I assume they have valid reasons for that, so i don't really mind. Allows me to save up some money as well
Anyways, i hope the combat feels more like Rome again in terms of unit effectiveness.
Units in Medieval 2 seem so weak compared to those. Especially the archers dont do **** for damage, and the cavalry gets mowed down by some of the most simple soldiers available while they were the terror of the battlefield in Rome.
But generally all units in Rome seemed to do more damage. I wonder if the new fighting-animations Med2 uses have anything to do with it though.
And i wish they implement some of the battle complexety from the first Medieval again. I remember that that game had a lot more things influencing troop moral, wich Rome and Med2 both seem a bit to lack.
I played and own every Total War game there is, and i think i have to say that Shogun put a nice basis, Medieval added a lot to that. Then came Rome, wich was the best TW game so far in terms of atmosphere, but felt a bit simpler then Med. Can't remember if the units in Med1 were as effective as the units in Rome though.
Then comes Med2 and adds some new religion stuff, but lacks the pure atmosphere that Rome breathes (at least that is my personal opinion) and units feel fairly weak and as if they dont do what they are supposed to be good at. Kingdoms was a good expansion though, truely one that is worth your money.
But Rome is still the best one yet i think. I hope Empires comes closer to that game in terms of feel, especially combat-wise (not counting the tactics, ofcourse they will be totally different).
The fact the team that created Rome is making Empires instead of the team that made Medieval 2 makes me hopeful though.