Has MP taught you lessons for the SP game?

[econ21]

I just found this forum and although I am an exclusively SP player, it's an interesting read. I was wondering for those of you who play both SP and MP whether the MP experience has been instructive when playing the SP game?

Reading the sticky thread about balancing for VI, it strikes me that MP probably gives you a good feel for the relative effectiveness of the various units. It may also give you better control on the battlefield.

Anyone conscious of having learnt something from the MP game that you have applied in the SP one?

Thanks for any replies.

[MF_Ivan]

To tell you the truth, the comparison between AI and an MP player is nowhere close to any similiarity. It is far too easy to trample the AI, even if overwhelmed you can still win.

Personally, if and when I do play the SP its just for the Campaign. The battles suck and are far too repetitive.

MP is much more realistic, difficult, and fun. I invite you to see for yourself. You become a better player, there is no doubt. Join us, once you do its hard to go back.

[Kongamato]

At the risk of sounding arrogant, I have to say that I have seen plenty of people come into MP, charge all their cav in wedge at one unit, move their front lines one unit at a time, mass rout, and say "whoa, this isnt like SP".

In MP, everybody is learning what units to use and in what quantities all the time, from themselves and from each other. In SP, you have one guy who fights the AI some of the time. Obviously, the strongest army combos are going to come from MP. MP is a melting pot for skills, techniques, and tactics.

I can see that the economic situation is different in SP, but the knowledge that a tour of duty in MP gives you can only be beneficial.

[LadyAnn]

My game style in SP changed after I played MP. And I think autoresolve battle killed too many of my good troops even in castle assault situation.

Annie

[DthB4Dishonor]

Yes no real comparison. Also at risk of sounding arrogant even an average MP general would destroy the AI on expert even at 2-1 or even 4-1 odds. It is almost comical for STW and MTW veterans to play AI. It has rendered the SP side of TW virtually unplayable for me because of lack of creativity, skill unit selection, strategy and tactics shown by AI. However I did play and finish 2 campaigns in MTW when it first came out and it was fun with all the V&V but now the best games are by far in MP. I think if I started playing MP again I would cost the AI 10-1 in terms of army florin value. Only thing that can stop me in SP is my units fatigue level after hacking through first 3 waves of the AI's 5 thousand man army of UM archers spears adn peasants (and the occasional alan and feudal knight)........

RTKPaul

[Nobunaga0611]

Yeah you could probably start playing MP to get a better handle on control and tactics, but you'd probably not go back to SP, at least not like you used to play it. MP is by far the best. You never can be entirely sure what you're going to encounter, and playing MP makes you good enough to adapt in any situation, very quickly in most situations. True you'll lose a good deal, but its all in fun. And you don't have to stick to playing with the same faction for hours on end with the same units. You can switch faction each game, not every 400 or so turns. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Puzz3D]

Well MP battles are different from SP because the opposing armies are almost always equal once the players grasp how to maximize the combat value per florin during army selection, you buy whatever units you want within the era being played, there is a 20% tax on more than 4 of a single unit type, you start with 16 full units because there is diminishing returns on upgrading, there is no pause key, there are no reinforcements, your general's command rating is always zero, there are no V&V's, if you beat someone they will adjust their style in subsequent games while the ai doesn't, the majority of battles are team battles and overall battle strategy can be developed to a high degree by experienced teams and there is a competitive aspect to playing other people. A big disparity between SP and MP is the efficiency of archers. While they are ok in SP, they are found to be too weak in MP battles. The weak archers turn the early era games into more of an inf/cav rush type of game. My own feeling is that human players can exploit a relatively small 10% imbalance in the units to great advantage. These imbalances reduce the number of units that are viable choices in MP battles. This gives rise to players using unit choice rules to counter the imbalances.

Possibly what many SP players do not realize is that the MP battles present a very complex, delicately balanced, tactical problem and this tactical puzzle, which evolves as Kongamato pointed out, is what keeps the players interested. At the same time, the complexity of it is a barrier to new players trying to get into the MP game.

One thing the ai does well is to select good unit matchups during battle. To make SP more challenging for me I play with morale off (+12 morale) so that the ai armies do not run away. This maximizes the threat of the ai in targetting your units for attack since it can managed all of its units simultaneously. It also means that you will have an extremely difficult time beating the ai when you are outnumbered 3:1.

[tootee]

Well probably the first thing you will notice going back to SP after playing MP to good extent is that you find the pause key useless.

Then going back to SP will probably for the strategic campaign, rather than for the tactical battles.. so might as well let the AI resolve all battles.

[Nobunaga0611]

You'll also notice that you can beat the AI at 10 to 1 odds. Less care will be given to the type of army you have, and you'll start putting together any sort of rabble units you have lying around, like I do. It'll get boring after around 15-20 years, and you'll go back to multiplayer. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[baz]

when i first started tw i played SP, after i had some MP experience i found that i played SP in a totally different way which basically took the fun out of SP, this is due to the fact that once you played vs a human the AI is so dismal http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Magyar Khan]

and still i must smile when i remember an interview and Platter or one of his friends stated that they had to make the AI dumber since it was too strong in their beta version.... imagine

[econ21]

Interesting - I get the impression that MPers have learnt that the AI is pretty lame. I can see it's troop selection is problematic. What's the problem with its tactics? I've read stuff from MPers about the importance of flanking on morale - are there other specific tips and tricks you've acquired that allow you to hose the AI?
I can't see how LadyAnn can best the autoresolve in sieges.

[baz]

come online m8 and play some vets then you will be asking "why did my men not even fight?" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

the AI is not good at all, you can easily rout single units of the AI because it cant grasp that it needs to cover its flanks, once one goes the rest will follow http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Cheetah]

I can just confirm what the other MP players said http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Once you played MP the tactical battles against the AI become utterly boring http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif So, if you love playing SP then never, never ever play MP http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif You will lose your interest in SP forver http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
In STW I have played 3 campaigns almost to the end (to the point when I had more than 60% of the map). After I started MP I have finished none In MTW I have started a few SP campaigns (English, Egypt, Bzyantines) but I got bored pretty soon without exceptions. Whenever I slaughter the AI I say to myself "this battle would have much more interesting vs a human opponent" at this point I reboot my computer and logon to play MP http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif It is just a waste of time to play tactical battles vs the AI. If I will ever play a SP campaign I will play it as a strategic game, that is, I will autoresolve all my battles. The problem is that even the startegic part is not interesting enough http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif All in all, whenever I have time to play I go to MP without hesitation http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Crandaeolon]

Have you checked out any multiplayer replays, Simon? If not, I'd strongly recommend that you do so - you should be able to clearly see the difference between AI and human players.

Humans are usually much better organised (in the beginning of the battle at least) and use especially missile troops in a more sensible way.

Mith posted a huge pack of replays, but sorting out the good ones can be a bit of a chore. Later dates and larger file sizes is a good rule of thumb.

At the end of the post is a choice one from my library of about 120 nice replays. Me, Lamorak, SpaceCadet and Aelwyn fight against donbatti, Yuuki, Baz and CBR. The battle is very even with only a handful of units remaining on the winning side. It starts a bit slowly in an arbalester standoff but starts escalating nicely in the middle of the map. Chaos ensues, there is a lot of brutal dismemberment and finally the ragtag troops on both sides regroup for the decisive clash.

The battle is quite old (3rd of January) and some armies, including mine, are a bit behind the times, but it's quite entertaining and easy to watch as most of the action is concentrated in the middle. I wish the skirmish part was slightly more interesting... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

4vs4Flat04VeryEvenBattle.mrp (http://personal.inet.fi/private/jonsu/4vs4Flat04VeryEvenBattle.mrp) (362k)