View Full Version : Creative Assembly Lancer Lines (one-man lines of upgraded lancers)
Dionysus9
01-21-2003, 08:33
So, whats the verdict?
Start with one of the most powerful units in the game. Speed, power, armor...string them out in long lines and rush a bunch of em at the enemy. By the end of the battle you can get 3--even 4 points in bonus valor by the time your done.
Is this a valid tactic? Or is it exploiting a design flaw in the game, to win at all costs?
Knight_Yellow
01-21-2003, 10:02
i hate lancers with a passion but u know when ur up against them since whoever goes spanish will almost always take lancers.
except for me im sneaky i take swords so they cut up the anti lancer units.
Nobunaga0611
01-21-2003, 10:03
First time someone did this to me, I was kinda mad. Now I'm used to seeing armies like this, so its just kind of a part of the game for me now. The only time I get mad now is when people get all pissy with me the very RARE times I do this, and don't stop complaining until I play them again with a *usually* weaker than average army. People just need to be a bit smarter, and if someone chooses Spain, make sure you're ready for the cav rush. Nothing much any of us can do now except make a "4 max no ashi" rule. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif
I personally don't like it, not cauz it's cheap, but because it's more of a pain than fun. But no point in complaining, you think the gauls and celts could have asked the romans to stop throwing the pila before a charge because it was unfair?
Anyways when they use more than 4 of the same unit, the price goes up, and lancers are xpensive as it is, so unless its a 99k game the valor won't be that high. What works is having a bunch of pikemen hold formation and position and let the cav charge, if the pikemen are in thick blocks the cav doesn't really do much(i usually go valor 3-4 pikes so they usually hold), of course if your all byz inf your screwed.
Mithrandir
01-21-2003, 11:07
I don't really care, it's in the game and it looks cool. However I consider it to be one of the most boring things, little strategy involved. I hate it when a newbie ally tries it in a 3v3 or 4v4, thus screwing it up for the rest of the team, It also cuts playing time back to only 5 minutes or so when done properly.
Yeah I got rushed right off the bat by amp, then his ally(it was 4v4) was behind him. Of course amp had all cav and they started so close to me all i could do was watch. My army slaughtered, but I absorbed it long enough for my ally on my right to flank them. We barely won, but I was slaughtered in a short time.
i dont mind if they are used but i tend to pick spain also now if my opponent has them in 2v2 and less, what annoys me is the fact that units will not even stand and fight these lancers .. if a couple of lines of lancers att your line of 4 chiv MAA thats it they run without even a fight (rout on impact) and then to make matters worse they take the rest of the army with them .. this gives a very slim chance of victory against good opponents
Mithrandir
01-21-2003, 13:45
aye, you said it right against good oponents, however, if they manage to pull that off, it's very likely that they can beat you with another army as well. However, I noted you wrote "if a couple of lines of lancers att your line of 4 chiv MAA" ,that's the point, you have to keep swords to the back while spears absorb the impact, they dont suffer as much penalty I think (at least not as much casualties) as swords, then use the swords to enhance the lines and maybe for a flank attack.
Plenty of people have managed to defend succesfully (even vs AMP). I am one of them,though I must admit, it was a newbie trying it, I doubt I could succesfully keep my wits when AMP does it within the first minute though, I'd probably panick and sit in awe to witness the massacre http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.
I sincerely advise to everyone to buy an all cav army (around 15000-20000 florins), deploy it in 1 men deep lines and make a head-on rush against your closest opponent. Please report back with your kill counts
Of course, you should do this against experienced players, n00bs dont count. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
These wide lines of lancers can be beaten, but I'm not going to say it's easy. The lancer is easy to use because it beats all other cav and swords. In addition, the lancer is the best buy in a cav unit providing more combat power per florin than other cav units. By all means play with rules if it enhances your enjoyment, but I don't feel the need to make rules with MTW the way you had to with WE/MI. You could improve the playbalance with some well thought out rules. However, I get the sense that most players don't want to play with rule restrictions.
I purposely don't use either the Spanish or the Byz and have concentrated my efforts on finding strategies that beat those two factions. Checkout the "Irresistable" replay
of LadyAn manhandling AMP's vaunted Spanish cav army, although, he does have 4 pav arbs in that one and a paltry 12 cav. It is true, that if you stack your army with anti-cav, you will loose to a sword army. So, there is a guessing game going on at army selection time.
vexatious
01-21-2003, 17:16
I find it hard to have strong opinions on unit balancing issues. There is a tension between the principle that "anything that the game permits is fair" and the need to maintain strategic diversity in unit selection and army composition. So, for instance, the problem with the all cav army is that there are only a few possible army compositions that can beat it. Imagine what would happen if EVERY ATTACKER used the all cav army...every defender would have only a few options in terms of army composition. The fun-value of the game would be greatly reduced if everyone was forced to take a certain kind of army (i.e. spear wall armies, all cav army) just to beat the all cav army. We would lose what I term "Strategic Diversity"- the idea that in any given match, a player has the realistic option to take any one of a number of possible armies. Thus far, it is not the case that everyone uses the all cav army...but it could happen. I know that this is not directly on topic, but here is my standard for determining whether my army composition is "slimy":
Principle: If the use of an army leaves opponents with so few viable options that the game loses "strategic diversity," then use of the army is unfair.
I realize that a number of ppl would object to this principle on the grounds that choosing a superior army is an integral part of the game. I agree. But, as stated above, any army that is so powerful that it simply cannot be beaten except by an army expressly designed to beat it undermines the playablility of the game by denying opponents the fun of strategic diversity. Moreover, it reduces the importance of "on the field" generalship by entirely determining the outcome of the battle in the unit selection phase. I hope that this post is not hopelessly unclear.
WRT to Lancers, the single line approach is risky. The single line is easy to flank, and if double teamed by 2 units of decent cav, it fails. It's also easy to generate a rear attack against the single line. The use of the Lancer single line does not unfairly restrict an opponents army composition options and hence does not run afoul of the above stated fairness principle.
LittleGrizzly
01-21-2003, 18:45
the long lines of lancers really annoy me whats the point and whoever said gauls and celts ask romans to stop throwing pilla before battle did they ever use a bunch of cav in single lines ? no and that was real war which is unfair this is a game which we aim to make balanced so theres a difference i have a problem with lancers and most have a problem with byz inf so just tone those 2 down ever so slightly......
Magyar Khan
01-21-2003, 18:46
vexatious, your post is exactly how i look at things, but yours is much more well written than i can ever produce. but these discussions are wasted for the most of the online players.
Vex,
The designer has expressly stated that he wants unbalanced armies to require tailored counter armies. For instance, a 4x4 army is not likely to beat all cav or all swords. FearNC's all cav beat Magyar's swords and arbs, but we've already known for months that all cav beats swords and ranged.
Regarding individual unit choice, good players quickly identify the better units and that's what they field. It wouldn't be smart to do otherwise if opponents are not doing the same unless you want the challenge. Unless all players start with exactly the same units, the win/loss ratio is not a fair judgement of skill on the battlefield. If you can beat these superior armies 50% of the time, then you are certainly more than equal to your opponent in tactical skill. The game would need better unit balance than it now has to allow players to choose from all the units without incuring significant disadvantage. The faction I usually use had 4 spear units, but 3 of them are inferior to the 4th. I'm certainly going to choose the better spear when I buy my army.
I think all players have a built in win/loss ratio they want to maintain. A top player is under pressure, most of it self imposed, to maintain a high win/loss ratio. He especially doesn't want to loose to someone who is going to gloat about it. Nothing in the game is unfair unless a prearranged rule is broken. The controversial "red zone" is no more. You simply can no longer go in the red zone. However, I think many players are not able to play in a style of their choice because the units don't allow it. This is probably causing dissatisfaction on their part which someone who simply tries to adapt to what the game allows doesn't feel. I have my own limit on how much imbalance I can accept and the "handgunner" exceeds mine. I can't abide that degree of imbalance, and I don't play late era because of them.
Essentially, when you go up against four v0 lancers you are conceeding a handicap of about 600 to 700 florins. More important is the fact that your cav cannot compete one-on-one against the lancer and win since they have 2 less combat points than the lancer. If you pump four mounted knights to v1 to equal the lancers combat it gets worse because v1 knights cost 1100, so you are now at a 1200 florin handicap in the rest of the army. Personally, I think you are better off conceeding the initiative to the Spanish player and fielding strong anti-cav inf. Lancers can be beaten but it takes combination unit tactics to do it. For simple head-to-head, one-on-one parity in cav and inf you have to take Spanish yourself.
Ehheh, Puzz3D. Are you trying to make the prophecy come true or what? Don't want to be roasted at the stake...
*hide from Amp*
Annie
ps.: hear yee, hear yee fearOfSegomo is probably having one of my heads displayed prominently somewhere. Yes, I did lose against FearOfSegomo in a 2x2. Now everyone know it.
Only in late era that the Russian (my Rush-on) army could have some chance, precisely of the handgunners. Not in open steppe of Elmo games, but in a sparcely woody map. Handguners are not-so-secret weapons of the Russ and the Almohad in late era. Handgunners are the cheap swords Russian army always want to have. Plus, it can give a blast or two from behind the spear wall is a bonus.
Annie
vexatious
01-21-2003, 23:57
Puzz-
You said:
The designer has expressly stated that he wants unbalanced armies to require tailored counter armies. For instance, a 4x4 army is not likely to beat all cav or all swords. FearNC's all cav beat Magyar's swords and arbs, but we've already known for months that all cav beats swords and ranged.
Regarding individual unit choice, good players quickly identify the better units and that's what they field. It wouldn't be smart to do otherwise if opponents are not doing the same unless you want the challenge. Unless all players start with exactly the same units, the win/loss ratio is not a fair judgement of skill on the battlefield.
Puzz- Your position (forgive me if I am mischaracterizing it) appears to be that there is no such thing as unfair exploitation of game imbalances. That it is the natural and fair result of competition that players will always choose the best possible units.
I agree that good players choose the best units. My point is that there comes a time when choosing the best units amounts to exploiting game imbalance problems. What I am proposing is a standard for drawing the line between vigorous competition (i.e. choosing the best unit) and exploiting a game imbalance problem. I am saying that if you choose an army that can only be beaten by a handful of other armies, you have made the game a bit less fun--and that's where we should draw the line.
Quote[/b] (vexatious @ Jan. 21 2003,16:57)]What I am proposing is a standard for drawing the line between vigorous competition (i.e. choosing the best unit) and exploiting a game imbalance problem. I am saying that if you choose an army that can only be beaten by a handful of other armies, you have made the game a bit less fun--and that's where we should draw the line.
Only if the counter army does not have any counters. But the anti-cav army has counters. So, actually it opens up a new tactical level.
Hm, just a question: why is it that almost no one plays with all cav armies (except AMP and perhaps UglyPolar, I say perhaps because I have not seen him playing all cavs for a long time), if all cavs -and especially the thin line lancers- are so powerful?
Newbies play the all cav often. Not the same newbies. They goes through the discovery periods. You know, not in any particular order, but there is a pattern:
1. Camper with many serpentines (or mangonels ;p )
2. All cav
3. Rush foot army
4. All missiles
Only Amp and Elmo are stuck at one of the four above, most newbies progress eventually http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Annie
ps: working hard to be as newbies as Amp and Elmo. Will try to use an all cav russian army next time, allies be warned.
Magyar Khan
01-22-2003, 01:24
well many wise words are spreaded.
we knew ashis with some muskets were -too- strong. and i remember clearly at start of MI who of teh old vets found tehm at quickest and who were defending totomi on comp with it. one of them is even quoted somewhere in HOF as a very skilled and somewhat honourable player... and not allowing others a rematch.
well he was (not seen since MTW) a limited player. ofcourse a good player will find teh stronger units quick. that doesnt say he must use them. imaginin what would happen if we all used the ashimusket combo...
well, i also read here that u say this can be counterd and that can be countered. ofcourse all armies can be countered succesfully.
but in theory, 2 best players with either 10 best armies at their proposal could end up in a 100-0 score for one of them.
u just dont know what is facing u when u deploy. if a balanced army cant beat an army that relies either heavily on rock, scissor or paper than teh balanced army is doomed. but even if u take rock, teh enemy may choose for paper and so on.
teh game as is now has to many pickrightunitluck elements.
EDIT btw teh use of ashirushmusket combo or thin lloose lines cav requires some skill and knowledge to maximize effect.
i myself dont want to waste time on things that should be solved in the patch/addon but others find joy in finding ingame valid exploits.
FearofNC
01-22-2003, 01:26
is this thread about lancers or putting units into 1 line? I think we can all agree that lancers are the most powerful cav unit in the game and any way they are used unbalances the game. but there are h2h units that beat lancers very nicley...i have one that will slaughter a v4 lancer that costs under 1000 florin, so there are tools available to counter lancers, but i still think they should return to the prepatch 1100 florin level ... however, imho, the use of 1 line troops is a viable tatic. there is a great risk in using one line troops and great rewards if done properly.
since my battle with magyar seems to be a part of this discussion...id like to remind all that i had the french faction, no lancers, and magyar had germans with 7 cav, 1 catapult, 3 pavs, 3 swords, and 2 spears. this is not exactly the most balanced army either. the game b4 that one.. the one that we lost, he brought 8 cav, 2 pavs, 3 spears, 2 swords and 1 catapult. now after i saw the army he brought the first game, i naturaly tried to devise an army to counter his army in the second game. there are a few choices:
balanced 4x4x4x4- not a chance... vs 8 cav and arty your well balanced will go down hard. especialy when your facing kocmoc and magyar.
missle heavy- possible, but you must rely on your oppenent being a bit timid ...hoping that he/she doesnt attack right away or that the attack is not well timed. i really dont think magyar is timid, and he generaly likes to attack weather he plays defense or offense...i dont put his timing into question...so missle heavy is out.
spear heavy- again, another possibility..and a good option for defeating the above mentioned army...but since we had recently been accused of corner and tree camping i decided it was best not to play with a slow army that requires a defensive stlye to play, + the map was set in arid, which makes the spears and other foot troops tired and further increases the capability of the cav heavy army such as the one with 8 cav he had brought the game before.
sword heavy- a good option to retain my honor as a true attacker... but equally a stupid army to send against a cav heavy army commanded by an elite general.
sun tzu " know yourself and the enemy and you shall win a thousand times, know yourself but not the enemy then you will win half the time, know your enemy but not yourself and you shall never win "
seems to me good advice.. i knew what magyar was going to bring, but he didnt know what i would bring. he calls it unfair...i say its part of war. i guess im supposed to bring the same army as he does to be considered "fair" but instead i choose a counter army to the one he would bring.. if he wants a fair match then i let him pick the army... and we can both use it. thats the only way to make a battle fair... but even then im sure he would pick a favorite of his... something he thinks i couldnt control... how bout a 1v1 match using your fun turk army magyar? i would enjoy that.
well sense i hope i cleared the air on the battle between me and magyar... shedding a little light into his supposed spear and arb army ( that would have defeated my french cav ) i hope we can get back to the topic of 1 line troops..im intrested to hear what some people actually think about this instead of another discussion on lancers...which has been basicly concluded to the effect of a general belief that lancers are overpowered. again i restate my opinion that 1 line troops are a vaiable tatic that has certin rewards as well as definte disatvantages and would like to discuss this with everyone if given a chance http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Magyar Khan
01-22-2003, 01:55
well nc as in every post u try to make a fol of me. i didnt say it was unfair. neither did i in teh game. u can call me lazy not to listen where u were.
and i think when listing all cavs dont forget to mention what part of tehm are horsearchery based cav. u know my weakness, my love for them and ur the first to use that knowledge.
i know enuf about sun tzu and if we allw ould live according to it it would get boring online soon.
FearofNC
01-22-2003, 03:06
actually my post was not in respone to your "many wise words are spreaded" reply magyar... i was writing mine when you posted yours... i was trying to address yuuki and vex concerning their current discussion of our match, as well as trying to steer the discussion onto something i generally wished to discuss... 1 line units..
" i didnt say it was unfair. neither did i in teh game. u can call me lazy not to listen where u were."
i have not complained about your army nor have i said you complained of mine even though you threatend to destroy my clan and tried to enlist fear members in a mutiney after the battle. if your trying to take the high road by posting one thing here in the org...while saying and doing something else online, then dont expect me to sit here silently reading.
once again you have managed to highjack a thread and turn it into your own personal attack on me and fearfulways ...during my post i said that you were an elite general, your timing was excellent, and you always prefer to attack even while playing defense. three complaments but in return you claim i called you a fool. if you wish to discuss lancers, one line units, or the advantages and disatvantages of having different army types, then by all means plz stay with us.... if not i would suggest you stop with your petty attacks on me before you get one of those nice looking yellow cards for violation of org policy.
1dread1lahll
01-22-2003, 03:20
In old STW the same arguement was done on the red zone useage,....some said it was a game feature, others said it was unintended game feature...as it cant be used any longer it seesm the devs 'fixed' a unintended game feature (red zone), question though are 'lancer line' intended by thr devs? Plz dont answer that cause you cant no... at least till RTW is out and can no longer strech a unit out into a line of one..for myself they are unrealistic...much of the crud of lancer lines comes from the unit imbaliance of this unit though,..
well ive watched the replay, of your battle and i agree with NCs latest post to some extent, picking an army to counter yours (magy) is a viable tactic and one that is not guaranteed, as for all NC knew you could of bought a spear heavy army (we talk about paper scissors stone, isn't it about what unit you bring in that game too?) in this case it payed off and Nc got the victory. However imo tactics like these don't always make fun game playing because to be honest, refering to replay, im not sure there is much magy could of done to avoid defeat and im not sure there was much skill in NC's play either. basically what im saying is that nicely even armys of 4 cav 4 swords 4 spears 4 missiles make better gameplay and therefore are more fun for everyone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif but if you guys play competitively then sadly this wont be the case.
i agree with puzz's statements that " the win/loss ratio is not a fair judgement of skill on the battlefield" imo it is mainly a judge of unit selection and this is put luck to a certain extent, if we want this variable of the battle taken out then we should set armies that should be used in competeitive battles .. just my opinion of the situation as a neutral http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
getting back to lancers in a line anyway, i think its lancers that are the problem here not the single lines, single lines are are viable tactic but as i said above perhaps not the most fun for game playing http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
LittleGrizzly
01-22-2003, 03:34
im no expert on this but the one line tactic works because of charge bonus doesnt it?
(if not ignoore all below and laugh at me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif)
well how is it at all realistic that u spread 4 lines on lancer out into thin line making roughly 240 lancers hit 180 units (3 swords) or 200 units (spears) or a few cav with the 3 swords each sword gets charged by 3/4 of a lancer unit but receives 4 charge bonuses against them so is it really fair that 3/4 of a unit has 4 times the charge of a full one ?
on lancers in general i think they need a price increase and byz inf need a price increase and spears in general need a morale raise and all range should shoot slightly faster with a bit more ammo added to make them more effective versus a rush
grizz out.....
I wonder if anyone using all cav army has come across an all pike army spread one line thin
Magyar Khan
01-22-2003, 10:33
hi nc
plz let me point out that i didnt hijack this thread till u started mentioning my name, by saying "he calls it unfair".
and u asked me to try to destroy your clan remember....
good day
-----------------------
to teh org staff,
if i am wrong in my chonology of who is hijacking or accusing who of what plz inform me if i am close to a yellow card. it seems after Tgate and the stringed friends another one is on my back.
youssof_Toda
01-22-2003, 10:34
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Jan. 21 2003,13:49)]Vex,
The designer has expressly stated that he wants unbalanced armies to require tailored counter armies.
That's the same thing I'd say if I designed a game and messed up the balancing issues.
Magyar Khan
01-22-2003, 10:47
well we come back to teh same point youssof, its about teh game is aimed for sp. and spain needed a boost i read somewhere.
FearofNC
01-22-2003, 12:34
for some reason i find myself replying again to magyar...i will sincerly try and refrain from using you, your tatics, or any battle fought with or against you as an example or in a discussion of anysorts in the future if this bothers you or makes you feel the need to reply. my post was not intended to call in question your army or tatcis...but to clear up a mistake that others were presuming that you had a sword and arb based army during a battle we both participated in.
when i say u called my army unfair i dont mean here at the org... im refering to your comments after the battle in which you did call into question the fairness of my army. i guess i could have more accuratly quoted you and your comments... but i didnt think that was nesseccery and "unfair" describes in one word what you said.
i asked you to destroy fearfulways? magyar...do you really expect people to believe this?
and finally ...to the org forum rules which i was refering to:
"Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law."
you say i try and make you look like a fool in every post i make... not only is that false and inaccurate.. but its is defamatory (slander) as well. weather or not the moderators find your offense to be significant enough to earn a warning is not for me to say. but as one patron to another plz stop. that goes for you newest post as well. i never asked you to destroy fear...this was a threat you made to me. this is a knowingly false statment and you should retract it.
Swoosh So
01-22-2003, 12:47
For some reason i find myself replying again to magyar?????????
You posting for others to see or posting your own opinions nc?
Swoosh So
01-22-2003, 13:01
I found last night that h1 halberdiers kill h0 lancers but i havent tried it online so dont know how well it will work, Halberdiers have their obvious weaknesses tho http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif , I used lancers on my first few days back but dont think ill use them when i return, I think everyone knows the strongest armies are 8 hcav + whatever, I suggest peeps play in maps with woods the flat maps are boring anyway, if i see another steppe map ill go nuts http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Crandaeolon
01-22-2003, 13:03
Back to the topic, please... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Here's a replay for you to check. In it, CBR gets crushed by my thin-line cavalry force. The idea was to find out how a balanced force would fare against the thin-line cav force. Also, I tried to use the least number of commands (mouseclicks, formation changes etc.) possible. (About 10 commands was all it took to smash CBR, and most of us should know he's no weakling. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif)
thinlinetest.mrp (http://personal.inet.fi/private/jonsu/thinlinetest.mrp)
I'm a bit busy now, but maybe I'll get back later, especially if the replay provokes some comments. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
FearofNC
01-22-2003, 13:05
Quote[/b] (Swoosh So @ Jan. 22 2003,05:47)]For some reason i find myself replying again to magyar?????????
You posting for others to see or posting your own opinions nc?
well i did ask him to keep to the topic of the thread, instead of writing directly to me, however the next post of his began
"hi nc"
anymore questions?
Swoosh So
01-22-2003, 13:06
Just 1 who is your hairdresser? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Talking about avatar http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
FearofNC
01-22-2003, 13:08
hehe...not a very good one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
FearofNC
01-22-2003, 13:09
beard could use a trim too
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Magyar Khan
01-22-2003, 13:10
well i said to u that u gave me a green card to destroy fear and when i summarized this online u said litteraly "challenge me". i am busy with many things and destroying fear is not on teh wolves menu....
and its easy to attack someone and end your post with lets end it. i am no fool and i see what your plans are for this year. i am convinced they are not carried by teh major part of fear and its elders.
plz comment in swooshs topic u can find in this forum....
Cran, in short whats on teh replay?
FearofNC
01-22-2003, 13:18
shall we start a new topic to further discuss your threat??
nah...i think we can wrap it up right here...
"well i said to u that u gave me a green card to destroy fear and when i summarized this online u said litteraly "challenge me""
you just admited you threatend to destroy fear. u said to me...not the other way around... if you think my all cav army was a "greencard" then your making some fairly large leaps of logic to end up as that being a request from me to destroy fear. and yes i said bring it... i believe my exact reply was
"try hard magyar, try your hardest, i dont want you to complain when you fail"
FearofNC
01-22-2003, 13:21
19 active members baby
you better get started soon http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif
Orda Khan
01-22-2003, 13:26
Never mind Lancers, single lines ruin game play. Many think its a viable option...I say go back to STW and play competitive games there. It is a common flaw of the human character that so many feel the need to massage their over inflated egos. So you chose all cav in silly single lines then routed your enemy in less than 5 minutes....wow I bet that was fun http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
But there again I can understand the reason, I mean can you imagine the shame of losing an online battle??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Hurry please RTW because MTW was just a white elephant
.........Orda http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
FearofNC
01-22-2003, 13:33
actualy...i enjoyed it alot...my grin was from ear to ear...right before the battle magyar said we would be lucky to win 1 out of 10. needless to say my choice of armies could be considered as just another way of giving someone the finger, and saying this ones for you babe
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Quote[/b] (ShadeCrandaeolon @ Jan. 22 2003,12:03)]I'm a bit busy now, but maybe I'll get back later, especially if the replay provokes some comments. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Grrr http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Well.. a lot of Lancers have charged across the plains since that battle. I believe Cheetah has a replay where I won using same type of army.
The question is: is it the thin lines that is the problem or is it that you actually can buy 16 heavy cav units?
I already have explained my view here:
http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....;t=4641 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=18;t=4641)
And it would be great if we could stay on topic..its difficult to have a discussion and possible solutions to balance problems with all these Fear/Wolf posts.. but thats just IMO http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
CBR
vexatious
01-22-2003, 15:21
Quote[/b] (Cheetah @ Jan. 21 2003,17:58)]
Quote[/b] (vexatious @ Jan. 21 2003,16:57)]What I am proposing is a standard for drawing the line between vigorous competition (i.e. choosing the best unit) and exploiting a game imbalance problem. I am saying that if you choose an army that can only be beaten by a handful of other armies, you have made the game a bit less fun--and that's where we should draw the line.
Only if the counter army does not have any counters. But the anti-cav army has counters. So, actually it opens up a new tactical level.
Hm, just a question: why is it that almost no one plays with all cav armies (except AMP and perhaps UglyPolar, I say perhaps because I have not seen him playing all cavs for a long time), if all cavs -and especially the thin line lancers- are so powerful?
Cheetah-
Again, my point is that if one takes an army that only has a few possible counters, then they have reduced the level of strategic diversity. You are correct, in the short term, using an all cav army does expose the game to a new stategy and does require new counter-strategies. My point is that because the all cav army is vastly superior to every army except those expressly designed to counter it, it ends up reducing strategic diversity in the long term.
Also, I don't use the all cav army for two reasons:
1. I think that its use is unfair (as noted above)
2. I don't think that it's much fun to play with
Which army of yours was it CBR? The Almohad or the English billmen army? If Crand managed to defeat the billmen army then ... uh-oh ... he is better than I thought http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Anyway I will upload our battles as well as those ones I have played vs AMP. The general conclusion of these battles that with a semi-balanced army (4 arbs, 4 spears, 4 cavs and 4 anti-cav unit - chiv.foot knights) one should be able to defeat any all cav army including thin line lancer formations. But perhaps we (the cav palyer) did something wrong or Crand has a trick up in his sleeve that I am not aware of. After all, he is the most improved player, is not he? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
No it was the 4 cmaa army he defeated..he would never have a chance against my bills NEVER http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
CBR
Quote[/b] (vexatious @ Jan. 22 2003,08:21)]
Cheetah-
Again, my point is that if one takes an army that only has a few possible counters, then they have reduced the level of strategic diversity. You are correct, in the short term, using an all cav army does expose the game to a new stategy and does require new counter-strategies. My point is that because the all cav army is vastly superior to every army except those expressly designed to counter it, it ends up reducing strategic diversity in the long term.
Vex,
That is why it is actually increasing the diversity on the long term http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Since the cav army has counters and the counters has counters no one can use the same army on the long term. If you play the same army your opponent only needs to pick the appropriate counter. This means that everyone is forced to use different and different armies so that his opponents could not guess his army composition. In MTW if you can guess the army composition of your opponent then you have won the battle (see NC vs Magy example above http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ). In STW/MI this was not case, you had a pretty good chance with a well-balanced army vs any other army types (including Magy's all cav army). Thus, you were not forced to use different armies. In STW/MI it was possible to pick the same army again and again without taking into account the composition of the oppposing army. I have to confess that at least in 90% of my STW/MI battles I played with the same army type and I suffered no obvious disadvantage. In MTW this is not possible (at least in 1v1). That is why I argue that all cav armies do not decrease diversity, in fact they increase it. It is a different issue whether you enjoy playing with or againt cav armies or not. But then it is a question of personal preferences and not a game balance issue (this is not to say that the game cannot be improved or certain unit types cannnot be stronger http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ). I personally do not see any unfairness to play with cav armies since they have counters, and everybody knows these counters. Moreover I think it is fun both to play with and to play against all cav armies, after all it is just a game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
The 4 cmaa, yes I remember. I should have won that battle http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif In fact I thought that I was winning ... but then something went wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
In general it is not surprising that Crand won since MAA are not very good in absorbing a cav charge. BTW, did you deploy in line or in square?
You could just check the replay http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Well I didnt deploy like I did against you. Spears was in one line with cmaa on flanks and cav in rear...it was a square but not a very good one.
CBR
LittleGrizzly,
I think the single line cav tactic is effective because many of the cav wrap around the sides of a unit with a narrower front. You're right that it also allows each man in the cav unit to get his charge bonus. In a deeper formation, some of the cav loose their momentum before they engage the enemy by bumping into their own men.
Acronym,
The problem with putting spears or pikes into a thin line is that they loose most of their rank bonuses, and are extremely unwieldy. However, you can't afford to get flanked by that cav, so in some situations you may have to go to 2 deep on spears and pikes. They do cancel the cav charge, and that's a big factor in their favor.
Cheetah,
Certainly you can stop all cav with 8 anti-cav inf, 4 cav and 4 arbs. You might still be able to do it with 6 anti-cav and 2 swords which gives a little more power against a sword heavy army.
I'm getting tired of spotting good players the lancer advantage by always using the French and I will now move to using the Spanish. I don't blame the opposition because two of my usual allies use the Spanish, and I'm sure this has contributed to my seeing more Spanish opposition. What I've been doing tactically with the French will work better with the Spanish. The game converges to Spanish/Byz in the lush/temperate climate. In the desert, the muslim factions work well which provides some variety there.
Crandaeolon
01-22-2003, 19:28
Quote[/b] ] If Crand managed to defeat the billmen army then ... uh-oh ... he is better than I thought http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
The very first test game I played was against CBR's billman army, and I lost that. But, I didn't use the thin line technique properly in that game. After the first one I played a couple of games against Paul, one game against CBR (the one in the replay) and 3 games against random generals in the foyer. I won them all, the easiest victory was against a 3 arb, 2 cav, 6 spear and 5 sword army. All I had to do after deployment was a double-click behind the enemy lines, then shift+doubleclick on enemy gen. Then I just sat back and watched. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]But perhaps we (the cav palyer) did something wrong or Crand has a trick up in his sleeve that I am not aware of.
Well, the "trick" is very easy, actually too easy to learn. I learned it by watching a couple of replays and thinking about it a bit. Took perhaps around an hour or two. My technique in the thinlinetest.mrp replay is actually far from optimal, but I didn't want to post any of the later replays.
I'll add some stuff later... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Crand, which army did Paul use? A balanced (with 4 swords) or a semi-balanced (with 4 anti-cavs)? Has he used his egyptian army? If not ask him http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Cran,
Didn't we already conclude that all cav beats a 4x4 balanced army? Want to try that against my 8 anti-cav inf, 4 arb, 4 cav army?
Kongamato
01-22-2003, 21:15
A combination of 4 Halbs and 4 Swiss halbs might work against a whole bunch of cav and might also be able to beat spears and swords.
A Question:
Does the Lancer Line need to be combatted in all places? For example look at the diagram:
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
ANTICAVANTICAV ANTICAVANTICAV
ANTICAVANTICAV ANTICAVANTICAV
ANTICAVANTICAV ANTICAVANTICAV
If you engaged it at two outside points, does the gap in the center present any sort of danger to the flanks of the anticav?
Swoosh So
01-22-2003, 21:18
A lancer attack would probably look more like this
lllllllllllllllllllllll
lllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllll
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Hope i got that right then add 4 chiv knights http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
i eat lancers for breakfast http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Swoosh So
01-22-2003, 21:30
Fast your avatar looks like a werewolf http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
HOooooooooooooooooooooooowl
yeah baby yeah........HOOOWwwwLLLLL
Fun moon comin hehe not the one ur thinkin about http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
FearofNC
01-22-2003, 22:12
Quote[/b] (Kongamato @ Jan. 22 2003,14:15)]A Question:
Does the Lancer Line need to be combatted in all places? For example look at the diagram:
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
ANTICAVANTICAV ANTICAVANTICAV
ANTICAVANTICAV ANTICAVANTICAV
ANTICAVANTICAV ANTICAVANTICAV
If you engaged it at two outside points, does the gap in the center present any sort of danger to the flanks of the anticav?
to awnser your question...if you engage the sides of the line by clicking behind them instead of a general attack on the unit which aims for the center flag, then the 1 line unit will suffer massive penelties and probably rout. this is because most of the unit calculations are made from the center flag, and when you attack in this fashion you basicly are surrounding the center flag on all sides. the one line unit relys on gaining the flank, if you can deney this then you have the advantage. another possible way to confront one lines is with a wedge. ive found them very usufull against one line troops. they punch through the line, sometimes killing the unit leader in a few cycles and as long as the are on engage at will they dont get hit with the big time flank bonus from the 1 line wrapping around them.
well, thats just wrong...
a spear has to be on hold and need to stand.
i tested wedge vs the 1 lines and this dont work, it always depends if u taget the wrong unit....and if i can see in ur words, im sure this units just got between the target unit and deleted any charge or other bonusses....
FearofNC
01-22-2003, 23:48
the sky is blue
solypsist
01-23-2003, 00:05
a few guns usually makes quick work of the Cav-String tactic; I have a few replays (against some well-known clan members) where they try the Cav-String trick and fail against me.
Crandaeolon
01-23-2003, 02:46
Quote[/b] ]Crand, which army did Paul use? A balanced (with 4 swords) or a semi-balanced (with 4 anti-cavs)? Has he used his egyptian army? If not ask him
No need to ask, I have the replays... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif In both games, Paul used the same army:
Egyptians
General: Khwarazmian Cavalry v3
2x Bedouin camels v4
2x Bedouin camels v3
2x Alan mercs v2
4x Pav Arbs v1
4x Saracen Inf v3
1x Muwahid Foot v3
I don't know if they had upgrades, as I don't have the logfile. (I know, should have saved 'em. But I'm lazy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif) All the games were at 15k.
I hope I'm not giving away any RTK military secrets here... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Quote[/b] ]Cran,
Didn't we already conclude that all cav beats a 4x4 balanced army?
Yeah, we did. But, before I tried that myself, I believed that it would require some skill at least, as AMP and Polar were (reportedly) the only commanders who were consistently successful with the trick. After trying it out, I've come to the conclusion that it's a technique that requires far too little time and effort to learn and use, compared to its effectiveness.
It's effective because of many reasons, the "lapping around" of enemy units' edges is only a (relatively) minor one. I'm not gonna post the theory here, however. First, I'm not sure if I've got it totally "right"; and second, I don't want to encourage people to use it. It can be defeated, of course, but as Mith said it's IMO a rather boring way to play.
Finally, the "neutral" steppe maps may be neutral in regard to terrain advantages, but they are far from neutral when considering army selection. Cavalry are at their best on the open steppes, so balanced armies will most likely fare better against all-cav on maps like the flat- or even plainsinland series.
Quote[/b] ] Want to try that against my 8 anti-cav inf, 4 arb, 4 cav army?
That could be very interesting. Sure, I'm available. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Crandaeolon
01-23-2003, 03:12
Quote[/b] ]The question is: is it the thin lines that is the problem or is it that you actually can buy 16 heavy cav units?
Hm, looks like I didn't pay much attention to CBR, as usual... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
But yeah, an army of 16 heavy cav is far from realistic. I've been toying with an idea of a tier-based army selection system for a possible TWA tournament that would allow the player to pick, say, 6 units from Tier 1, 4 units from Tier 2, 4 units from Tier 3 and 2 units (one of them gen) from Tier 4. Or something like that, ya get the idea.
Before the patch the thin line was very useful and needed at times for h2h units like cmaa and fmaa to take out spears. Now you don't need to do that with them to win spears easy, but it still helps greatly. Cavalry will crush them when they are in thin lines, but not if you put them in a box formation on hold formation. You can use spears in long thin lines to stop cavalry in thin lines, but you can't rout the cavalry or kill many on the charge. That's the problem, spears most of the time kill cavalry slowly, so the cav can just withdraw from the engagement with little losses.
The thin lines is to make all the men in the unit have the charge bouns and wrap around unit flanks. The thin line loose formantion workers better at wrapping around units and works better to rout units keeping the charge coming more when you close the formation at the right time. The loose formation isn't great when it's attacked head on and you don't close the formation.
One problem is if you order an attack on a unit in thin line and that unit is heading in a different direction and your unit engages sideways you're gonna suffer a lot of losses. That goes for any formation, but the thin line is worse to attack at a wrong angle. This is caused by the unit trying to aim for the center of the unit it's attacking and not the closest men in the unit. So you need to face the on coming cav or you'll get side swipped. That's why i turn my cav sideways and not always attack head on so i side swipe the units, which works on all, but spears.
What really makes the cavalry over powered is not only do they have strong charge, but they are the fastest units. In stw monks were over powered, but easier to win cause they weren't fast like cav and you could flank them easier, on fair terrain anyway. You could even defeat monks in stw with horsearchers, by attack from rear and front at the sametime. In mtw you have all different unit sizes, which offsets the balance of things too, i think.
So are heavy cavalry over powered? I think yes they are, cause they don't have counters which drop them easy and cav charges are powerful. I mean you have units that beat them easy, but aren't fast as them, that's the problem. Everything would be alright if spears defeated cav easier and swords stay being able to defeat spears.
Are cavalry armies in long thin lines a cheap tatic? I think no, but it can be an over powered army or easly defeated. In mtw its more of unit selection than skill i think.
I hope the viking expansion makes a good balance and that beta testers do a good job. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Nobunaga0611
01-23-2003, 08:58
Ok I stopped reading at page two cause I couldn't wait to comment any longer, so excuse me if my words have already been spoken.
I remember reading that the all cav army could be countered but not without each army taking the right units. This is quite right, as I have been in a 4v4 where one side (of all experienced gens) took all cav armies. I wasn't expecting it too much in the first game, but in the rematch, I purposely took an anti cav army. I was at the fourth position, up front, and when rushed, I lost about 8 men to the 80 or so I took. At that point, my opponent simply brought his cav to the other side to triple someone there. My teammate behind (who was more experienced than me) asked me to move in, which I reluctlantly did to avoid large gaps in between the two of us. Two of them were ran over, and then me, out in the middle of nowhere. The man on the other side camped, and was the only one left. He almost won singlehandedly with a mostly anti cav army. Had I stayed on my side, I doubt the attackers could have broken both of us, or even one of us. The point is, you must all be on the same page, and even if half of you are, when played correctly the outcome isn't already determined.
These are the only words I will say on this next subject....if you know what your opponent is going to do, why not set up to defeat them? The only reason would be because the both of you know that the army you took is unfair. Even that is under question. I think both arguments can be thrown into "strategy".
And, the only reason I don't take all cav armies more often is because:
1) I basically run over people, using no skill, if I beat them that is.
2) People b@#$% and moan to NO END until a "fair" army is fielded, saying that I'm an AMP wannabee, and I have no skill of my own. YOU WANNA KNOW WHAT??? When I replayed you with an inferior army, I STILL BEAT YOU If everyone who used someone elses tactics was a wannabee, then we all would be. So, say I used CMAA first, before anyone else, if you use them, does that make you a wannabee?? Of course not. Its a unit. Or a tactic. Its a game. The next person who says this kind of thing to me I'm seriously going to lose my cool over, and get my cd key revoked.
Opps....I kinda lost it there http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
FearofNC
01-23-2003, 11:26
lol... i almost described that match myself in this topic... i was the genral who first attacked ... and yes this was predetermined before match that i would strike there... as you probably remember i didnt get far against your spear wall.. well.. we even made fun of the guy with the octagon when he didnt move to help when we flanked...and decided to properly remind him why you should always help your allies...we decided to surround him and all charge on the count of 3..would make a good picture http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif lol...foot in mouth...all of a sudden all are cav were gone and 2 of the 4 allies were routed off the field...me and amp were left with a handfull of the troops ...but octogon guy had about the same as before our ill-fated charge... well...i dont call this one custers last stand for nothing...its been in my favorite replay in my collection and ive watched it many times...enjoy (http://fearfulways.com/downloads/custers_last_stand.zip) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Here are a few more cav battles (CavBattles01.zip), including the one vs CBR, you can download it from here (http://cheetah_tw.tripod.com/cheetahsmain/id3.html). Enjoy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Amps post makes good reading, and points out all the reasons why this tactic works, as he also states hopefully in the expansion CA will address this matter and perhaps make the spears cav swords fight balanced http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif beta testers please make sure you test this out
Crand, I have watched your battle. It is indeed a very simple technique, tough it is not just a head-on charge. Sure, it works well vs unexpecting opponents and vs sword heavy armies. Of course, CBR was not unexpecting but he did not do everytrhing he could. Watch how he deployed vs me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif he should have deployed in the same way and the result might have been different. Moreover, as you noted this charge needs flat terrain, and I doubt that you could use it in 3v3 or in 4v4 games. So this is surely a cheap technique vs unexpecting players in 1v1 games but IMHO it is not unbeatable.
Of course, this is not to say that cav armies are not strong in 4v4 games, because they are strong, but not because the thin lines. As AMP said it is all about the mobility. The cav player can pick his opponent, one weak player in your team and the battle is over.
Nobugana & NC, deploying in square/octogon formation and then "camping" is not a shame but IMHO your only chance to stay alive vs cav armies. Help your allies only if you do not risk your entire army in the process. Rushing to help your allies with an infantry heavy army vs all cav armies ( ) is a suicide.
Crandaeolon
01-23-2003, 13:56
Cheetah, I watched some of the battles ya posted, and noticed that the cav players actually used some tactics, unlike me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif In my book the only real "fault" in those games is that the all-knight armies are a bit cheesy, as was pointed out by CBR and some others.
Quote[/b] ]Amps post makes good reading, and points out all the reasons why this tactic works
Hmm interesting indeed IMHO it does not point out _all_ the reasons. Of course some of my theories may be the products of a deranged mind, and I'm not gonna post 'em here as I might just embarrass myself by my lack of understanding of game mechanics. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
(I gotta admit I didn't think of the "sideswipe", though. Perhaps I should do a couple of all-cav tests again... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif)
BTW, has anyone noticed the comment about tiers in my previous post? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Mr Frost
01-23-2003, 14:06
Though MTW probebly could not take this direction , RTW might be able to manage it and it is {drumroll , dramatic pause , has a chicoroll a bucket of chips and a milkshake whilst the tension builds} : Multi Player Campains .
Basically you would play them with agreed upon time limits to make each turn {early on all players would likely make their turns fairly quickly , but later would likely try to use as much time as they could get to before pressing the "end year" button or letting a M.P. coded mechanism "end year" for them} and when armies clashed they would each be thus human controlled and often ballanced {try raising an all Lancer or all Swiss Armoured Pike or Canadian Hockey Player army in such M.P. Campains } . Battles would be fought after each season turn like normal , but fought as current M.P. battles only with armies raised within the possibilities of that factions production capacity .
Granted , there would still be strategies and tactics possible which some might question {no system is perfect , not even real life : I'll bet the Russians felt the Mongols were somehow "cheating" IRL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif} however it would be rather interesting and the Armies would have to be reasonably ballanced as your opponents would have lots of ways to note if your building up a huge rush-cavalry force or such and time to prepare the counters to it .
A neat possibility in this concept would be an option to play as rebels : several players could choose to play rebels/small "non-faction" states etc and the system would alot each such "wildcard" player territories so they were as spread out as possible {so it would be difficult if not practically impossible to play these various territories -who would each likely be struggling compared to the actual factions- as one territory , even without the next check against that} and the finances etc of these Rebels , small "non-faction" states would be completely separate from each other . Thus if I played as a Wildcard , I might get {using MTW as the example here} Ireland , Khazar , Navar , Milan {I play Paladins' 1092 mod where of the standard Italian territoies only Venice is playable , the rest are city states in "rebel" hands} and the hamivid lands of Tunisia and Cyrencia . Now I *could* try to be a cheesy arsehole and act like they are one faction ; build a navy in Ireland , Navar , Tunisa , Cyrencia and Khazar ; conquer Genoa then build armies in each and start trying to link them up but I could no use the income from goldmines in Tunisa to help finance docks in Ireland , nor maintain a garrison in Khazar nor Milan nor Genoa etc and I would have these quite powerful factions around my spreadout territories wanting what I had {not to mention other Wildcarders ; the Wildcarder playing Genoa would probebly object to my trying to take his citystate from him} who each have cohesive incomes {they can choose to spend all they have whereever they choose whereas I could only spend Hamavid income in Hamavid territories - sending tributes to foes who are not clearly more powerful should invoke increasinly negative penalties on a ruler to deter players from cheating this proposed system and would work to keep unscroupulous clans/groups from such possible method of cheating ... if a Wildcarder has a territory rebel from him , it would be assigned to another Wildcarder} and if I camped an Irish army in Tunisia fora few turns I would find increasing probelems within the army and far more so as the Hamavid leader with domestic unrest {there was no "multi-culturalism in those days ... in that example , the locals would see me as leader giving the country to outsiders and eventually overthrow me} .
If the HRE player lets Franconia rebel then I might be the Wildcarder who gets to play it {and if he has built it up and/or doesn't stop me he will have some rather nasty units with high quality weapons looking to cause him troubles} .
The technology is getting closer to all this . I would like to see it .
Many people here may not realize that the thin line tactic is described in the MTW Strategy Guide as a better way to use swords. If it's good for swords, it's going to be good for other units as well. Magyar even showed a thin line of Chiv Sgts. beating the same unit in a deeper formation, and that's a spear unit which gets rank bonuses. If you get flanked, you loose. I would think that most players would have a handle on that by now.
As AMP points out, spears and pikes don't kill cav very fast. That's because they are defensive units. Their base stat is primarily defensive. Their rank bonus is primarily defensive, and their anti-cav bonus is primarily defensive. They effectively stop the cav by cancelling the cav's charge and not loosing men in the melee. They have to face the cav in good order, and their flanks have to be protected. The spear unit is only good in the direction it's facing. You can effectively backstab a unit with spears in engage-at-will, but that's because there is a huge attack bonus given for charging into the back of a unit. I see players chasing cav with spear units exposing its flanks, and when a cav flanks and routs it, they say cav is overpowered. Don't forget that, if you get in the proximity of the enemy army, there is a -12 morale penalty for being outnumbered 4 to 1. That's "unit count" not men. It seems to me that spears and pikes are not intended to be cav killers in this game because that's the duty of polearm units. Also, if you take a spear unit and face off against a cav, you'll find that the cav does not have enough speed to flank the spear. The cav can't beat the spear, and the spear can't catch the cav.
If you set up one of these anti-cav infantry armies, you cannot allow yourself to be flanked. You have to adopt a defensive posture. After all, you can't catch the cav anyway. The cav player wants to draw out the inf army so that it's flanks are exposed, and then use the mobility of the cav to outflank you. Allies having primarily inf armies who face lots of cav must draw close together, so that the distance they have to travel to provide friendly support can be covered in time. Once of the things I like about MTW is that a doubleteamed player can hold long enough for support to arrive, but their ally has to get moving promptly and not sit on his butt.
While spears dominated the MP battles in v1.0 and can still beat cav, they took a big hit relative to cav with the v1.1 patch:
1) Mounted knight cost lowered by about 20%
2) Spear cost increased by about 20%
3) Cost of valor upgrade increased from 50% to 70% reducing the ability to improve morale on spears by upgrading.
4) Spear suffering pushbacks by cav (requested by SP players)
Returning spears to their original v1.0 cost would help spears in MP, and it wouldn't affect the SP game at all. While MP balance is very sensitive to unit cost, SP is not. An increase of overall morale level would also help spears relative to cav since they would hang in there and fight a while longer. Routing is a big problem with spear units.
Dionysus9
01-23-2003, 19:52
v1 swiss Halbs in wedge/engage can beat v1 Lancers, for less florin cost.
Swoosh So
01-23-2003, 20:28
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Jan. 23 2003,17:41)]Many people here may not realize that the thin line tactic is described in the MTW Strategy Guide as a better way to use swords. If it's good for swords, it's going to be good for other units as well. Magyar even showed a thin line of Chiv Sgts. beating the same unit in a deeper formation, and that's a spear unit which gets rank bonuses. If you get flanked, you loose. I would think that most players would have a handle on that by now.
Lets all just play long line games then what fun http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
I dident know all units operated better in 1 line Whats the point of a rank bonus then?
Cran,
I like LadyAn's idea: max 1 of each unit. It's very simple, and gets around armies composed of only the "best" units.
Swoosh,
I think rank bonus is useful when you can deploy several spears in a line with the ends of the spear line protected. However, since the spears were increased in cost in v1.1 and the expensive valor upgrade which they desperately need drives the cost so far up, buying several good spears leaves you with weaker swords compared to an opponent who didn't take as many spears assuming you keep parity with him on the cav. If you keep parity on the swords, then you will have weaker cav than your opponent. So, you either loose in the center because you have weaker swords or you loose on the flanks because you have weaker cav. I've just about given up on using spears as a front line unit, although, I did have considerable success with it until most players homed in on the killer units. It will still work as a counter to an all cav army, but that's about it.
Uhh, Puzz3D, 1 max wouldn't work with Rush-on army. Limit to 1 boyar, 1 handgun and 1 pav arb, the rest of russian army is simply composed of peasants and semi-peasants.
One max with Byzantine wouldn't work either.
However, the German and the Italian having so many similar units, would inherite the game.
Annie
LadyAn,
Right. So there is the question of faction balance. How about max 1, all play the same faction to get around that. That should go over like a lead balloon.
Quote[/b] (ShadeCrandaeolon @ Jan. 23 2003,12:56)]BTW, has anyone noticed the comment about tiers in my previous post? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Well yeah it could be done...would be great if it was in the game..now its 4 units max at normal cost, if that was like 3-4 for some elite units and perhaps 6+ for some of the cheaper ones.
But again Im more interested in making florins the limit for your unit choice, ofc that again means we have to get a general increase in morale to all units. If we played with lower florins we would simply not see 16 heavy cav in an army.
As an experiment I have added 6 morale to all units in the crusader_unit_prod11.txt file which can be downloaded here:
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/cbr/CBR-stat.zip
For those who are interested we could try it out and see what it feels like to play with 5k florins.
CBR
Kongamato
01-23-2003, 23:21
I think this game ought to play balanced at all levels of florins. You should remember that no matter how realistic or well-tweaked the game is, people will still play with 99999 florins. I would like to see games in that range that are balanced as well as those on the low end.
Dionysus9
01-24-2003, 01:10
I would just like to take this moment to get on my knees and thank the Dev's for denying the request for 999,999 florins.
There was one .org patron (who shall remain nameless even though he hasn't been around in forever) who lobbied HEAVILY for 999,999 florins.
THANK YOU DEVS
Kongamato,
It's not possible to balance the game for all levels of florins.
I also remmeber that guy who wanted 999,999 florins. He also dissed my idea of have florins set per player. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
I could just see it, if we had 999,999 florin option. I log on and most of the games show 999,999 florins. Heck why not have unlimited florins while were at it. I remmber asking online what's the deal with 99999 florin games and someone flipped out on me. Is it the low moral? Is it that they like upgrading as much as possible? I have no idea, so help me out here, what's the deal with them?
I remmeber play lot's of people in 99999 florin games in mtw before the patch and 99999 koku games in stw/mi. When people beat me they claimed they were better and bragged about it. When i got them to play me in a lower florin/koku game, which some wouldn't, but some did, they lost badly. They would say so what, i'm better at higher and you're better a lower. I tried to explain to them about moral and that matchups don't matter as much in higher games. Most didn't agree and would say you're just mad cause you suck at higher florin/koku. Most of my losses came from me trying to use a normal army or one of my unbalanced ones that work in lower games. Some of these people high florin/koku players would deploy backwards, send all units to attack one, win uphill not matter what matchup i tried, or wonder around the map saying they are flanking me.
I'm sorry, but i like this game, when it requires tatics to win, knowin about moral, the right matchups, flanking and rear attacks work most of the time, and tricks with units. Back in stw if you were good enough you could rout 2, 3, or maybe even 4 armies. It could go either way depending on the situation and your skill lvl. People ask me why should you be able to rout 2+ armies? I say why shouldn't you be able to? If you're gonna sit on your butt getting sucked in the chain rout or your ally messes up and routs through you, that's your problem and not a flaw in the game. Don't feed the rout, face your enemy properly, move if you have to, watch moral, protect flanks, and much more you can do.
I would prefer having games balanced at something like 5k and have different moral lvls for players when you logon. High moral for people who hate troops that rout. Medium moral for those who like some routs. Low moral for those who like have chances of routing 2+ armies givin the right tatics.
Quote[/b] (Kongamato @ Jan. 23 2003,22:21)].... I would like to see games in that range that are balanced as well as those on the low end.
I think its nearly impossible to do. It would actually be better to hardcode a 5k florin/player limit or have 3 florin levels 4,5 and 6k or something like that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
CBR
AMP,
A 99,999 game in 4v4 (25K/player) isn't that bad. Since valor upgrades are so expensive, the extra 10K over and above a 15K game only buys you 1 additional valor point on average. That's +2 morale over a 15k game. It does allow more secret weapon/armor upgrading, and a player may or may not like facing enemy units of unknown capability. It depends on which side of that game you like to play on. A double edged sword so to speak. One thing it does allow is more tailoring of unit to an offensive or defensive role. It's a mistake to say that only poor players are playing at this level of florins. I know some good players that use 25k/player.
Sometimes a host who can't get 8 players goes ahead with a 3v3 which gives 33K/player. I find this a bit much because cav is unable to rout most units even when charging from behind at the addition +2 morale that 33K allows. I've found that matchups are more important in higher florin games just for the reason that you have to almost completly kill the units before they rout, but the proper matchups are also harder to determine because you don't know the weapon/armor upgrade of the enemy units. What happens at high florins is that you can use each unit more independently. Consequently, you can spread out more which leaves more room for maneuvering. Since units fight longer, there is plenty of time to bring in a helping unit. Use of reserve units to expliot these gaps becomes very important. At low florins, it's more important to keep the units close together and have the whole army fighting at once so that you don't suffer a localized morale disadvantage against a more concentrated force.
Knowing about moral is a problem since it's not explained well enough in the manual, and many players don't have the time to learn the entire moral system by playing 100's of battles. I know vets of 1000 games who don't understand the morale system. I'm not sure anyone really fully understands it other than LJ. Now, if a person wins games through greater understanding of this system, it's like playing chess against someone who doesn't know how all the pieces move. I don't think it's an easy thing to grasp conceptually as the battlefield interactions can become quite complex. At low florins, the whole game hinges on routing the first unit. Who want's to play a game where as soon as you loose 1 unit, you've lost the battle. I don't want to play that game.
CBR next time we are both online i will try some 1v1s with your stats if you like http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .. just gimme a shout http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I have watched the custers_last_stand game, very nice battle. IMHO it shows that cav armies can be defeated with the proper tactics. Well, Weilan was defeated, but IMHO only because of his over-confidence. He should not have started to chase down cav units with CMAA and spears. Besides, had Davonz kept his original position the cav armies could have done nothing.
I don't know why it is so hard to put the florin per player instead of per side. There is an improvement I must say: the florin could be different for attackers or defenders. This helps in organizing PBEM campaign. But Amp's idea of florin/player would avoid many problems we have such as 4x4 becomes a 2x2 or 3x3.
Annie
I played a couple of 3k games. First game, I chose a balanced army. My allies decided to camp on the other side of the map and the oppositions used all cav armies, so they quickly converged to finish me off before I can make to my allies.
The second game, I knew better and chose better troops. Plus, I have perhaps better allies and was able to stand those all cav army.
Problem at 3k or 5k: lancers army would be even more devastating. So it is even more of "chose your faction/chose your unit/no need tactics" kind of game.
At 20k florin and 25k florin games, a Russian army can sometimes beat the Spanish army. Granted that the Russian player must know how to chose his units and make a few secret upgrades to make it work. And the Russian general must not make many major mistakes. But I could use most of the 12 factions available, depending on the mood of the moment. At 10k or 15k, I would always go for Spanish army or if I am bored, Italian/German or Byzantium. The Russian, the Muslims, the Poles and Danes are simply too weak at such florins level.
Annie
ElmarkOFear
01-26-2003, 05:58
You need to try my almohead all missile army LadyAn http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif It can be beaten, but it is a lot of fun to play with. A big challenge
Elmarko,
I'm not so sure she would want to use that army Elm. Simply irresistable LadyAn trashed that Elmohead all missle army of yours back on Dec 6th in a 15k battle after taking out AMP's Spanish cav heavy army, long lancer lines and all, and then went on to sack a Byz army as well. In fact, she personally dispatches all 4 enemy generals (2 captured and 2 routed) in a tour de force that ranks with the best I've seen against an all vet lineup, and does it with a muslim faction no less.
Check out the "Irresistable.zip" replay:
http://www.3ddownloads.com/strateg....ble.zip (http://www.3ddownloads.com/strategy-gaming/totalwar/Recorded_Battles/MTWrecords/Irresistable.zip)
Hmmmm... I dunno really if its fair or not. I do not care much. I only know i hate facing them when used by someone who knows how to use it. Point is that I prolly would have much difficulties with most armies that that person choose to field against me. I just wished they would choose the latter way of playing so I could enjoy this game as well, outcome will be same, just more enjoyment my side.
Cheap tactic... not really cheaper than any other tactic... since it is counterable. Is it enjoyable to face it... not really.
youssof_Toda
01-27-2003, 14:55
Wether or not something is being called a 'cheap tactic' depends on if you like that tactic or not. Some call my russian army lame others think it's cool others think it's overpowered, others think it's underpowered, etc., etc.
I only dislike tactics when they frustrate the balance of a game and require specific counterarmies. Imo you should be able to come up with an army with which it is possible to counter all other armies. Jst like in STW.
the only reason this all cav thing works is because almost all the maps a steppe flat or simular .
I would like to see them in rocky desert
but i must admit lancers are very powerfull
catholic .....YAAAaaaaawwwnn http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
I think that this all cav thing works because defenders are unprepared http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Ah OK, I blamed Elmarko for that one, Puzz3D...
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Annie
ElmarkOFear
01-30-2003, 11:02
LOL LadyAn. As discussed previously, Ann routed Amp's high val lancers thru my army like a goatherder and my men were wavering before anybody even got near them. hehe I had a few handgunners stick around for a bit, but the 5 arbs, the 2 or so camel units, and the arques and naptha guys all ran off fast. But remember I also had you and the player in the back, moving up on me so I could not face LadyAn's army as it flanked me badly. LadyAn did a great job of continuing the routing and she rolled over all of us. My all missile army is very good, but hard to play with. Most people that try it do not like it at all. It is not overpowered at all, but it is different, challenging and a lot more fun to play than an all cav, or heavily lancer-ed army, or any of your extremely boring armies LOL :P hehe
Magyar Khan
01-30-2003, 11:16
but still the fact stays that the game needs redressing some issues but will it improve.... or must we still accept those sweeping lines acroos a map?
i tested with amp yestersay with all cav 1 line setups and we both couldnt win vs this with a balanced setp.
it dont need much skill to move this cavs and turn them in, the cav is just extrem overpowered.
moving in this game is less important, doule units isnt realy helpful, just sometimes....but if u double an enemy unit and than comes a cav around and attack ur unit this unit is death. so doubling and flanking is realy risky.
the cavbonusses are jsut too big, they get too many bonusses
and this reduce clearly the skill u need to win, u just need to turn the cav in and in the other sec ur enemy routs.
u dont even has to target units, jsut move them in..... thats stupid as a nob can select all units and doubleclick behind ur lines.
another big problem is, that enemy routed units still efeect ur units, and always units keep fighting and march behind routed units, cav u cant move away by targetting an other unit, u have to doubleclick on the field. than u can select the target, thats clearly stupid.
but back to the routing units wich effects u all the time, i saw many replays where an enemy routed unit move truth ur lines and makes u rout. as u get -6 moral because they are in ur back http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/redface.gif
so this is a mainreason, why u sometiems rout when ur winning imo the rout in all direction is nice but not very usefull if the skill shold decide about the outcome, otherwise its important to elemite the effect of routed units just a few men rout from a big unit, they never will rally, but they rout trought ur lines and kick ur army, thsi is clearly stupid, as u cant do something against it.
u can counter cav u can counter h2h units and u can stop flanking units, but u cant do something against this stupid routing.
Imo its very important to do something vs all this "bugs" or the gameplay gets worser and worser. U can already see, that bad player win vs ver good players, as moving or some nice traps just work if all are very tired. this bad players never do some nice moves they just trn the whole army and move in. the moralbonusses are to big the advance by staying close in just a way to hard.
koc
Quote[/b] (Kocmoc @ Jan. 30 2003,04:55)]i tested with amp yestersay with all cav 1 line setups and we both couldnt win vs this with a balanced setp.
koc
Hm, interesting ... I was able to defeat Crand's "cheesy" cav rush with a balanced army (4 arbs, 4 sword, 4 spear, 4 cav), and also CBR's cav rush with the same balanced army, and then CBR defeated my cav rush with a balanced army http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif When I get home I will upload the replays. I am also sure that AMP can defeat my cav rush with a balanced army http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif IMHO it all depends on whether the defender is prepared for the rush or not. If you receive the rush in an open formation then indeed you have little chance, but in a close formation even a balanced army can defeat the "overpowered" single line cav rush.
All in all, I do not think that the fact that you cannot defeat the cav rush with a balanced army in an open formation would be a "bug" or a balance issue. This is not to say that there are no bugs (just think of the foyer) or balance issues (archers, cav archers, etc) but imho the thin line cav charge is not amongst them. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
BomilkarDate
01-30-2003, 12:51
As we cannot balance the game that easily, the first big step might be done, when the so called top players who are moaning about imbalanced kav lines stopped using them. Great names are always an example to newer players.
Enough words lost
ELITEofBomilkar
well it depends fo some things, thats clear, but anyway the cav is too strong, and the spears to weak vs cav.
an easy solution is to higher the combatabiltys for spears vs cav.
if u play normal and u stay on an open field where i can flank u have problems to stand vs a cav rush
imo cavs should clearly lose vs spears, the spears hold the cav, yes......but they kill nothing and u can always turn ur cva back from the spears...
koc
as im not a top player, i can test more http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
i fully agree with koc about the flanking many times ive flanked a unit with infantry and a cav comes along and just takes it away without even needing to fight, flanking is a risky business nowadays .. i think he also sums up this thread with the test he and Amp have done. it is very easy to beat a balenced army with all cav, there is no reflection of skill involved :s thats the point ..
With lancers being so strong it makes it even worse, i find it nearly impossible to even hold lancers without a spear unit let alone beat them .. maybe its my skill but maybe its not, im not sure http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Well I havent tried it against AMP (He must be the ultimate Cavalry (ab)user http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) But when prepared my balanced army have defeated a thin line rush in several 1v1 tests.
Problem is ofc that you rarely are prepared in a normal battle and a balanced army(with 4 spears) is weak against someone who brings 2 or even no spears.
Maybe spears should be a bit cheaper and maybe kill a bit more but if you really want to kill cavalry buy billmen/halbardiers
Yesterday we had a few 3v3 battles where all units had valour 3 (playing with 22k and 25k per player) to simulate more or less a 5k battle with +6 morale to all units. Armour and weapon upgrades were still allowed ofc.
The game is suddenly very different. You cant buy 16 heavy cav and just a few Lancers means you have to reduce something else in your army. Even my Egyptian 12 cav with 4 arbs were a lot stronger than in a normal game and my horsearchers killed more as the enemy had less armor.
I wish the expansion would bring a general morale increase (+6 or perhaps only +4) we would be then be playing with less florins and no one would complain about thin cav lines or all heavy cav armies or that Lancers are too strong.
CBR
Magyar Khan
01-30-2003, 16:24
the problem as i see still stands
the game units allow a perfect rock scissor paper match up, but it allows to much an army which relies on one of teh 3 aspects where its become very hard to beat by any othet sensible combo unless its teh arch-counter as used in teh game rock-scissor paper.
in old shog u could counter almost every one-sided army by a balanced army (with exception of teh ashis upgraded army) , in theory in MTW its possible to lose 100 games in a row if your enemy everytime makes the right gamble of unittypes.
furthermore cav is studpily strong, i too faced amps semi all combatcav army. even a boxed formation of your infantry is useless.
and people can not expect from teh better player not to use thin lines, since there are enuf weaker players who are dumb enuf not to see why they have won, and start thinking they are the better player themselves.
my latest invention is to play 1 vs 1 by chosing the same faction as my enemy does and as possible using the same combat cav amount as he does. the more he uese, the more i use in next battles.
games get more boring, and hardly epical, but the sheeps grow big in numbers and fat so...
if someone could ever shoot the devs from their clouds, that would be nice
Kocmoc,
I think you are wrong about routing units inflicting a morale penalty on enemy units. All my tests indicate that routing units have no morale effects on other units. If the routing unit inflicts some casualties on the way through, that would cause a morale penalty.
Spears are a defensive unit. They aren't supposed to kill a lot, but they are supposed to hold their ground for a long time.
Of course, if your flanking unit is itself flanked you loose. The smart player holds a cav in reserve just for this reason. This game is supposed to be about flanking. If you get flanked you should loose.
LongJohn stated recently on this board that balanced armies are not going to beat certain unbalanced armies. That is an intentional aspect of the game. If you want to beat the all cav army in the open field, a balanced army is not the best configuration for the job.
You could play at low florins so stop players taking all high powered units, but since there is so much routing in low florin games it becomes tedious trying to recover units which are running in all directions only to have them rout again and again before they even engage. I recently played some 5k games and they were ok, but you cannot push your units very hard. Since all the morale penalties are of a fixed magnitude they each have a relatively larger effect in low florin/low morale games. Routing the first unit is usually decisive at low morale.
A way so simulate 5k games with higher morale is using LongJohn's suggestion of requiring each player to use equal valor units. In that way, all the increased combat values cancel out and you're left with just the higher morale. You can do it with all v1 units at 8.5k for +2 morale, all v2 units at 15k for +4 morale or all v3 units at 25k for +6 morale (5k * 1.7 * 1.7 * 1.7 = 24.6k). Thanks goes to CBR for pointing out the florin calculation to achieve the different morale levels. The all cav knight armies disappear from the game, and cav's ability to rout unints with their charge is reduced.
One of the interesting consequences of doing this is that the cost of ranged units is effectively reduced relative to non-ranged units because their valor upgrade is cheaper. You could disallow or allow the cheap weapon and armor upgrades on ranged units depending on whether you view them as having a strictly ranged role or also a hand-to-hand role in the battle.
All the players who participated in the all valor 3 games enjoyed the gameplay.
so its all ok
cool, somehow many feel other.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
go and ask soem other, routing units effects ur fighting units.
I watched those replays where CBR beat cheetahs all cav army. Anyone can do that being in a small box formation. Especially if that person is in box formation before the game starts. If you're spread out much you'll have to many flanks to protect.
This is MTW and not STW so it's different and we just have to accept the changes.
I prefer the STW type of play, but that's never gonna happen.
youssof_Toda
01-30-2003, 18:29
Sad fact is that most likely nothing we say here will be used to improve MTW. Maybe it's better to shift the focus to RTW. I'd be a strong supporter of limiting the amount of diff troops in that game.
youssof_Toda,
There are going to be more units in RTW than MTW.
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Jan. 30 2003,09:48)]Kocmoc,
I think you are wrong about routing units inflicting a morale penalty on enemy units. All my tests indicate that routing units have no morale effects on other units. If the routing unit inflicts some casualties on the way through, that would cause a morale penalty.
Spears are a defensive unit. They aren't supposed to kill a lot, but they are supposed to hold their ground for a long time.
PuZZ,
Not to tread on ur shoes or anything...FasT not know enuf as ur mind does or stores http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif But workin on it..
But routin units do effect moral of other troops FasT not know how much or how little but it does..im 99% sure..Maybe Devs could clear this up???
Anyway to ur other point about spears..IMO this is really the weak and the most disapointing thing in MTW..For 2 reasons..let me explain...
ok spears r a defensive unit,more of a holdin unit..ok thats kool..Problems though with these units..
Spears can hold MAA for a while in battle i guess but lose in time..Ok NP with this..
Spears r supposed to be a anticav unit rightNP with this but big problem.Yes big problems.
Most use them to protect flanks or hold middle...The problem we all see and know is that u can catch these cavs with spears but when u do they dont kill enuf..thats problem 1 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
2 problem is ur engaged with ur spear against the Knight etc...Wow my spears r killin um.(Knight)Not for long u retreat ur knights away with only a few loses,then u have options like attackin other side,reinforce weak spots or run around and get the rear of other spears or units.
The top players know this and others r learning fast i guess..
Spears need to kill cav fast thats a fact....
K back on topic about cav 1 line.........
Is it not possible to inflict a penalty on the amount of lines u use for cav's?.....
Knight IMO should be awesome killin machine's just not have the power against spears unless there reared or out of formation.......
Magyar Khan
01-30-2003, 20:58
in the end i would agree with youssof, teh mtw game is wasted. every night i have some batt;es none of them match with old shog mi, in epicness, excitment, funa nd whatever.
luckily some aspects are better worked out, but every day i see a shift towards certain type of armies and use of them.
40 different units is more then enuf
20 roman and 20 barbarian
youssof_Toda
01-30-2003, 21:17
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Jan. 30 2003,11:49)]youssof_Toda,
There are going to be more units in RTW than MTW.
My guess:
60% of units will be useless.
10% will be overpowered.
30% will be used.
Are they adopting the 'more-is-better' approach?
STW-->MI: more units, did the game get better?
MI-->MTW: more units, again did it get better?
MTW-->RTW: more units, will it get better? I sure hope so.
I don't want to be too cynical I saw a few screenshots and in fact I think they look great. My critisizm is that I got the idea they are jst adding units for the bulk so they can put 'over 200 different and unique troops' on the box when they sell the game and not because of the tactical usefullness of them.
Maybe a possible way is to move the units more into different categories. For instance: Heavy cav stats almost all the same for the different factions. Faction's X heavy cav gets a little more speed and a little less armour etc., etc. You can give em different names and get ur 'over 200 different and unique troops' on the box and we'll get our game.
Possible list of diff categories:
1. Heavy cav
2. Light cav
3. Arch cav
4. Heavy Inf
5. Medium Inf
6. Light Inf
7. Archers
8. Siege weapons
i think even the devs have said somewhere that single lines of units is unrealistic .. im sure they can limit it to say ranks of 3 ..
"LongJohn stated recently on this board that balanced armies are not going to beat certain unbalanced armies."
i would of loved to have been at this CA meeting did some investor say something like .."ok lets make it so, some armies have no chance against some others http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif, and therefore there is no point in playing the battle whatsoever" ??????
is this a new selling technique or something? its like arranging a football match where one side has no boots, would you go play??
baz, investors don't care about the game, it is about how many you sell, for how much and how much profit.
Many units in MTW are same stats with different cloths.
On the other hand, I do like the idea that some factions have specialize abilities. The problem was there was zero playtest in MP to finetune the balance of the armies and there is no mechanism to let the community make the stats evolve.
The argument that we must keep the same stat in MP and in SP is bogus. MP and SP, as known in STW and MTW are two different games, and players must treat it that way. There are constraints to the SP army that are not in the MP, so I don't see why MP shouldn't have different stat file.
As for the stat evolution, it is not difficult. Just have the MP menu a choice of stats (same as choice of map). Standard, community-approved stats could be made available for download. Just need to have a way to make it more "official".
All what I said could be obsolete because Rome:TW would have online campaign, right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
But even so, setting up single battles will remain a good "quick game" alternative. I hate having to commit a solid block of my time to start and finish a campaign.
Annie
Magyar Khan
01-31-2003, 01:02
its also funny where the devs show up. its so hard for me to support them again after VI. TW rome did look nice, and so do many games, this game needs real competition. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/redface.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
i full agree with mag, here u need nearly no skills i have setups where i just doubleklick once and my army is winning.
all what i see is chaos and extrem weird routings, but there isnt real controlling, nether any good moves.
and cav in 1 line (not important wich cav) is extrem strong, the bonusses spoil this game in any direction.
i select my units doulbelklick and the enemy is dead, this can every new player do.
i win most of my games, but the way i win them dont makes me happy, as i dont need to move my units nicely nether i can build some traps, flanking is stupid....so always frontal attack where ur supporting cav decide it, if the charge hits ok, than u won......lol
im sure the worser player are happy, as they can "control" it now, its just easy, selecet unit and click somewhere......the cav kills it and rout it.....
koc
Magyar Khan
01-31-2003, 01:39
i know amp would agree too with his new version of the balanced army.
i cant believe most people see a future for thsi game in this way. we agreed to go sunday to MI. lets all pray VI brings what we want. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
Here are (http://cheetah_tw.tripod.com/cheetahsmain/id3.html) the cav battles (CavBattles02.zip). Judge it for yourself whether all cav is invincible ...
Baz,
The reason is so that one particular army "cannot" beat all other armies. If it could, then everyone would use just that army. There is nothing stopping players from setting up games that are balanced except their own inability to agree.
Fast,
Why shouldn't cav be able to disengage? The cav doesn't penetrate and become emeshed in a spear unit. You're right that you can't kill the cav with the spear unless the cav stays there and fights. However, the cav can't just run around and flank the spear because the spear can turn fast enough to always face the cav. Try a polearm unit if you want something that kills cav faster. I do think the cost of spears is a little too high now since they suffer pushbacks and the cav was made less expensive.
youssof_Toda
01-31-2003, 08:42
Puz I'm srry but I have to disagree with that comment to baz. In STW we had a similar situation, I used the same army countless battles and I know there were more players who did that. With that army it was possible to counter ALL other armies. I'm not saying it was easy countering a monkrush but it was very well possible. Still I didn't see everyone pick that same army.
Magyar Khan
01-31-2003, 09:03
plz dont show me battles where u can see all cav can be beaten. the fact remains, if u dont expect all cav and the wielder of teh all cav army is skilled enuf not to "just throw them in" than ur doomed.
as ever its hard to agree on something here, so teh dislikers better wait till a new version.
well puuz,
i disagree with u as well
in stw (and in mtw) i use normaly my balanced army and i win most of times, true youss....and still many other dont use such setup??? hell why
the most guys are not able control a balamced army, ist just to much effort to move special units on several points to face the counter unit....they like to use a easy controlable army....thats the mainpoint
take all the replays and show me some nice moves, u wont find many....
koc
hm
Quote[/b] (Magyar Khan @ Jan. 31 2003,02:03)]plz dont show me battles where u can see all cav can be beaten.
WHY?
Quote[/b] ] the fact remains, if u dont expect all cav
What prevents you to expect all cav? What prevents you to prepare for it?
Quote[/b] ] and the wielder of teh all cav army is skilled enuf not to "just throw them in" than ur doomed.
So, it turns out that you need skill to win with an all cav army http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Quote[/b] ] as ever its hard to agree on something here, so teh dislikers better wait till a new version.
Look Magy, you have countless options to play the game in a way you want. If you are afraid of unit selection then you can agree with your opponent to pick the same army; if you do not like heavy cavs then play desert battles; if you want 6+ morale then play with the "all units v3" rule, etc. I do not think that this game would be "wasted", IMHO it all depends on your attitude: whether you want fun or whether you want to bend the game to fit your preconceptions. If you want fun then you will find fun. If you want to bend the game to fit your mind then you will be frustrated (if not frustrated already). If I were you I would pick fun instead of frustration http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif
Cheetah
youssof_Toda,
MTW doesn't have one army that can counter all other armies. If you try to stick with the same army all the time in MTW, you're opponent will simply pick a counterarmy. CA has rejected the idea that the so called balanced army should counter all other armies. STW had imbalances too, and wasn't as great as it's being made out to be. One of the things that MTW has going for it is that the rush doesn't work as well as it did in STW.
You can play at low enough florins so that players can't choose all elite units to get away from the all cav and such armies, but then you have low morale also. The way around this is with LongJohn's idea of equal valor units. The only thing that's not optiimzed with the equal valor idea is what florin level to simulate. It's not clear that 5k is the correct amount, but it's close to that or possibly just under 5k. Games at valor 3 have these benefits:
1) +6 morale so units fight longer, and maneuver and unit matchups are more important. Spears are helped greatly by this +6 morale.
2) can only buy a few elite knights so other units come into play that we don't see much of now. If you buy several mounted knights, you have to choose weak infantry.
3) ability of cav to rout by flanking is reduced. Actually, all morale penalties are effectively reduced, and contact is more often needed to rout a unit.
4) ranged units become cheaper relative to non-ranged units because the valor upgrade cost less. I even used horse archers successfully in a couple of games.
5) battlefield valor upgrades on cav drops out as a factor because they start at v3
6) you can adopt wider formations because units can be used more independently, but routing it still present so you can't completely disgard morale support issues.
7) if +6 morale is too much, then it's easy to simulate +4 with all valor 2.
8) can't say faction balance is improved. It may actually be worse, but only a few battles have been fought so it's not clear.
played a valour 3 game earlier, couldn't tell much from it but hopefully will play more in future http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Magyar Khan
02-01-2003, 00:32
hmmm koc, whats wrong with my horsearcher armies? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
why not implement a checkbox where u can play with teh same army as your opponent
sigh, its all so useless. well i passed the point of frustration, its more the sadness. games are so boring.
but ah well, a wolf goes where teh sheeps go... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
youssof_Toda
02-01-2003, 14:16
Well I'm not here to tell what the game has to be like I simply tell what I see. As for rushing: the heavy cav rush army in MTW is a far greater threat than any other rush army I encountered in STW. The only rush I would fear in STW was that of AMP.
My only real criteria for mp is: did the gameplay get better? We can go into every mathematical detail which is necesarry if you are trying to implement changes but in the end I prefer to look at the overall picture. My personal oppinion and that of most players I see regularly (thus I'm only talking about the players with whom I regularly play I'm not stating this is the oppinion of all players) is a strict NO.
youssof_Toda,
Well the all cav rush in MTW can be beaten easier than the all monk rush in STW.
Swoosh So
02-01-2003, 16:48
dont agree, monk rush was easy due to guns cav rush properly executed is not easy to stop Play amp a few games and let us know the outcome http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Swoosh,
AMP just stated in this thread that anyone can stop all cav. Cheetah posted a replay where he stopped AMP's all cav and Cheetah's technique could be improved. I've stopped AMP's all cav myself and seen other people stop it. I think the gameplay in MTW is an improvement over STW. STW was an infantry rush game.
youssof_Toda
02-01-2003, 17:19
A monkrush was easy to evade. You sended ur arch cav forward to rain arrows on the enemy and you let ur h2h units and musk run to the nearest hill and sat on top of it, you could move to one flank of the enemy while avoiding the other, etc., etc. The problem with the all cav rush army is its speed.
I know how to rush in STW I didn't do anything else for over 200 games. The key was to hit the enemy center with ur center and you had to flank quickly. All you had to do as an oponent was making sure that ur center wasn't oposed to the enemy's center. If that happened it would take the rest of the monkrush army too much time to flank and the rest would already be running off.
The big diff with the monk rush is that the all cav army is much faster than a non-all cav army. Try to evade all cav with footsoldiers it wont work. That's the main problem outmanouvering isn't possible cuz you will always be slower if you don't have an all cav army urself.
Swoosh So
02-01-2003, 17:52
Yes he may have beaten amps all cav army but he was probably anticipating the attack from an all cav army You cant go through every game taking an anti cav army , whats the point.
Magyar Khan
02-01-2003, 18:21
well according to our records Koc and AMp tested together lately all cav and both came to somehow the same opinion, it sucks. maybe we should use it all more often so we can convince the few who keep defending all cav can be beaten ez enuf, ennuf not to chance it.
well i have my copy of neverwinternights now... a good game to get my attention away from this mess.
MTW with teh system and the units s it is now have taken away the ebauty of the game.
instead of 4 max we must play with 2max 3v and restart every game to get it playable.
its a mess and sofar it aint gonna chance.
i hope potential buyers read this and buy a copy of never winter nights instead.
Swoosh So
02-01-2003, 18:26
You like neverwinter nights? I thought it was a step backward instead of a step forward from baldurs gate http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
All you need is 4 spears..throw in a few halbs too and you should have more than enough to do it. Its the formation that is a problem as you need a defensive square formation to stop it.
One thing the all cav army doesnt have is time. If he wants to win he needs to rush as soon as possible to surprise his opponent. That means he wont get much support from his allies(except some cav perhaps)..it also means that if the target get cav support from his allies, the all cav army is in trouble as he might get flanked.
But ofc you need skilled allies to send help quickly if needed. And you need to know what to do if facing all cav.
The all cav army is no doubt a dangerous army and I dont like seeing 16 heavy cav in one army, especially with the expensive spears we have right now. But it can be defeated if you know what to do without buying a silly anticav army.
CBR
Swoosh So
02-01-2003, 18:38
I would say players who dont like the lancer line or cav idea limit their games to 4 or 5 cav a side, makes it nice and easy to eliminate the problem. Its not difficult to call a game 5 cav rule or something like that.
Magyar Khan
02-01-2003, 18:42
i consider 12 cavd and 4 inf (shooters) as well as all cav armies.
somethimes in multies i see more cavknights then there was in the whole medieval crusade. figurly spoken.
so u must take 4 spears each game to be sure u match the rock scissors papers well... well i never see 4 spears being welcome in a victorious army
perhaps a solution could be to do a tourney without any limits, a godo thing for a poll....
Quote[/b] (Swoosh So @ Feb. 01 2003,17:38)]I would say players who dont like the lancer line or cav idea limit their games to 4 or 5 cav a side, makes it nice and easy to eliminate the problem. Its not difficult to call a game 5 cav rule or something like that.
You could do that but that will still make turkish and egyptian medium horses weak as they rely more on quantity than quality, so you need rules like 5 cav max for western factions and perhaps 8 cav max for muslim..or something like that. And the Spanish faction will still have a big advantage from their Lancers.
V3 games gives the muslims the ability to use lots of medium cav and forces the spanish to buy less quality foot if he wants Lancers so thats what I prefer.
CBR
youssof_Toda,
Yes, you're right. The initiative is with the cav army because of it's speed. Monks were about the same speed as other inf in STW, so you didn't have the speed advantage that cav have in MTW. If you take one of these infantry based anti-cav armies, you have to adopt a defensive posture. You can advance straight ahead at the cav if you have some way of protecting your flanks. The deterent to people always taking a cav army is these anti-cav infantry based armies. As good as AMP is with all cav, he doesn't take it all the time because he'd have to face the anti-cav army all the time.
There is no question that lancers are mathematically unbalanced. Monks were mathematically unbalance also. There are lots of units in MTW that are not balanced as well as they could be, and, unless everyone plays with the same units, you can't have a fair game.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Feb. 01 2003,10:13)]Swoosh,
Cheetah's technique could be improved.
indeed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
hm
Quote[/b] (Swoosh So @ Feb. 01 2003,10:52)]Yes he may have beaten amps all cav army but he was probably anticipating the attack from an all cav army
Indeed, since we were testing all cav armies http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif But if you watch the replay you will see that I started in line, pretending "to know nothing", and only after the start did I switch into a semi-box formation (i.e. it was not a proper box). But, you are correct, I have expected the rush, which is obvious from my army setup as well.
Quote[/b] ] You cant go through every game taking an anti cav army , whats the point.
Why not? If you fear the cav rush then take your anti cav army, if not then take a well-balanced-army. BTW, you have a decent chance even with a WBA. Of course, a sword/cav heavy army can beat a WBA (I guess, that is what Magy was thinking about when he said that 4 spears are not welcome) but a sword/cav heavy army can be defeated by an allcav army. Obviously, army selection is more important than it was in STW/MI. I understand that some may not like this, but MTW and STW/MI are different games.
Magyar Khan
02-02-2003, 03:21
since unit match ups are more important now, in theorry someone can loose his rock scissor paper game more than he compensate with skill.
Well, they are spanish, they are nice http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Even if i have to face them i like it. Great problems has to be solved with great solutions, so it is nice try to beat them.
(btw, if someone know how to do it pls explain... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif )
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
I just don't see the problem. I took out Cran's all Spanish cav army with my standard army in a 1v1 test where he used long lines and the click behind technique, and I didn't use a silly box formation. Of course, if the cav player completely surrounds you with his units, then you have to place units facing in all directions.
Crandaeolon
02-05-2003, 16:48
That most likely hasn't been yer standard army for long, Yuuki... IIRC it had 4 knights, 4 arbs, 4 militia sergeants and 4 swiss halberdiers... (correct me if I'm wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif)
I was surprised myself at how quickly my center was chopped up. In that situation the cheesy doubleclick charge couldn't have worked. Perhaps the result would have been different if i had used them "tac-teecs" err duh, is that something to eat...?
And about the doubleclick behind lines... I believe knights _do_ get their charge bonus quite often with it because they often break into an "impestuous" charge.
All in all, looks like the future is in polearms... or near future at least. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Cran,
You're not quite right on the army, and it has always been my standard German army. I did play the French for a long time, and they don't have swiss halbs. So in that sense, it hasn't been my standard army. I played Italians before that, and I had a spear based army with them that defeated all cav.
If I believed the so called experts then the long lines and double click behind beats everything, cav is overpowered, arbs are too strong, lancers are unbeatable, Byz inf is unbeatable, hangunners are not unbalanced, the game is 2D, the morale circles are too big, fatigue is too much, routing enemies give your units a morale penalty, it takes no skill to play and the game is boring.
youssof_Toda
02-05-2003, 19:28
After all what do koc magy and amp know about this game?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif Too much i guess..In time ppl catch up and understand what they r talkin about it just a matter of time..
I can see many things i didnt see before.For this reason MTW doesnt bite me as much..And i know i'll have to what for Roman Total War for things to improve...
IMO i dont think VI will improve things much..HOPE im 100% wrong,MTW has so much potential.....
BUT back to LANCERS.
There Melle should be reduced and they couldnt fight very well in close combat..Ruduce this and they will fight as they should and did..
Awesome Charge but weak once H2H starts this is how there r.
Check facts on them if we uisng history.......
7Bear7Polar
02-06-2003, 03:04
well if u cant beat a person with the same army u normally use, only means u need to practice more http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
1 row deep lancers, like NC stated has both its pros and cons - easiest way to beat it is to double it with ur cav http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
ps: they do know a lot, but mtw is not the same as stw
I don't know anything about this game, i only play it.
My views are long lines double clicking behind enemy lines dosn't work all the time, cav is overpowered, arbs aren't to strong, lancers are beatable, byz inf is beatable, handgunners aren't unbalanced, the game isn't 2d, the moral circles are fine, fatigue is to much on foot troops, routing enemies gives nice moral bouns to your troops, it takes some skill to play, archers are to weak, spears are to weak vs cav, pikes are to weak vs cav, all these different unit sizes suck, chain routs rule, way points around structures suck, and the list goes on....
7Bear7Polar
02-06-2003, 06:02
nuff said - well done amp http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
lol like the way AMP put it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif
longjohn2
02-07-2003, 00:24
One thing I haven't seen mentioned (although I skipped a couple of pages of this discussion) as an anti cavalry army, is your own cavalry army. You can then either both rush, in which case you get to play lots of games very quickly, or you're back to a game of manoeuvre.
BomilkarDate
02-07-2003, 09:39
@Longjohn2: One might find this funny for 2 or 3 games, but thats it. Where is the fun part of it? Where the strategy? It might be a: "The faster klicker kills the most" competition, but thats actionally not why I play this game.
Enough words lost
ELITEofBomilkar
Magyar Khan
02-07-2003, 13:52
well thats another goodyinfo, be sure u click fisrt on the head on charge between similar units.....
clicking has become more important and the majority accepted it, some of them just by the sole fact that their win ratio is better than they ever had, so why chance things that are "ok"?
This sounds like fun...why not just remove all units apart from Cav...ooohh the joy of MP http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Paper=Scissors=Stone ..worked so well....
now we have
Paper (infantry)= Flowers (arrows)-and Tanks (Cav)
as the SP gets stronger the MP dies a slow death.
Magyar Khan
02-07-2003, 14:20
finally u made it into here...
why not foresee our future after Viking Invasion my dearest shaman.
LongJohn,
I've certainly considered all cav as a counter to all cav. I think the choice between cav and inf depends partly on how offensive minded you are. All of the STW/WE/MI all cav games I've been in are over very quickly. With the charge bonus being a big factor in their effectiveness, cav are more of a first strike weapon and it's better to be offensive. If both players are all cav the battle tends to be offense vs offense with little defensive aspect.
I know that in high era the lancer doesn't have an effective cav counterunit which means you would have to take Spanish if your opponent took Spanish so as not to be at a disadvantage. So, the desire not to be locked into usually taking Spanish means finding infantry armies that are effective vs Spanish all cav armies. The adjustment you've made to lancer cost and moving them to late era is going to change this dynamic, and all cav vs all cav battles should become more interesting if more of the factions can compete on an equal footing.
BomilkarDate,
You may not realize this, but the faster clicker does have an advantage and as far as I can tell all the top players are fast clickers.
FearofNC
02-07-2003, 15:31
top players are good with the camera... the faster clicker only wins if he is looking in the right spot from the right spot during a rush situation... and imho that is because the game play is too fast... the pc's of today are better and so are internet connections.. the laggy games of stw made for better unit control thus more tatics... if you inculde one option more for hosting... a speed slider would be my choice.
Dionysus9
02-10-2003, 21:12
Longjohn,
Yes countering all cav with all cav is an option, but in my mind not a very good one. I play this game because it is rich with tactical opportunities. If we reduce the game to a cavbattle the tactical opportunities diminsh to the point the game is no longer interesting. Just my humble opinion.
We should be finding ways to increase the tactical richness of this game. Imbalances and all cav armies detract from the tactical opportunities available and are thus, imho, to be avoided.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.