Medieval II: Total War PC

  • Publisher: Sega
  • Release Date: Nov 13, 2006
User Score
8.9

Generally favorable reviews- based on 666 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 18 out of 666
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. MichaelL.
    Dec 30, 2006
    7
    I've got mixed feelings toward Medieval II. I prefer this time period to the Rome setting and there are numerous improvements to the engine, like the graphics. There are bugs that really can take away from the enjoyment in battles, like major pathfinding problems. The campaign map, or perhaps the campaign as a whole, grows a bit tedious once you have a growing civilization. I'm I've got mixed feelings toward Medieval II. I prefer this time period to the Rome setting and there are numerous improvements to the engine, like the graphics. There are bugs that really can take away from the enjoyment in battles, like major pathfinding problems. The campaign map, or perhaps the campaign as a whole, grows a bit tedious once you have a growing civilization. I'm only picking out some negatives here, though. With a few patches to iron things out - not just fixing bugs, but adding some features and removing some things - I can see Medieval II becoming a very, very great game. But, like I said, at the time of my review I'm a bit mixed towards it. Expand
  2. MacStout
    Nov 15, 2006
    7
    Still a good game, I didn't go to deep for the time being, just few hours playing but frankly speaking I haven't seen a lot of differences with Rome Total War, same global map and interface, same combat map and stategies and no real improvement in graphics. Overall it's a good game for people who liked Total war series but its not a new one, just kind of RTW mod.
  3. ChetN.
    Jan 15, 2007
    7
    Very pretty towns and battles. But I dont like the way cavalry charge and then stop 10 feet before the enemy line loosing their charge bonus, then dying as fast as weak infantry. This now means I dont recruit cavalry ( I was a cavalry general in Rome) as they are expensive waste of time. Watch them out going the oppersite direction when ordered to move, (order left they go right) this Very pretty towns and battles. But I dont like the way cavalry charge and then stop 10 feet before the enemy line loosing their charge bonus, then dying as fast as weak infantry. This now means I dont recruit cavalry ( I was a cavalry general in Rome) as they are expensive waste of time. Watch them out going the oppersite direction when ordered to move, (order left they go right) this kind of kills game play. Chase a routing group and the chasing cavalry scatter to the wind, it requires great skill and repeated direction (clicking) for the unit to do as ordered. This is a serious bug not fixed in 1.1 patch. And why does it still take three years to sail across the Mediterranean Sea (Algiers to Genoa) surely the crew would have died of starvation in this time. I look forward to fixes in the next patch as Medieval 2 should be an incremental improvement on Rome. Expand
  4. AS
    Dec 7, 2006
    7
    I have mixed feeling with this game. I am glad that devs continued to explore the TW franchise further and the Medieval period is much enjoyable, al lest for me. The graphics are great, and the sense of individualism for each solider in the unit, gives the game great sense of reality. The battles not only look good but they also feel right. However, facing numerous bugs during the game I have mixed feeling with this game. I am glad that devs continued to explore the TW franchise further and the Medieval period is much enjoyable, al lest for me. The graphics are great, and the sense of individualism for each solider in the unit, gives the game great sense of reality. The battles not only look good but they also feel right. However, facing numerous bugs during the game play makes me want to go back to old RTW and play some of the communities mods. And while most of the bugs are not critical, they do cause a great deal of frustrations. One this is for sure, this game is in desperate need of a patch! In the other hand, I have not noticed any crashes, slowdowns or other performance issues with the game. I wish I have waited unit the patch came up; I would have had much higher opinion about the game. Expand
  5. Chmero
    Jan 7, 2010
    6
    Well, first of all, the problem in sieges where infantry will fan out when ordered to attack so only 5 guys at a time go at the enemy, archers on top of walls or inside the city fire 3-7 arrows and usually in random directions, making ranged combat while defending virtually impossible. I get the whole cavalary charge thing, makes perfect sense, but why the hell can't they take down Well, first of all, the problem in sieges where infantry will fan out when ordered to attack so only 5 guys at a time go at the enemy, archers on top of walls or inside the city fire 3-7 arrows and usually in random directions, making ranged combat while defending virtually impossible. I get the whole cavalary charge thing, makes perfect sense, but why the hell can't they take down routed enemies? I have to tell them to move past the fleeing enemy, and when they're on top of them, then tell them to attack so that they actually do anything. Also, cavalary has the same problem as infantry while inside cities, they fan out in a cloud when ordered to attack. Other than those bugs, the game is divine. Expand
  6. FungS.
    Mar 6, 2008
    6
    Way too many bugs. Especially the bug where you order your men to attack, and only a handful of a 120 man unit actually do any fighting. Or maybe the bug where your cavalry breaks an enemy unit, but decide to stand still while the routing unit runs away, and then when you order them to chase the unit down, they run around in circles instead. Clearly, this game needs patching, but we Way too many bugs. Especially the bug where you order your men to attack, and only a handful of a 120 man unit actually do any fighting. Or maybe the bug where your cavalry breaks an enemy unit, but decide to stand still while the routing unit runs away, and then when you order them to chase the unit down, they run around in circles instead. Clearly, this game needs patching, but we can't even rely on the developers to do this! Just like Rome, the game community does the patching itself. Maybe the unofficial patch for Rome that fixed some 200 plus bugs could be remade for this game. Expand
  7. MeestYkLt.
    May 27, 2008
    5
    Vanilla mode this looks just like Rome:Total War but only worse. Given, graphics improvements and sounds match the period, I can't help but notice so many familiar flaws while either trying to run down infantry with my cavalry, OR, battling it out with naval engagements, which, by the way, blows. Let's not even get into diplomacy here, someone's definitely dropped the ball. Vanilla mode this looks just like Rome:Total War but only worse. Given, graphics improvements and sounds match the period, I can't help but notice so many familiar flaws while either trying to run down infantry with my cavalry, OR, battling it out with naval engagements, which, by the way, blows. Let's not even get into diplomacy here, someone's definitely dropped the ball. Overall, it could've been a pleasant and award winning game. A disappointment. Lets' only hope Empire:TW will keep TW series afloat. Expand
  8. K.R.
    Jan 11, 2007
    5
    Fans of the earlier games seem to be carried away with enthusiasm for improvements, without assessing the real problems with this game. Issues are: 1) Lack of guidance about performance tuning, which can completely cripple the real time battles, 2) Severe bugs, such as not crediting your account with significant amounts of money after a major effort capturing a city, 3) Unhelpful Fans of the earlier games seem to be carried away with enthusiasm for improvements, without assessing the real problems with this game. Issues are: 1) Lack of guidance about performance tuning, which can completely cripple the real time battles, 2) Severe bugs, such as not crediting your account with significant amounts of money after a major effort capturing a city, 3) Unhelpful information about how to use pivotal pieces such as diplomats (why are there several options for bribery thrown together...that are not accepted?) and merchants (are they supposed to move from resource to resource, or not?), 4) City improvements which, even though financially ok, cannot be selected... the list goes on. Is the game worth playing? Yes. Is it worlds better than a score of other games? No. Use a mid- to high-end computer, and be prepared to spend some considerable time in forums figuring out how it works. Expand
  9. JeffY.
    Jan 30, 2007
    6
    Mixed feelings about this game. The graphics are certainly pretty enough when turned all the way up; artillery, archery, and cannon fire effects look especially impressive. Music and sound work is also top-notch. In all other respects, it seems inferior to its predecessor, Rome: Total War. Perhaps I am biased towards the Rome time period, but the Medieval II unit selection seems more drab Mixed feelings about this game. The graphics are certainly pretty enough when turned all the way up; artillery, archery, and cannon fire effects look especially impressive. Music and sound work is also top-notch. In all other respects, it seems inferior to its predecessor, Rome: Total War. Perhaps I am biased towards the Rome time period, but the Medieval II unit selection seems more drab and boring. As already noted, cavalry also has lost a lot of its effectiveness... they will go from charging into the rear of a group of enemy archers, to cantering up and inviting them over for dinner. They play like fast-moving infantry, which is nice but not worth the price premium and certainly not what a cavalry unit should be. The campaign map also seems no deeper than in Rome, with pretty much all of the same problems -- neutral ship blockades, strange time scaling issues, and so on. All in all, this would have rated an 8 or 9 if it were the first game of its genre... after Rome's strong showing, it seems a little weak. Expand
  10. TBOne
    Dec 30, 2006
    6
    I'm pretty disapointed. All the annoying things about Rome are still there. What is the friggin point of the princess unit? Why does it take 20 years for a diplomat to reach Russia? Why does naval combat completely blow? After you've taken 9-10 provinces it turns into a micro-management nightmare. Too many spies. Too many assassins. Too much clicking. You end up having the I'm pretty disapointed. All the annoying things about Rome are still there. What is the friggin point of the princess unit? Why does it take 20 years for a diplomat to reach Russia? Why does naval combat completely blow? After you've taken 9-10 provinces it turns into a micro-management nightmare. Too many spies. Too many assassins. Too much clicking. You end up having the battle of hastings 3 times every turn as computer allies turn on you because you've become too powerful. The battles ARE brilliant. The strategic map needs a major overhaul. How can a neutral navy blockade your fleet? you cant move through them? Ridiculous. Buy it when its 19.99 and then you'll get your moneys worth. Expand
  11. DominickM.
    Jan 11, 2007
    6
    I've been a fan of this series since Shogun, and I concur that this latest installment has sharp graphics and is generally well produced. However, as far as the grand strategy game goes, the AI still hasn't been fixed. All the bugs from Rome still exist here, and battles against the computer (castle siege in particular), remains pathetic and makes the campaign rather boring. Fix I've been a fan of this series since Shogun, and I concur that this latest installment has sharp graphics and is generally well produced. However, as far as the grand strategy game goes, the AI still hasn't been fixed. All the bugs from Rome still exist here, and battles against the computer (castle siege in particular), remains pathetic and makes the campaign rather boring. Fix the AI and this game is an instant 10. Expand
  12. TomS.
    Nov 21, 2007
    5
    I agree that the AI is terrible in all parts of the game. For example the AI attacks a castle/town the same way every time. It either knocks down the gate with a ram or destroys the walls on each side of the gate and then just lines up all the troops and performs the medieval death march. If there are two enemy armies only one will have built rams etc so the second army just sits there or I agree that the AI is terrible in all parts of the game. For example the AI attacks a castle/town the same way every time. It either knocks down the gate with a ram or destroys the walls on each side of the gate and then just lines up all the troops and performs the medieval death march. If there are two enemy armies only one will have built rams etc so the second army just sits there or will march all the way around the castle to the breach. So you never have to defend against more than one army at a time. This style of programming is typical. AI is almost always is the last thing on the production list. Games are release with poor AI and great graphics and sound because we as gamers will buy games because they look and sound great. Also creating good AI takes time and good programmers and the industry is only interested in hiring programmers that can make the game look nice. That is what sells games. Only we can change that by not purchasing games with bad AI. But that is not going happen because that would upset the profit margin. This has been going on for a very long time. To bad. Expand
  13. Jul 5, 2014
    6
    My friend brought this game over and I was pleasantly surprised (I prefer more hardcore games like Victoria). So I got the Gold edition from the bargain bin. The hotseat multiplayer mode is great fun if you have some friends and a lot of time to kill. This is a good game but not a great game because: it is still too arcade, the highest difficulty level is still way too easy, the AI isMy friend brought this game over and I was pleasantly surprised (I prefer more hardcore games like Victoria). So I got the Gold edition from the bargain bin. The hotseat multiplayer mode is great fun if you have some friends and a lot of time to kill. This is a good game but not a great game because: it is still too arcade, the highest difficulty level is still way too easy, the AI is quite bad, the battle autoresolve is very unbalanced and the controls can be temperamental. Good mods like Stainless Steel 6.4+ address some of the flaws. 5/10 for base game, 7or8 out of 10 for Stainless Steel mod. Expand
  14. Dec 30, 2012
    5
    Could have been much better. The AI is broken in too many ways to put in words, and there are problems with units not following orders. There are a crap load of mods though. Nothing like Rome or Shogun 2.
  15. Dec 30, 2012
    5
    A bland and repetitive game where CA offers the same engine, the same mechanics of map painting of Rome Total war with graphics that would be considered inadequate 10 years from the release.
    Is so hard to invest in the artistic department? I felt shame for the developers when I saw the outdated menus, the poorly created icons and protraits, and the freatureless fortresses that were
    A bland and repetitive game where CA offers the same engine, the same mechanics of map painting of Rome Total war with graphics that would be considered inadequate 10 years from the release.
    Is so hard to invest in the artistic department? I felt shame for the developers when I saw the outdated menus, the poorly created icons and protraits, and the freatureless fortresses that were supposed to represent my settlements.
    If previous titles offered a smooth battle, in Medieval 2 the units are unresponsive and buggy. The AI is totally absent, they are as incapable of capitalizing on chances as they are of accepting your peace offers when they have only one city left and you are besieging it with a doomstak, like any sane human player would do. The factions are empty, you'll grow tired of spamming always the same units, the mechanics are disfunctional with broken economy, broken upgrade trees, broken unrewarding units and broken religion. There is no geopolitics whatsoever, religion spread and priest production is unrealistic, assassination/sabotage is unrealistic, the game is ahistorical... After some time playing, supposing you have eaten other factions, you'll get bored very easily. Sieging is so damn broken I can't even understand the logic behind upgrading your wall levels.
    The music is great, really, all the rest is crap.
    Paradox is a company able to portray geopolitics in their maps, CA not.
    Expand
  16. Oct 7, 2014
    7
    Check this out once you have been sucked in the series by Rome 1. Battles need time getting used to, however the strategic world map is a huge improvement to all total war games. If you are a fan of turn based games like civilization, check this out... You just might be quite surprised.
Metascore
88

Generally favorable reviews - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 39 out of 39
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 39
  3. Negative: 0 out of 39
  1. PC Gamer
    90
    A bigger, prettier, and more addictive game that leaves even the series' most recent efforts in the dust...If you think "Rome: Total War's" battles looked good, especially for the number of units on-screen at once (i.e., thousands), Medieval II will blow you away. [Dec 2006, p.28]
  2. PC Gamer UK
    94
    Mesmerisingly challenging... If there's another wargame that blends geopolitics with tactics this brilliantly, or portrays war so memorably, then I'm unaware of it... The new king of wargames. [Dec 2006, p.56]
  3. Pelit (Finland)
    94
    Take the contents and theme from Medieval. Mix them with eye candy from "Rome," add some spice and you have a winner on your hands. [Dec 2006, p.82]