cheers --DarthBinky 17:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am niether Muslim nor Christian but I know that they both did cruel acts and I think that they are really both portrayed in the game the same way, with Crusades being almost the same thing as Jihads.Sam 09:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. I agree. I like the quote from the Da Vinci Code movie - "As long as there was one true God, there were killings in His name." Both the Crusades and the Jihads (the military kind) were about killing those whose ideas were slightly different and covering it up with an idea that it was God's will. Chronolegion 19:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely would have to agree with this quote, all religions pointlessly fight over made up things.Sam 09:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How about we all stop talking about religion altogether, this really isnt the place for it at all. No more little comments at the end of a comment either, just knock it off, this isn't the place for discussing anything of the sort.

List of playable factions is incorrect

At least one of the factions that the article says must be unlocked is wrong. Scotland can be played without being unlocked.--Henrybaker 18:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

When you initially start the game, you can only play the campaign as England, France, Venice, HRE or Spain. Once you win with one of them, the others (like Scotland) are unlocked and can be played. So the article is correct. Cheers --DarthBinky 19:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont know, mine must be bugged, because as soon as I installed the game I played as scotland. weird.--Henrybaker 04:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps so. If you downloaded a copy instead of buying it (boo! hiss!) then it's likely it was modified by whoever uploaded it. --DarthBinky 17:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm . . . I also had the option to play as the Scots strait out of the box. 82.31.15.165 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Grand Campaign? They are available in custom battles from the start, but not in the campaign. --DarthBinky 20:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You only get Scotland from the start if you eliminate them in the tutorial, if you mean the Grand Campaign. All factions are playable from start in multiplayer (custom battle) Slayakill 02:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding table of flags

The table that lists the factions shows the historically accurate flags of the countries, but those are not the banners and emblems used in the game. I'm just wondering if we should show the ones pertaining to the game, either in place of the historical ones or alongside them. There is also the added question of copyrighted images--would it be possible to get the banners used in the game? JosCol (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Heretical Portraits

There is an heretical character portrait that appears to look very similar to an early photogaraph of Charles Manson. By the way, Some One should start a trivia on the medieval 2 total war page. - --Jay Menglass 00:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Jay Menglass

Unless you can show proof that CA based the portrait on Manson, it's just speculation and should not be included. Also, we don't need a trivia section- see WP:TRIV. --DarthBinky 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Does this game REALLY need pixel shader version 1.1?

I'm just curious why on earth Medieval II can't play without a Pixel Shader Version 1.1 when some of my other PC games which "requires" a pixel shader version which is at least version 1.0 (mine is version 0.0) plays fine (such as Empire Earth II, Star Wars: Battlefront II and of course Rome: Total War)? 210.4.9.65 12:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If u are playing games like that u must have a video card - which means u prolly have shader 2.0 or 3.0 - if u didnt have shader then u wouldnt be playing those games period.. --121.45.197.228 23:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Crusade/Jihad Desertion

Can troops desert while you transport them over water? Chronolegion 13:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

They can. I've had a few units desert me while going around Spain 72.10.83.98 18:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and its bloody annoying, building up a huge army just to have half of it desert because the boat-trip to the eastern mediterranean takes to long for the impatient little bastards :p Krastain 11:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I play as Scotland, its quite a distance. If I set out with 10 units 95% of the time I have about 2 (other than my general) left when i get there and their typically canon fodder like pilgrims. That is traveling over water. How ever that aside the point I dont know if this really fits in the talk page as it dose not relate directly to the article. 131.230.146.135 (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 10/27/08

Expansion pack?

Does anyone knw if any expansions pack has been planned for this game? Drogo 16:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just guessing here, but, based on their trend, there probably will be and will, most likely, feature "Invasion" somewhere in its name (I guess "Alexander" is the exception here). Chronolegion 16:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a fantastic question, the creative assembly has not announced an expansion yet. However the Creative assembly will probably announce an expansion some time in feburary or march with a september to december release. Some speculation to an expansion pack from the total war cummunity have been a dark age total war spanning the years 700-1000 dealing with the arab and magyar invasions, etc., a remake of the viking invasion, a main campaign on the various crusades or specificaly the 3rd crusade, a simple add-on to the original main campaign having new units, factions, opptions, etc., a renaissance extension, and so on. Unfortunetly for now most information is up in the air. - --Jay Menglass 00:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Jay Menglass

Factions: Denmark

In the Factions section, the Denmark link leads to the Union of Kalmar, which doesn't make sense. While Denmark sort of represents Scandinavia because of the lack of a distinct faction for Sweden or Norway, the actual Union of Kalmar is only historically created when the game is half over.

I guess this seems kind of trivial, but i wanted to mention it to people before changing it.MennoMan 02:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies - whats the point?

Why is a quarter of this article devoted to pointing out minor typos, cities misplaced by a few kilometers and the fact an arquebus needed a pole? This stuff is so trivial as to be inconsequential - I mean who would use this game as a serious source anywhere else on the net or elsewhere? I think it's got out of hand now, to be honest the first three paragrpahs sum it all up well enough that we could trim the "such and such didn't exist until 11 years after the start of the game!"s out with no loss of content.

Does anyone else agree or do you really need to know that the quote was by Charles V of HRE not France? Faulty 17:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• The section serves a purpose, but pointing out that one group or another is independent of a larger group (these rebels aren't part of this nation, etc.) is nitpicking details where the design-team just over-simplified. The Charles quote item was good to know, actually - that's a straight-out historical fact error - I was interested to learn that. Having said that, the big huge section could definitely use some pruning. Krupo 04:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I find the information on historical inaccuracies highly ineresting and very educational. As for the quote, I believe attributing quotes correctly is important. If most people do not like the historical inaccuracies section so we could perhaps remove the majority of the text to a separate article. I do not believe pruning it is a good idea. -Sensemaker

Wow, the information is very important. Stops people like me, from making articles like these from inaccurate info.Tourskin 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You use computer games as sources for encyclopedia articles? Well at least that article isn't original research then... Faulty 09:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh... sorry if that sounded rude, it was meant as a joke Faulty 09:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of this pedantic exercise in learning? MTW2 is a game, not a history lesson. The wiki article should be about the game and only that. The article is already longer than it needs to be and this section is taking away from it. Nobody cares about this pedantic garbage... Unless someone gives me a good reason not to I'm deleting it later this month. Uopmegabytes 05:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I care about this "pedantic garbage". I think it is the most interesting part of the entire article (except perhaps Peter Englund's comment). I have also enjoyed reading historical inaccuracies sections of the TV-series Blackadder and Rome. Encyclopedias in general and wikipedia in particular are great places to correct errors and misundertandings. An encyclopedia is what you turn to in order to sort out facts and get things right. The entire idea of an encyclopedia is to educate the reader on the subject matter. Ask any person who writes historic novels, makes historic games etc and they will all tell you that one of the most common questions from their audiences is "how historically accurate is it?" Obviously people are very interested in this. Let me also point out that the text corrects two very common misunderstandings of history: that medieval sieges typically ended with an assault and that medieval people believed the world was flat.

Feel free to take out all or most of this section about historical accuracies (save perhaps the first three paragraphs) and make it a separate article ("historical inaccuracies in Medieval 2 Total War") if you think it makes the article too long. Don't just delete it. That would be robbing the readers of a very interesting history lesson, very interesting lesson in what compromises with historical accuracy are necessary to make an interesting game and an interesting lesson in what mistakes can be made when one makes a game like this. That would amount to vandalism. -Sensemaker

I moved it to it's own page and it's been proposed for deletion by someone. Faulty 03:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We had achieved some sort of a working compromise with Faulty's edit. JzG removed the remainder of the Historical Inaccuracies article apparently without even attempting to discuss it on the discussion page. That is rude in my opinion. -Sensemaker

• Whatever, per WP:NOR if you want this section you will need to cite reliable secondary sources who note these supposed inaccuracies and identify them as significant. Guy (Help!) 07:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to find some source on the fact that medieval sieges were usually mostly about attrition, negotiation etc. Other facts I find hard to see need some source. Does anyone seriously think that there was a single medieval currency from Portugal to Russia of constant value throughout the Medieval times? The source to the fact that a Danish general speaks English is of course the game itself. Does anyone truly think this needs to be pointed our as a source? The fact that a marriage alliance could be made without the princess being personally present -is there anyone who seriously doubts that? -Sensemaker

No, you miss the point. You need to find reliable secondary sources that point these out as inaccuracies in the game, rather than, say, artistic license for better gameplay. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be a rather extreme interpretation of the NOR rule, JzG. That would turn wikipedia into little more than a collection of quotations. -Sensemaker

Incidentally. I do not seem to be able to find the new "Historical Inaccuracies in Medieval II:Total War" article. Where is it? -Sensemaker

• Deleted via WP:PROD, and I strongly advise against re-creating it since it violates WP:NOR and several content guidelines. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you even felt the need to include that in the article... it is just a game and would be boring if it was 100% historically accuarate... nothing for sale ever is.Uopmegabytes 15:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have answered that question at some length in the text above, Uopmegabytes. -Sensemaker

This is a game article, which has no "need" to exist at all. RTW article as historical inaccuracies (for the Roman faction) so why shouldn't this one? If you don't like it don't read it. This is an encyclopedia, which is used for REFERANCE. For example, I personally find the fact that Constantinople was a lot more developed than portrayed in the game as a significant changed made by the game. And it would still be interesting even if it's an 100% histocial accurate representation of the time (besides the changes made to simplify gameplay) as it takes almost nothing out of the game.ParallelPain 02:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand the rationale for making a new article and/or deleting parts of the section here, but we should at least have a paragraph or two on the more blatant of inaccuracies. They may seem trivial (and probably are) but it does no harm and provides more information on the game. No one is forcing anyone to read it. MennoMan 13:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Turns Vs. Years

While the game does ship with the turns being abstract "turns", the game's ini file does allow to switch back to actual years. Another option allows the choosing of how many turns per year. So with a bit of notepad editing, you can easily play six-month turns(0.5 year per turn) and see an actual, correct year counter.

Cavalry, not deserving of the name

Although this might read as a minor complaint, has anyone else noticed the distinct lack of ability of cavalry? Despite being annoying from a gameplay point of view, it is historically innacurate as well. Medieval cavalry consisted of noblemen, people who could afford horses, young men who were keen to make their mark on the battlefield. As shown by the disastrous French cavalry charges in the Hundred Years War, these noblemen were keen to fight, the opposite of the sluggish, almost cowardly cavalry of the European nations in MTW2.

That's what modsa are for. Mallerd 09:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

All the Total War games have a severely battered system of morale for their soldiers, so battles happen 'faster', perhaps for a more arcade experience. It irritated me to no end to see Spartan Hoplites break and run after ten minutes of combat in Rome Total War, while other units did so in far less time.

Indeed, you'd have to mod the 'export_descr_unit.txt' in order to make the cavalry (and in any case, all the units) more accurate with regards to morale. It's with regards to the 'stat_mental' stat, which features quite low numbers (11 being the highest in the game is among the absolute lowest in many mods attempting to make the game more realistic). My suggestion would be doubling these numbers. It can be long, but if you are good with the Replace feature, you can copy in the entire line 'stat_mental 8' or whatever number (including all those spaces), and the following comma, and replace every instance of it with the same line, but with the number doubled.

It's not as complex as it sounds. And since this section was started a full year ago, I doubt it's relevant anymore. 65.87.105.8 (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Medieval2 cover.jpg

Image:Medieval2 cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Marriage

Is it possible for kings/queens, princes/princesses to marry royal houses of other factions? So you have a better alliance or something like that? I don't have the game so I don't know but I was just wondering. Mallerd 13:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It's mostly pointless though, as the AI disregards them. Married my Byzantine princess off to the hungarian crown prince, and as I had no other bloodline, he became my heir apparent. Two turns later they declared war on me, and I had to kill him... 193.195.0.102 15:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Pity, the total war campaignmap-AI is most of the time stupid in making alliances, that's also the case in Rome: Total War. My experience. They always backstab Mallerd 12:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Word of advice: When you are proposed an alliance in Total War games, what they are really saying is "Dont attack me until Im strong enough to destroy you."195.171.111.194 08:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I guess they are not strong enough when I betray them and take their lands! As I recently did with the foolish Danes...besides I was wondering, why do you have to create paved roads, especially in Italy, you can see that many roads that are in M2TW were already paved in RTW..historical question: were the roads significantly damaged that they had to be rebuilt or something. I know Saladin could use them in the Middle East, what about Europe :D Mallerd (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OR

what does or mean in the following sentences?

Kingdom of France (Azure, three fleurs-de-lis Argent) - Possesses gendarmes and other heavy cavalry, strong professional armies; lacks effective early infantry; difficulty: normal Holy Roman Empire (Sable, a double-headed eagle displayed Or) - Strong all around, but lacks specialized late-period units. difficulty: normal Republic of Venice (Gules, a winged lion or) - Excellent infantry and militia (Venetian heavy infantry), but poor cavalry; difficulty: normal Kingdom of Castile/Spain (Or, a castle triple-towered gules) - Powerful early-game cavalry (Knights of Santiago) and good late-period technology, and have professional armies; difficulty: normal

anyone? Mallerd 09:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Gold --85.160.202.252 22:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Make Factions Playable

I have removed a part of the article which described how to make all factions available on the circumstances that wikipedia is not a place for posting guides on how to 'cheat' within the game does anyone have any objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPepper91 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing?

Is it possible to edit the files to make a faction like egypt christian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Haw Haw29 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, but it involves editing multiple files. If you don't know how to mod, I highly recommend not doing it, or otherwise seeking advanced help when going forth with it. 65.87.105.8 (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

1.2 patch does NOT fix aging based on timescale

I removed a sentence in the article under "Turns System" which stated that the 1.2 patch made characters age properly (ie, 2 years per turn) according to timescale.

This is completely untrue. Not only from first-hand experience, but from experiences on a Total War forum, and the fact that in the base vanilla game, the 2 years per turn system is done only to speed up the events of the Medieval era (covering 500 years) without having the player or any one faction dominate the entire campaign before such things as gunpowder and the New World can be unlocked. For the sake of maintaining characters' usefulness, rather than dying of old age moving from one side of the map to the other, they had them age properly (that is, half a year per turn) so the player wouldn't have to keep replacing their family members and generals.

This is purely speculation, but I consider it to be very intelligent and well-thought out speculation, because it would be completely nonsensical for named characters to die so quickly in-game, especially considering the sluggish movement speed by default---by the game standards, it would take several years for a Crusading army to march from Europe to the Middle East, and even the article stating it would take 16-20 in-game years to sail from Europe to the New World. 65.87.105.8 (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)