VI Balancing

[longjohn2]

I have the opportunity to make some balancing adjustments for VI, so I thought I'd ask the community for suggestions.

The main ones that people seem to think are underpriced are
Byz Infantry
Handgunners
Lancers
Any other suggestions.

I've also procurred a couple of extra columns in the spreadsheet, that let the period and faction availability for custom and MP battles be controlled separately from the SP game. I'll use this hopefully to make each faction a bit more flavourful, and to make the distinction between periods sharper.

In particular
The religious order troops (that are really high period units) will be banished from the early period.
Lancers will only available be in Late
Ditto for Pavise Arbs (although I'm not so sure about this one).

Again any other suggestions for troops that are available outside the period they really should be.

[tootee]

Great to see you back here LJ. All please post your views in concise pts so such that it's easier for LJ to work on them, and leave *endless?* long debate to other threads.

1. MP game should end when there is no more active player on one side.. currently players who quit with active troops causes a lot of annoyance.

EDIT: Added suggestion

[Kocmoc]

hi,

any shooter need uprgads.
specialy the cavarcher and the normal archer.
u can have a look at a stat file we made long time ago, we playtested it and many agreed with a better "feeling".
much honour to u as u come around and give us the feeling we can do something.

reduce the bonusses of all cavs, at the moment cav rout everything wichout beeing fighting, cavs need jsut be close and ....the enemy unit routs....

spears need to be more effectiv vs cav vs other h2h units imo its ok, but vs cav....let them kill some more, there is just not a real counter for this dangerous overpowered cav...

koc

[baz]

not sure making arbs late only is a good idea either imo, what would be best is that if there was a nice balance between archery and arbs (like musks and archers in MI)

i agree with koc about spears they need to be more effective vs the cav only

also i would like to see you do some testing with possibly a little more morale on the base units perphaps, anyway if you got time try it (basically a lot of units seem to rout when it would appear they should not) im sure other posts will go into this

anyway what i say is dont go too crazy with it and ask us any questions you have regarding explaination of a requested change , hopefully we will be able to show you evidence in a replay or something ..

[Knight_Yellow]

i think byz inf should only be 60 men then id be happy, the sheer number of them is way too powerful

lancers should cost a s*** load to upgrade.


also highlanders should be in mp for the original campaign i mean why the hell does ireland get in if the scotts cant?

[Kongamato]

Lower Byz Inf stats or unitsize.

This is asking for a lot, but could you make chargebonuses somewhat dependent on ranks?

You probably already addressed this, but when Mounted Crossbowmen are available in Early regular crossbow inf ought to be in there as well. Perhaps Pav Crossbows in High?

Since Foot Knights are just dismounted cav, perhaps the taxman should consider them at equals with their mounted cousins i.e. 3CK +2CFK = tax

Given any thought to adding more morale changers, like Encouraged by the General or Dismayed by Destruction of Army?

I look forward to VI.

[MF_Ivan]

Quote[/b] (longjohn2 @ Feb. 01 2003,17:19)]The main ones that people seem to think are underpriced are
Byz Infantry
Handgunners
Lancers
Any other suggestions.
Byz Infantry- good against all other spear and mainstay units, will win against an equal order foot opponent but will lose to a cavalry one. Raise the price? Yes, but not that far they lack in vs. cavalry which is their main weakness.

Handgunners- Its interesting that you point this out, but hardly anyone uses them, if you should change anything is reduce their price and increase their accuracy and do the same for arquebusiers.

Lancers- As far as these go, well I do hate them. But they are already priced up there. No need to increase them any further, any person buying these knows they take a hit in their infantry department.

I hope you do fix up the random season in SP, I sure would like to see some snow. But thats probably not your department.

GL.

[ElmarkOFear]

1. I would like to see the Amulghavars get into the VI game. They are in the Brady guide for MTW as are the Golden Horde cavalry units. Would be nice to include them.

2. Cav are too strong. Maybe make them fatigue faster or reduce their charge bonus. Either that or make spear units cheaper.

3. Eliminate the during battle valour increases. This would also help to reduce the power of cav somewhat.

4. If a partner drops, can you make it to where his army routs off map without your army getting a reduction in morale? Maybe just make the dropped player's army dissappear automatically.

5. I would like to see more teeth for Armor Piercing units when fighting against armored enemy units. Right now, it doesnt make much difference whether a unit has armor piercing bonus or not.

6. My biggest worry is that the new game will not fix the problems the game has with Windows XP. I have not been able to play on any of my 3 pc and 1 laptop until i reinstalled Win98 on one of them. I know that is not what you are looking for in this thread, but I feel it is very important for the games continued success.

Thanks, LongJohn. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[tootee]

Elmo, I'm using XP and so far no problem on my platform.

LJ,

1. I think instead of changing the cost of cav, you can try removing the charge bonus of cav (or of any unit for that matter) when they run into enemy, i.e. cav will only enjoy charge bonus iff they hit the unit clicked on. The way I see it, the problem is not with cav costing, but with the way they apply charge bonus. I feel the costing for cav is good as of now.

2. As for lancer, I seldom use them but I like to see them on the battle.. at 850 florins for the best armoured/attacking/defending cav is only reasonable if it is handicapped in some way.. e.g. slower in speed compare to other cav, lower morale *not historically correct I know*. An alternative solution to changing their cost.

[Magyar Khan]

Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Feb. 02 2003,01:49)]1. I would like to see the Amulghavars get into the VI game. They are in the Brady guide for MTW as are the Golden Horde cavalry units. Would be nice to include them.

2. Cav are too strong. Maybe make them fatigue faster or reduce their charge bonus. Either that or make spear units cheaper.

3. Eliminate the during battle valour increases. This would also help to reduce the power of cav somewhat.

4. If a partner drops, can you make it to where his army routs off map without your army getting a reduction in morale? Maybe just make the dropped player's army dissappear automatically.

5. I would like to see more teeth for Armor Piercing units when fighting against armored enemy units. Right now, it doesnt make much difference whether a unit has armor piercing bonus or not.

6. My biggest worry is that the new game will not fix the problems the game has with Windows XP. I have not been able to play on any of my 3 pc and 1 laptop until i reinstalled Win98 on one of them. I know that is not what you are looking for in this thread, but I feel it is very important for the games continued success.

Thanks, LongJohn. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
1 any golden horde unit that is balanced is highly welcomed

2 cav is too strong but DONT make them fatigue faster. a small dowgrade of charge bonusses and more effective spears (esp spearmen units) will do.

3 this is very important as well. valourgain during battle is one of the vets tricks to dominion a vet for a long time. and makes v0 power units too strong, like lancers

4 let a dropped army on the field, and let it battle UNLESS every enemy is dropped or routed, so when all dropp u dont have to fight ghostarmies to end your game.

5 not fully sure of this, esp if cav charges are reduced. perhaps elmo is right http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

6 oops thx elmo i am about to buy a new system and it seems i need a dual boot system

Thanks LongJohn

Furthermore

all archery need a solid upgrade, esp if arbs are moved to late high and early dont have archers usefull enuf to field in comp games since all combat cav/inf will stay too strong. so increasing them with accuracy, arrows and reloadtime will give archery a purpose.

i do hope people wont complain about me making horsearchery to my own liking, these people make me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif and http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif.
Horsearchery and the use of it are the cream of a battle.

EDIT and ofcourse adding morale sliders or even upgrades plz, the average florin per side in an mpgame has inflated to 20-25k. i know this must strike u, if u ever intended battles' armies to 5-6k.

the fact that u ask us for some input will be taken as the result of our endless whining and moaning, which gives us hope for future versions http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[youssof_Toda]

Ater all this I've only one little complaint: the superior range of the arbalesters. They reach much futher than any other rangeunit (esp arch cav). I wondered if you could make the difference a little smaller, or maybe the reloadtime longer.

[Rath]

Agree with most of the stuff already posted, especially regarding archer units (both on foot and horseback) - the arrows need vast improvement for them to be of any use in a tight situation.

In regard to Cav power - firstly make spear units more effective vs cav (only, not vs swords) - and stop valour gain (or modify it so that it is very very hard to gain). If this was done i think u wouldn't need to tamper with the actual cav, as they still should be very effective vs non-spear units.

[Crandaeolon]

These suggestions of "vast" improvements and these lists of "increase this AND this AND this for those units" are dangerous. Remember, the reason why cavalry became overpowered was not a _single_ modification, but a combination of many. (cavalry price reduction, spear price increase, cav pushback bonus, valour upgrade price increase...)

So, please use caution in the rebalancing process.

Here's another list, in order of importance (IMHO):

1. Spears should be stronger against cav. Perhaps an increase/modification of the bonus vs cav? (Current bonus: +1/+4; new bonus +2/+4 or +3/+3?)

2. Archer units should have increased firepower. Not more than 15-20%. (Modeling the composite bow would be nice http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif)

3. Valour increases in battle should be removed from MP.

4. Lancers should either lose a combat point (melee) or go slightly up in price; their speed should also be reduced to the level of Gothic Knights.

5. Horse archers should be roughly equal to normal archers in accuracy. (They can't fire on the gallop anyways.)

6. Byz inf should get a slight price hike. (+25-50 florins?) Not too much, since Byz inf are the strength behind the Byzantines.

7. Handgunners should get a price hike. (MF_Ivan, no one uses them for their shooting ability, but they are very powerful in melee when upgraded.)

8. Arbs should be moved to late era only. Arb and Xbow accuracy should be slightly reduced when compared to archers; X-bows should have a faster reload time than arbs. (from 15 to 12?)

EDIT: ooh, I almost missed this

Quote[/b] ]Lancers will only available be in Late


This alone will make High period games different... I'm surprised there's no uproar yet... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I think those are the most necessary/wanted balance changes. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Thanks for taking the time, LJ

[RageMonsta]

Monsta is a historian and would like to see the power of the Horse Archer units balanced to a more realistic place...also the importance of the missle unit...after all they managed to be around for the whole period and were maintain even into the gunpowder era as back up for the slow fire and unpredictable handgun....and Monsta thinks the issue of armour is of importance with this veiw.

Indeed Cavalry was 'king' in the Medieval era..but when we look at the examples of when Mongol units met in battle the proud mounted European knights..the outcome was often destruction of the knight(look also at what happened to the slow Europeans in the desert)....even in a 3 to 1 battle in favour of the knights...now this was not due to the Mongol Heavy Cavarly nor the foot troops...it was more to do with movement....and the Horse Archer...therefore some points must be added about the (non)effective use of the HA in the game now.

Understood it is not easy to get a balance between real fact and game play but some examples must be looked at...

The Longbow for example could penetrate chain mail from max range (which is about double the short bow range...maybe needs to be reflected in the unit)...

Plate armour could stop the arrow but....was only used to a mass degree in the later periods and then still only by the richer soldier...therefore missiles in the game should be better until Late period.

Horse Archers turning and movement speed should be closer to double that of mounted knights...or at least alot faster...even during the Napoleonic era the charge for Heavy Cavalry was short lived..and at best a fast trot...and that was without armour on the rider.

Horse Archers could fire while moving and at a 360 degree turn....why have we gone from a 2-3 kill average per volley (depending on target)in STW and MI/WE to and average of 2 kills per 3 volleys? (est numbers here).

We do not need to change to many factors but it seems that any troops armed with a shield seems to get a bonus of defence against arrows..this should only be in regards to a LARGE shield...

Lets take for example the mighty pike man...evidence suggests that they were indeed for long periods a fore to be reckoned with but...missle units often broke their ranks..and that was death to the pike...

The game play of MTW has been reduced to a mass brawl because of the little or no impact of the arrow...i agree with the slow rate of fire for the crossbow (average about 3 per minute at best)but this theory of non tactical intricate battles during the era died many years ago...if you read Oman and then read something a little more up to date you can see how the common idea of Medieval warfare is wrong..

Longbows should fire further.

LBs should fire more than 24 (as they carried wagon laods of arrows given to them in clips)...so maybe 30 for arguments sake..

Anything not in plate armour is a victim to the arrow of the LB...and too a degree
to the shortbow.

Reflect the speed of the light cav by reducing the turning and movement of Heavy Cav..or at least cause them to be unable to maintain this charge speed for long periods.

Please for the sake of the game bring back some form of missle based balance...after all this is not Age of Empires

Send those awful Lancers to the Late period.

Valour gain is a problem and should be addressed...maybe only if the unit starts lower than 2 should it gains anything...?

Maybe a solution to the Cavarly problem is to make the bonus of spear greater against them...but still reflect the power of the knight.

Long post and lots more to say..more detail but i have bored enough now..

The skill require to play the game on an MP has fallen..there seems to be many examples of 'steamroller' armies...if the skill falls therefore the life span of the game falls...therefore so does the interest...

in short-

missiles up
cav down

all balanced of course (maybe easier said than done&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Thanx for asking us (was it the Xmas beating you guys took? :P ) ...given chance I am sure we can produce a tested example for you...

(note to the bOrg flamers all historical evidence given is 'off the cuff' if you want to challenge any of my views do so and then Monsta will release his magic book of truth and eat your eyes...of course away from this lovely topic area&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

edit for vast HTML errors...not to mention the spelling and grammar..

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif

[TosaInu]

Hello LongJohn,

Great news about the seperate era and faction availability.

-Byz inf. They become a problem (ihmo) when extremely upgraded and used in very large numbers of units (despite the rushtax). The Byz lack a 'decent' spearunit, they simply need a more allround unit like the Byz Inf. Which is a good thing as this makes an army really different as opposed to 'just' displaying another sprite/color.

The 'weakness' of the Byz Inf is their morale, but since most games are 15k each and over, to compensate for the extremely poor morale, that weakness is reduced while their strength is increased. I'ld vote for a minor increase in their cost, about 20 florins. That would keep them about the same at v0 and would at the same time make upgrading and purchasing many less attractive.

-Please increase morale with some 4 points for units (this is the reason that cav appears so strong, even spears panic) or add a slider or a host settings menu with CA defaults preset (morale, fatigue, gamespeed, rushtax settings, more ammo).

Some games with more morale in the stat have been played and that certainly improves the game (though that's higly subjective).

-Please don't make cav fatigue faster, a better morale for units (you could limit the morale upgrade to melee units, missile units should not have good morale) and more defensive anti cav for the spears (+2) will solve the problem of too strong cav, while they remain a danger vs swordinfantry and missiles.

-The charge bonus for cav is a good thing: they are not mounted infantry, but have extra power due to motion.

-The battleawards are great in campaigns, but creates 'loopholes' in MP. Problems with overpowered cav, especially Lancers, is due to the fact that a cheap valour 0 (optional weaponupgrades) unit easily becomes v1-v4 in battle. Either 'give' the option (in the host settings menu) to turn battleawards off, or if it gives problems with the SP code, give the awards after the battle is fought. Or just turn it off in MP, since that would also display correct info in the logfiles (logs are frequently consulted by MP players).

-The host settings menu could also allow the host to set where the rushtax should kick in (1-16 units) not just the fixed 4 units.

-Some missile speeds in Projectile Stat seem too low: Longbows for example can't utilise their range well.

-I guess arbalesters range is fine, since they could be considered as strong crossbows. A stronger crossbow increases the reload time significantly, since the devices to prepare the bow become more complex. A 'basic' crossbow is reloaded by a simple hook and rope within 20 seconds. The 'magnums' could require up to 1 minute. 1 minute reloads is not recommended (main reason fatigue). Something like crossbow 15 like it is now and 20-25 seconds for the arbalest seems fine. Moving arbalest to late is a great move.

-Please consider a change to order foot to differentiate them from the it inf, like: samurai status on (religious -> more fanatic fighter), 100 -> 80 men and +1 def (keeps cost same).

-Archers. There are 3 bows in projectilestat, while there are many archer units in the game, ranging from basic archers, genoese sailors, trebizonds, horsearchers and longbows. Longbows are special, thus one stat is for them only (justified). That leaves 2 for all the others. All horsearchers use 1 and all infantry archers use the other. Utilise the 'dorming' sets like the NINJA and Arrow From Model to make the splendid archers really perfom better (I'am not sure a whether arrow from model can be used, but NINJ can).

In STW, missiles did shoot better per volley with increased 'valour'. Though you had to increase it a lot to see a difference. I'm not sure whether it's because MTW 'only' offers v4 max (H4 didn't show real improvement in STW) or that it's completely removed. But upgraded archers should shoot better, not become melee units. Higher valour should increase the accuracy/lethality, not the melee.

Increasing ammo from 28 to 36 for archers (not xbows) is a safe way to make them better.

-Allow more than 1 stat to be present at the same time, like maps. The host selects one, and others can join if they have the stat (reloading stats is possible).

Top of the list for me are:
more morale
removal of 'always rain' (games always end with rain, even arid dry all day).

It's great that you ask the community about the balancing and it's really appreciated. As you may notice, there are quite some different and similair concerns/solutions. None necessarily worse or better than the other, but more depending on style, knowledge, skill or expectations.

Things like a host settings menu (basically already present, Options on/off toggles) and the option to store more than 1 stat (also basically present) will easily allow groups of players to tailor games to their needs (some like chainrouting, others hate it, while the fighting to dead with morale off isn't their thing either). And will make it much easier to try a different one.

[tootee]

LJ, another possible technical bug?

1. Some of us can't seem to make [G]rouped units run by double-left-clicking or using the hotkey. It works fine in SP but not in MP. Hope you look into this issue if it is a fact for everyone. Simply select all and group them and double-click to see what I mean.

Thanks.

[CBR]

Ok..where to start...

We really need a general morale increase for all units..morale slider would be nice perhaps but is not as important if we just can get a general increase. I dont know..perhaps 95% or more plays 15k per player or more so we can buy valour for units..but it means some units get more valour than other units and changes the balance.

Yes I know we can just agree on a certain valour for units before a battle but it is damn annoying explaining it to newbies or people you dont play with regularly..everything happens...from people leaving the game when they hear about the rules..still dont buy the agreed amount and some who, for several reasons, just never will play these rules. Yes we can do it but its basically annoying to have rules like that.

Either make the change for custum/mp battles only or change the current "morale off" that gives +12 morale...I dont know how many use that option in sp nor mp anyway..+12 is simply too much. Right now I would say +6 morale. I consider that as the most important change which will improve gameplay a lot.

Changes in unitcosts:

Pav crossbows: 250
Arbalester: 300
Pav Arbalester 350

Cost difference is right now too small so crossbows and non pav versions in general are simply not worth it. Oh yes if morale is not generally increased for all units so we play with less florins..about 5k, these new costs wont improve much if you have 15k+ florins. But if it is, and for those of us who might play valour 3 games, these small changes will matter.

Lancers:

Hmm a bit tricky really. If we play high florin games the Spanish player will always have an advantage buying Lancers.. if cost is increased to 925, as Yuuki suggested, yes the advantage is not as big but its still an advantage.

If we play at lower florins (5k) with higher morale or play valour 3 games then the Lancers really dont need a cost increase as the Spanish player has less money to buy other units. At 15k+ its just one or less upgrades to the cavalry compared to a player who buys chiv knights instead.

Missiles:

Yes it would be nice if bows could be increased in power. There is also a few problems there and armour/shields is the main reason.

There is no big difference between an unarmoured unit with no shields(armour 1) compared to armour 5 which a lot of units have..think some tests showed a 50% reduction in losses. And as lots of units have large shields that give +2 armour, the real differences in the game are small.

Crossbows and especially arbalesters have better armour penetration than normal bows but slow reload.

Bows should be the best thing against unarmoured targets because of no armour and fast reload.

But thats not what we see in the game. Right now I dont know if that can be done with the current armour/missile system and dont know if you want to change missiles at all to improve archers a bit.

So if no changes are done I would suggest putting crossbows in early just to have some missilepower in that era. Pav crossbows in High perhaps arbalester too and then move pav arb to late.

And plz give horsearchers the standard shortbow. No need to decrease their accuracy when they cant fire on the move anyway (oh yes let them fire on the move with decreased accuracy, but guess thats too much Im asking for)

And it would great if missile units were better at hitting moving targets..maybe increase arrow speed to about the same as crossbows..that might give that effect. Again it might be too much to ask for. But historically there was no real difference in start velocity anyway, although bolts doesnt get slowed down as much IIRC.

Massed archerfire simply cant hit much against charging cavalry which they should.

An increase in arrows would be nice..36 perhaps more.

Maybe give arbs a slower reload 20 perhaps

Spears:

Dont think they need to be improved against cav. But making them cheaper would be nice (go back to 1.0 costs) If you want to really kill cav fast you need the halbardiers/billmen..its historical and we have the units in MTW so they should never be weaker than spears when fighting/killing cav.

Uhm most likely missed loads of stuff..I'll come up with something more later http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

CBR

[TosaInu]

Added to what CBR said (but not necessarily his view):

xbows were widely used in 1100 in Europe, so adding normal xbows to early with less armor (current 3 seems too high) to make plain archers competitive could be nice. The pav xbow (and arb) in high and pav arb in late, nicely illustrates the dynamic missile-armor contest. Dropping the upgrade modifier in Projectile Stat for these units is a good idea (they are quite good at v0 and surely don't need cheap upgrades).

The other reason for a strong Lancer is indeed that playing at 15k allows to purchase a couple of them. As said: cheap v0 suffices.

Cheaper spears. There's probably 'room' for that. Since spears became much weaker as compared to 1.0 (cheaper knights, cheaper swords, more expensive spears, more expensive upgrade and infantry bonus vs spears). Increasing cav defense for spears doesn't affect the balance with other units and does not turn them into cav killers. I agree that the increased upgrade cost, allows spears to have the 1.0 baseprice.

[tootee]

1. Hashishin. They are totally worthless in MP context (not sure about SP). At v0 costing 600, they can't even kill pavise-arbalester. What is the use of their ability to hide in open area, when in h2h they cant even outfight the p.a. The ninja of stw are so much fun to play with.

[TosaInu]

Was the pav upgraded Tootee? My cav is having serious problems with the pavs too: on hold and some cheap armor upgrades make them stand 'forever'.

[AMPage]

Some of my views on things are totally different from others, so i don't expect some of the things i say to really be looked at. I'll have some fun with it anyway...

Here it goes...

The balance of units should be equal for all factions. Right now you have lot's of unused units and some factions. This is because of overpowered, underpowered, and different unit sizes. I think if you want balance for mp than you have to leave out historical accuracy for you will always have these problems. Right now kills/losses at the end of the game don't always mean a whole lot cause of different unit sizes. It would be better to have it to show kill worth/ loss worth based on the cost of the units killed.

To fix this you could go about it a few ways. You can have just about all units like in STW 60 unit sizes. This would fix all these small unused trying to get a lot of kills making up for their small number and having small over powered units like some cav making lot's of kills cause they were meant to be strong. It would also fix byz inf being really strong cause of not just it's stats, but it's 100 unit size. If you get carried away with tons of 100 unit sizes units then you got nothing but a huge wall and less movement tatics invovled. Also you need to have it where all cav, foot h2h, missle, spear, and other units etc, should always be equal to there same type at the same florin amount. Each faction needs to be equal having all its units same strength as the next. If you're going to have overpowered units in a faction then all the others need overpowered units to balance it out.

If you're going to have different unit sizes, you should allow more then 16 units in a game. Have games set not only with florin amounts, but troop amounts too. You could set a certain amount of slots for each unit type; cavalry, foot, artillery, and special units. Example the host sets it 1,000 troops per player, slot limits, and florin amount. So you start automatcilly with 1,000 peasants and you can train them with the florins you have into each unit type with the allowed slots. Host could have the slots set at sometimes like 6 cavalry, 10 foot, 6 artillery (if it's a siege), and 4 special units ( like napha or hashishin). Whatever peasants aren't used, that player still gets so he has 1,000 troops when the game starts. When the game starts you could have it where no can withdraw a unit off the map untill atleast 5mins has pass to give everyone a chance to fight all units. You could also have it where the attacker always gets extra slots for unit types based on the map being played. Example the attacker gets more arty slots for castle maps or more foot troop slots for hilly tree maps.

That's just a rough idea to help spice up mp more...

And another idea for Eras...

When playing early era and you finish a battle, you could have it continue on to the next era. All the units when moving on to the next era get replaced by better ones or most of them. It would be a nice system to have since i mosty see high period being played the most.

Host options...

Should do away with this rush tax and allow the host to set limits on units as he wishes. I would like to see games balanced at default 5k per player and have a moral silder. Allow the host to change settings without rehosting.

Valor upgades during battle...

If you take these away then the rare times i use weapon upgrades, won't be used at all. Best would be if you do take valor upgrades during battle away, then have something like attack, defense, armor, moral and more upgrades all possible when selecting units and no valor upgrading. What also might work is having valor upgrades, but being able to buy 1 weapon and armor upgrade less then 1 valor upgrade and each lvl. Example a unit with 1 valor +2weapon +2armor will cost a bit less then a unit with +3 valor no weapon or armor upgrades given that they unit, cause they are equal in stats except the one will have +4 extra moral so that one should cost more.

Missile units...

Increase the kills per volly with archer units. Maybe allow players to buy double the ammo at a fair cost. Allow some missile units be able to shoot and run at the sametime, the ones which could possibly do that. Have units when stopped and getting in formation, get in formation much faster and have missile units wait untill all are in formation fire when ready. When you target a unit to fire at it, that missile unit shouldn't start it's reload cycle over when it's already ready. Missile units should kill more firing at units which are on the move and not in a defensive postion. Also need a resting option for missile units since they tire quite fast (infact a resting option for all units would be nice). Missile units should have an additional upgrading option 'accuracy' or have it increased with more with valor.

Cavalry...

It's a good idea have cavalry rule the field, but gameplay dosn't benefit from that. It's best to have cavalry used for flanking, breaking weak tired units, and chasing down routers 'only'. It may be accurate to have cavalry mow down foot troops with anti cav weapons easy, ok that's nice, but it's best for gameplay to leave it for being able to mow down units without anti weapons from flanks only. Cavalry can do great damage on any units by flank or almost any units, but have it the worst on units weak vs cav. Leave the fatigue rate on cav alone, even the fatigue on foot troops should be reduced i think or atleast have that resting option.

General...

the general of an army should always be a special unit i think. Like a small cav unit. You could although have a strong general or a weak general. The general could give moral bounses, even combat bounses depending on the valor, which the higher the better. Also have just then general unit be able to have a valor max at 6 maybe, where at 5 and 6 he gives a small combat bouns to troops in the area.

Troop icons...

It would be nice at the bottom of your screen your troop tabs also should what each troops current moral is. The moral could show up as a number or a color. Also would be nice to have more fatigue blocks, more them just 4 for each lvl. Maybe have like 12 for each lvl and have them as small dots to help show when the unit is about to become quite tired from quite fresh... etc

Alright i'll stop there for now. I know this is more a wish list, but hey it would help the game a lot i think. And i memtioned some things others have so that just means i totally agree with them.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[longjohn2]

Thanks for the responses everyone. Sadly many of them are rather beyond the scope of what we have time to do for VI.
There are too many suggestions for me to reply to individually, but I'll make a few general comments.

Gil is continuing to work on lobby and stability issues. I don't know the specifics of what's been done though.

I don't want to reduce the power of the cavalry. I think each TW game needs to have a distinct flavour, and the flovour of this one is heavy knight. That said, moving the order knights out of early, will make less dominant in that period, and the new Viking period will be even more infantry oriented.
Might reduce spear costs a smidge though.

I'll look at removing the in battle valour upgrade for MP, but I'm not sure how difficult that will be.

I also don't want to increase archery power too much, as they seem to be pretty effective in SP. I have made some improvements to their ability to hit moving targets though.
Again I think removing some heavy troops from early will make them more useful in that period.
I may increase the horse archery accuracy a bit, as this is a hangover from Shogun, but turning them into uber units might be fine for vets, but would lead to a lot of frustrated newbies.

There'll be a few more units availabale too. There are some new ones anyway, plus highlanders, swiss and almoughavars will be available for selected factions.

Thanks again for taking the time to reply.

[Magyar Khan]

hmmmmm frustrated newbees. i wish i was a newbee then.

[ElmarkOFear]

I am a frustrated newbie http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Well at least I play like one. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[FearofNC]

thanks for taking time to listen to us... imho.. some of the ideas mentioned here are good...but i think alot of them would create more imbalances... when altering the stats...im for a more cautious approach...i think very small tweaks would bring balance back into the game.

lancers- imho...their speed is the only imbalance they have.. it is possible to upgrade a chiv knight for example to 10.5 armour... but doing this makes them as slow as slugs. if the lancers would act like it has 9 armour instead of acting like it has armour of 5 or 6 then it wouldnt be such a game killer.

pavase- the problem isnt how much they kill...but how well they absorb other missles...u can take 7 archers against 3 pavs and still lose. now a good solution to this imho...is to make incoming missles that strike either the top ( like archers would do ) or the flank cause more casulties. a large shield up front would continue to soak up other crossbow bolts that come in on a flat trajectory...but not the shots from archers that fall from above...or missles that impact on the flanks..i would also increase the range of the archers ever so slightly...maybe 100 more...just enough to give them a few shots in before the pavs can fire at them...would also allow archers to reach further to strike other troops behind the "pav wall"

cav arch- they need more range one shot from a crossbow unit weather it be crossbow or arbs will decimate a cav arch.. these units should be able to fire from a greater distance...making the other side react either with lite cav or there own cav arch. currently...they are mearly a distraction...that with 1 or 2 good shots from a pav can be taken out of the game equation.

the accuracy of archers firing at a moving target could be a non-issue if we could select a place on the map for the missle unit to fire at.. i would much rather click a spot on the ground and have my archers rain arrows onto the spot then the game engine trying to lead a moving target better.

and last but not least...plz allow the host to turn factions off...that is...allow each player to choose from all the available units in game as a hosting option.. this might not be historcly accurate...but it would be great fun

[Crandaeolon]

I know there was not supposed to be arguing in this thread, so please forgive this one intrusion. I'm an archery freak, so I can't help it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

About archery: please do not mess with the ranges. I know they aren't historical or even close to historical, but normal & cav bows at 5000 and longbows & arbs at 6000 is a good compromised abstraction and perfectly fine balance-wise. Increasing archery firepower, decreasing arb&X-bow accuracy a bit, decreasing X-bow reload time slightly and moving pav arbs to late should solve the "imbalances" of missile units in MP.

Some reasoning: increasing longbow range would make the English much too strong if other factions don't have missile units of equal range. Moving all arbs to late could result in the same effect in High era games; therefore IMO only pav arbs should be moved to Late.

Cav archers should get an increase in firepower, but _definitely_ not in range. They already have mobility as their asset, if they could outrange other missile units they would become too strong and easy to use. Currently, using cav archers properly requires skill; it would be a shame if they were reduced to a cheese unit.

Perhaps all "dedicated" archers should get more arrows while skirmisher types could remain at the default.

And again, composite bows would be a nice addition into the game... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Thanks for accepting input, happy (and cautious) rebalancing http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Puzz3D]

Unit cost adjustments:

1) Lancers increased. The 800 florin lancer is 44% stronger than the 650 florin chiv knight but it's only 23% more expensive. The balanced cost for the lancer would be about 925 relative to the chiv knight. An alternative would be to slow them down. After all, they are heavily armored and have the same armor as the gothic knight which is 9/12/16 speed..

2) Byz inf increased. It has 6 combat points including the shield, 100 men and 0 morale for 175 florins. The feudal maa has 7 combat points including shield, 60 men and 2 morale for 175 florins. The Byz inf enjoys a 67% advantage in men, but the feudal maa is 20% better in combat. You could say the Byz inf has a 47% advantage here not counting the morale disadvantage. A 15% increase to 200 florins would leave the Byz inf with about a 30% advantage over the Feudal maa.

3) Templar knight decrease. This unit has 4 less charge than the chiv knight, but is only 8% less in cost. Isn't 4 charge roughly equivalent to 1 melee which is 20%. It seems to me the Templar should be less than 600 florins. An alternative would be to make it 650 florins and give it +1 melee point to make up for the -4 charge. This is a special unit for the French, and is currently inferior to other mounted knights.

4) Spears decrease. Probably a return to v1.0 cost levels. Spears already took a substantial hit in v1.1 from the combined effects of, lower cost of mounted knights, chance of pushback by cav, +1 melee bonus to swords when fighting spears and the 70% cost of valor upgrade since they desperately need the morale boost the upgrade provides.

5) A return of upgrades on ranged units to be the same as non-ranged units. The current discounted rate causes some ranged units to become very strong when upgraded several levels, such as handgunners and janissary infantry to name two. Those two units end up with 14 combat points when upgraded to v4 which is better than most regular hand-to-hand infantry units in a 15k. It also results in ranged units withstanding a cav charge for too long or even beating the cav. Clearly playing at 15k and up has some problems. It also introduced a bug whereby a player coming directly from SP to MP without a restart of MTW goes out of sync when a battle starts because the ranged unit upgrade costs are incorrect. This also often generates the "spent too much" message.

6) More difference in cost between the pavise and non-pavise unit types. CBR's suggestion of 50 florins more for the pavise units seems good to me.


Unit availability:

1) Agree with Tosa. Xbows in early, pav xbow and arb in high and pav arb in late.

2) Swiss pikes for germans in late would be more historical, but maybe it gives HRE german faction too much.


Unit stat errors:

1) Longbow's speed parameter is too low for them to shoot their full range of 6000. They will go through a firing animation as thouigh they are shooting at max range, but no projectile is released.

2) Malitia Sgt is a polearm unit and listed as anti-cav in the Strategy Guide, but in the spreadsheet there is no anti-cav bonus being given.


Ranged unit adjustments:

1) Make an improvement of ranged unit accuracy with valor upgrade. Right now there is imperceptible improvement. This would tie in with returning ranged unit upgrade costs the non-ranged rate. Weapon and armor could continue to be melee/defend/armor improvements.

2) More arrows for archers. This ties in with possible improvements of kills per volley. Right now typical kills for an archer in a MP battle is in the 15 to 20 range. There is little need to bother countering archers when kills are that low. Pav arbs typically generate 40 to 60 kills in a MP battle, and that's when countered with similar pav arbs. Uncountered they can do even better than that. Even the longbows have disapponting performance in this regard, although, they do better than regular archers. I don't want to see a return of the WE/MI projectile wars, but I think some increase of the danger from archers would improve MP. I don't really see it as adversely affecting SP either. Human SP players withdraw depleted archer units and bring on fresh ones during a battle, but the ai doesn't know enough to do that so more arrows will help the ai. Also, the muslim factions will be helped since they have those combo ranged/archer units. It's difficult for muslim factions to compete with the christian factions right now in MP. The Russian faction, which really isn't competitive in MP, might also be helped here since Boyars and Brigands are a strength for them and their infantry is relatively weak.


Changes to the ammo, morale and fatigue options:

Well my suggestion is to make the secondary options less extreme. They are currently not used at all in MP, and I've never seen a post from any SP player that uses them either. I think players want limited ammo, morale and fatigue effects because it greatly enhances the gameplay. However, many of us would like to play 5k florin games with better morale, and we might want to play a winter battle with the nice fog effects without the high fatigue rate. It takes forever to finish a winter battle now. Same goes for desert because the sandstorm inevitably comes up. I've played both SP and MP with the morale off option, and believe that the +12 is too much of a boost since it effectively saturates the morale system. A more modest morale boost still has plenty of routing, but it brings cavs ability to rout down a bit which I believe would satisfy all the "cav is too strong" players.

Host selectable is the nice thing with these options in MP. No need for rules which are time consuming to explain and always viewed with scepticism, and we can't do anything about fatigue even with a custom stat anyway. Custom stats are fine for a limited number of players, but these host selectable options makes the altered gameplay available to everyone. This would provide 8 possible combinations of altered gamestyles which still incorporate the limited ammo, fatigue and morale which are fundamental to the gameplay. The original gameplay is still there with teh options in their default position. So, my suggestions are for the second settings loosly:

1) 2x ammo (gives players who like ranged battles just that)
2) 1/2 fatigue rate (allows a quicker rush game for those that want that)
3) +6 morale (allows 5k battles without the mass routing)

These are not hard numbers and could be different, but the idea is basically to give altered gameplay without completely turning off the feature.

My list isn't complete, but I can't make suggestions on units and factions that I don't use.

Thanks for asking for suggestions LongJohn and good luck.

[FearofNC]

will think about a good response to puzz's ideas..but first i must try and end the pav debate before all of you agree to it.

moving the pav to late will make high period unplayable.... with the advances in heavy cav from early...all you will see is cav battles.

one of the best defenses to cav is the pavaise...and moving them to late will ruin high period play imho. regular arbs dont stand a chance of holding 2 seconds vs a cav unit... the rush game would rule unchallenged. plz consider making them weaker agaisnt other missles...not removing them from play.

[CBR]

A pavise doesnt give more defense to crossbows or arbs, only +3 armor against missiles.

CBR

[Kocmoc]

sorry but who fear a pav in high?

missles are just useless, u can easy rush and juts dont notice the missle, we use the missle like old days, but thats more a tradition than a useful action.

all what i see are doubleclick armys, as it isnt important to move ur army properly.
i dont realy care for the "unbalances", as we dont get some good missles and the cav just do what they want.


koc

[Cheetah]

hello longjohn,

very nice from you to visit us http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


I quote Crand (see at the end of post) because I agree with all of his suggestions http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Basicaly, cavs need not be weakened (except lancers) but spears should get a bit more bonus vs cavs or should be cheaper a bit (not much&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.

I agree with CBR's suggestion too about morale. Either give us a morale slider or modify the morale off option to give only +6 morale points.

Talking about sliders, could you give us sliders with which the host can set the upper limit for each basic unit types? (i.e. for infantry, cavalry, and artillery) This way it would be easy to host max 5 cavs, max 4 artillery, etc games.

An other nice feature would be -as suggested by AMP- to indicate the morale of the units on the unit icons. Either with numbers, or with some icons, or with some colour code.

An other suggestion about icons, is that it would be nice if one could tell whether the unit is fighting or just chasing already routed units. Currently both states are indicated with the swords on red background. It would be nice if the background would be different in the case when the unit is chasing an already routed enemy unit. It is important because there are units that you do not want to use for chasing and there are units that you do not want to use for h2h fighting. Currently the only way to tell the difference is to check out each unit one by one, which is very time consuming in the chaos of the battle.

Last but not least, is it possible to make the new factions playable in MP? I mean the Swiss, the Aragonese and the Hungarians 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

Thank you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Cheetah


Quote[/b] ]Here's another list, in order of importance (IMHO):

1. Spears should be stronger against cav. Perhaps an increase/modification of the bonus vs cav? (Current bonus: +1/+4; new bonus +2/+4 or +3/+3?)

2. Archer units should have increased firepower. Not more than 15-20%. (Modeling the composite bow would be nice http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif)

3. Valour increases in battle should be removed from MP.

4. Lancers should either lose a combat point (melee) or go slightly up in price; their speed should also be reduced to the level of Gothic Knights.

5. Horse archers should be roughly equal to normal archers in accuracy. (They can't fire on the gallop anyways.)

6. Byz inf should get a slight price hike. (+25-50 florins?) Not too much, since Byz inf are the strength behind the Byzantines.

7. Handgunners should get a price hike. (MF_Ivan, no one uses them for their shooting ability, but they are very powerful in melee when upgraded.)

8. Arbs should be moved to late era only. Arb and Xbow accuracy should be slightly reduced when compared to archers; X-bows should have a faster reload time than arbs. (from 15 to 12?)

[Cheetah]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Feb. 02 2003,21:37)]Unit cost adjustments:

5) A return of upgrades on ranged units to be the same as non-ranged units. The current discounted rate causes some ranged units to become very strong when upgraded several levels, such as handgunners and janissary infantry to name two. Those two units end up with 14 combat points when upgraded to v4 which is better than most regular hand-to-hand infantry units in a 15k.


IMHO the upgrade cost of ranged units are fine. The only overpowered range unit is the handgunner. Janissary inf is far from overpowered. First, they cost too much to upgrade to v4 in a 15000 florin game (at least I have not seen anyone to use v4 jan.inf.); second, it is the only decent sword unit available to the turks.

[Mithrandir]

I agree with almost all above, and apreciate the option to give some feedback, however I don't agree with the removal of order troops in early.

The way I see it things are nicely balanced in early, removing f.e. teutonic knights,knights Templar &most of all order foot would seriously underpower them to the muslim factions.

Muslims get saracen infantry, which are equal to chiv seargs in early,the byzantines get byz inf (with teutonic,hospitaller &knights templar as nice counters). With the removal of orderfoot, christian factions would have to use feudal seargants, which are nowhere compared to their muslim&byz colleuges.

Then again, I'm not a master of stats, or a good player for that matter. But that's just my look on things.

I'd also like to see the Longbows given a slightly higher range than pav arbs. They're useless as they are right now, at least a waste of unit space which can be better spend with either an exta pav arb,or a good melee unit.

one last thing (bug?) Are Italians supposed to get italian infantry in early? (they get it anyway).

[Brutal DLX]

Hi,

all those suggestions make sense, but there's another thing that just occured to me, I don't get to play MP a lot, but I think right now it isn't possible to buy a better star general for your army, if this were to be allowed, it would give an interesting twist such as do I spend more money on that extra two stars or rather upgrade this unit or buy more of them... a higher star general also gives more morale to units in his vicinity, so that would also help. I think it could be implemented without too much trouble, only the cost for the general upgrade is a major issue as it has to be the exactly right amount of cash per upgrade so as to not unbalance the whole thing...

so, in short,

- add the feature to buy command stars for your general.

(I hope this doesn't exist already and I was just too stupid to see, in that case I beg your pardon & vow to look at that selection screen more the next few times..)

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Kocmoc @ Feb. 03 2003,08:58)]sorry but who fear a pav in high?

missles are just useless, u can easy rush and juts dont notice the missle, we use the missle like old days, but thats more a tradition than a useful action.
Horsearchers? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif


I dont know how missiles and range works..could the "formula" be changed a bit so short range fire will be better than it is now?

CBR

[Aleborg]

Hey, just a couple of things.

Totally agree in upgrade the level of horsearcher. Now are practicaly unusefull and in STW i spent many nice moments with this unit.

I also miss some unit like kensais in STW. It will be nice to have a great knight or something like that.

Same with hassasines, not very useful. Ninjas in STW were very funny so pls try to make them more usefull http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Thx for all, very nice to see u asking here to all of us.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Puzz3D]

Cheetah,

This is a consequence of playing at higher florins. Ask Kenchi_Mo about v4 Jan inf in 15k games. If morale in VI is left the same as it is now, then these are the kind of balance issues you get at 15k:


Handgunner (175 florins) at v4 cost 947 and have 15 combat points and 12 morale.
Jan Inf (350 florins) at v4 cost 1489 and have 14 combat points and 12 morale.
Feudal MAA (175) at v4 cost 1461 and have 15 combat points and 10 morale.
Chiv MAA (250) at v3 cost 1229 and have 14 combat points and 10 morale.

The Jan inf are on a par with non-ranged shock units at v4 and they have the bow which is apparently already better with LJ's adjustments. So, I asked for a retuurn of ranged unit upgrade costs to be the same as non-ranged and the valor upgrade to improve archery accuracy more than it does now. The reduced cost of upgrading ranged units causes the hand-to-hand balance between ranged and non-ranged to shift as you change florins. The game is supposed to have the balance of the low end where 350 florin Jan inf with 6 combat points is 40% more expensive than 250 florin chiv maa with 8 combat points. At high florin the v4 Jan inf is 20% more expensive, has the same combat points and higher morale than the v3 chiv maa. So, the balance shifted.

[Cheetah]

Yuuki,

I see what you mean, but as you pointed out, even at high florins the JI are more expensive than either the CMAA or the FMAA and the FMAA has 1 more combat points. Of course, the JI has a shortbow but IMHO it would be complete waste of florins to use such an expensive troops for ranged duel. That is, I do not think that the bow makes such a big diffirence that would overpower the JI vs CMAA or FMAA. Well, at least I have not seen anyone who was able to exploit the hybrid abilities of JI to full extent. But definitely, I will ask Mo http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif All in all if the JI were upgraded like swordmen then it would be near to useless IMHO. Remeber this is the only sword the turks have.

Well, you might be correct after all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif it depends how much the archers will be improved. If much then it might indeed overpower the JI, but I do not expect too much improvement for the archers and they are not overpowered with the current stats.

[tootee]

Just a question, is the JI belong to the class of archers or infantry?

[Cheetah]

I use them as swordsmen http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif but that they are upgraded like archers. It seems that this is the discrepancy that Yuuki wants to avoid. However, IMHO they are too expensive at v0 (350) in comparison with other swordsmen so actually it is their "archer status" (i.e. lower upgrade cost) which makes them useful.

[Cheetah]

Handgunners are a different story because they have the same cost at v0 as FMAA thus they end up a lot cheaper at v4 than FMAA or CMAA.

[Dionysus9]

Hi Longjohn Byz Inf and Lancers are of most pressing concern, handgunners too (in late).

Arquebusiers in Late should also be toned down a bit. The problem with Handgunners is primarily that their defensive stat is 3, which is sky-high for a missile unit. Arquebues have the same problem. IMO their defense should be dropped to 2.

Handgunners also have the high morale (4) which should probably be dropped to at least 2. Watching Handgunners stop a Lancer charge with a blunderbus and a parrying-dagger (or short-sword) is pretty fantastical.

Cost wise, your guess is as good as mine.

I think BYZ inf need to be at least 225 florins.

Just my 2 cents.

[1dread1lahll]

Hi Longjohn, really good to hear that adjustments are forthcomming, The units you mentioned are the main mailfactors, however if possible ide like to see the adjustments made on the basis of their value; Their are a number of units that are not equil to others even though the same amount of florins is spent on them, in a best case situation units costing the same should be roughly equil....
And plz ditch the Pavise Arbs;.... they are so effective and so cheap that only a general doomed to defeat makes use of the vast number of archer units.....
As for Cav arch, they are fine... I play early era almost excluisively, and use them to a great extent, they are great in early..... they are only rendered useless in high and late (as all missiles) by the Pavise....
Increase the range of the short range missiles units plz..
(napa-javelin-ect) the range is so short as to require too much micromanagement for people to want to use them.
Plz return the gonads to spears units, at least allow them to be effective aginst cav..(all the whinney Ten-year-olds that bitched about their pretty cav general not being able to role over every thing have long departed the game).
Cant belive people want to increase power of archer units, high and late eras are near stagnent cause of Pavise; the vast array of archers units could shine through if this single unit were deleted or moved to late only..(before you counter-bitch people, play early, use a missile other than Pavise and you will see).
And last... just a thanks to the folks at C.A. for asking for our imput...

[Crandaeolon]

Sorry fellas, can't resist chiming in again. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


Quote[/b] ] Increase the range of the short range missiles units plz..
(napa-javelin-ect) the range is so short as to require too much micromanagement for people to want to use them.


Excellent point, lahll. Javelin units would be so much more useful if one could just leave them at skirmish mode; currently the skirmish mode can't be used because of their short missile range. (Naphtha is not as bad since they need to be micromanaged anyway.) I'd propose increasing the javelin's range to 1700 or 1800 and changing missile velocity to match (about 90 would be enough).

Also, as Puzz (or someone else) pointed out, the longbows need their missile velocity increased (to about 160) to fully utilize their range of 6000.

However the things I don't fully agree with...


Quote[/b] ]And plz ditch the Pavise Arbs;.... they are so effective and so cheap that only a general doomed to defeat makes use of the vast number of archer units.....

They don't need ditching, just some adjustments. Lowering arbalest and crossbow accuracy would be my personally preferred solution; I've shot several types of bows and x-bows in RL and IMHO crossbows are not more accurate than bows.

The pavises are actually one of the smallest issues in missile unit balance. Those who play with me know that I almost never take pavise arbs; they are simply not that great compared to normal arbs, and the normal arbs have roles that the pav arbs simply cannot do because of their slow speed. So, the slow movement speed at least partially compensates for the pavise, although a greater difference in price could be warranted. Pav arbs appear cheesy simply because everyone takes them b/c they (somewhat falsely http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif) believe that they are the best missile units.

Cav archers are at their best in Early era, I've lately been playing with a cav-archer army in Early at 6k or 7k florins. Cav-archers are useful against impatient enemies, but if the opponents keep their cool and don't do anything stupid like scattering their army or facing shield-equipped units the wrong way, the cav-archers can't do enough damage. They can weaken some units, but the entire arrow supply of a single HA unit can kill at most about 25% of a typical Early era unit (Feudal MAA, Order Foot, Byz inf) in a real-life battle. Or at least that's the most _I_ have ever managed, real cav-archer pros may be able to do better... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Mithrandir]

Quote[/b] (Mithrandir @ Feb. 03 2003,05:52)]I agree with almost all above, and apreciate the option to give some feedback, however I don't agree with the removal of order troops in early.

The way I see it things are nicely balanced in early, removing f.e. teutonic knights,knights Templar &most of all order foot would seriously underpower them to the muslim factions.

Muslims get saracen infantry, which are equal to chiv seargs in early,the byzantines get byz inf (with teutonic,hospitaller &knights templar as nice counters). With the removal of orderfoot, christian factions would have to use feudal seargants, which are nowhere compared to their muslim&byz colleuges.

Then again, I'm not a master of stats, or a good player for that matter. But that's just my look on things.

I'd also like to see the Longbows given a slightly higher range than pav arbs. They're useless as they are right now, at least a waste of unit space which can be better spend with either an exta pav arb,or a good melee unit.

one last thing (bug?) Are Italians supposed to get italian infantry in early? (they get it anyway).
ah, another thing http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif,

muslim factions get camels, which can beat chiv knights&the like...

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

My 0.02 USD.

Make spear +2/+4 against cav, and increase their moral by +2; that shall make them slightly more effective against cav and somehow prevent early routing. Sword get +1, to keep a morale edge over spear.

MTLG needs some improvement in accuracy. Both MTLG and shortbow needs some better armor modifier if they want to do anything in High/ Late game against heavier troop.

Louis,

[Puzz3D]

The abrs are not what stops a rush. Arbs will generate very few kills in a rushed situation, and, if someone has a lot of arbs, a rush is the correct way to counter them. The static nature of some battles is by choice so that the arbs can use all their ammo. The arb gives the game a ranged aspect. This unit generates about 2 kills per volley at max range every 15 seconds. A cav unit can charge them and suffer only 2 to 4 casualties before engaging. The problem starts once the cav engages because the cheap upgrades for ranged allows arbs and xbows to become so strong in hand-to-hand ability that most cav can't beat them and even the mounted knights such as chiv knight have a tough time. These cheap armor upgrades are also giving pav arbs more of an edge over archers since they become impervious to arrows at v0w0a3. Moving pav arbs to late will certainly help archers in high era, but the advantage in range of arbs is a big advantage since you can shoot without receiving any return fire and that's just a fact there is no way around unless you make the range the same on all units. In early, archers don't have to contend with arbs, but archers are so weak that you don't need any archers at all. You can take all hand-to-hand infantry and cav and do fine.

I'd like to see these cheap upgrades on ranged removed, and some way of playing low florin games with better morale be put in place. Of course, the safest thing to do is take the game as it's now played at about 15k florins and make a few cost adjustment on the units that everyone sees as unbalanced and improve archery a bit. If that's what will be done, then I'd like to see +2 morale on spears. They run away too easily now even in 15k games and you can't upgrade them much to increase their morale because they are relatively expensive.

[Swoosh So]

Id like to see hold formation actually hold formation, its a joke the way spears wheel around, If u want to kill a spear unit just hit it with 1/4 of your unit and it will wheel around exposing its flank dolt thats one of their major weaknesses (u must have spotted that 1 peeps), Also id like to see cav strength reduced, i wouldent get too set in your ways about the cav longjohn, alot of players believe they are over powered, even with some bonuses taken out they would still be strong, If a cav unit charges a pike unit and makes contact, it should break fast Im not keen on spears being the most powerfull v cav, after all it was pikes that stopped h cav not spears Also the cav archer need abit of tweaking though i cant see whats wrong with arbalisters at all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


Oh and if you reduce the byzantine troops abilities or cost without reducing cav you will make the byzantines absolutely usless (i can garuantee it) Think closely b4 u do this please as the byzantines have hardly any anti cav just poor spearmen who cant resist the charge of cav

[Kongamato]

The long reload times of Arbalests and Crossbows have made me want a better idea of when they can fire. They are sometimes irregular and inconsistent in their firing, but I would like to know when they are reloaded and ready to fire. Could they be given the same reload notifications as siege weapons? Easy-to-do timed volleys would add lots to the game.

[FasT]

why not just get rid of armour and weapon upgrades for MP??
And concentrate on balancing units..without them????

I like to see that....... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[longjohn2]

I rather agree with you Fast :-), but they're there because people asked for them, and they're not going to get taken out at this late stage.

Thanks for your continued input everyone, sadly I only have time for a few small tweaks, so you can all rest assured that I'm not going to be doing too drastic, but hopefully they'll be a number of small steps in the right direction.

[FasT]

ok NP but @ least we maybe movin in the right direction i guess...........
Is VI gunna get 5 patches? or 1???? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[1dread1lahll]

Ill agree with fast... upgrades only tend to create imbalance, maybe down the road they can come out....
Cant agree with Puzz on the valor upgrades on missiles; archers get the same discount (people tend to take low valor missiles anyway) as pavs, and pavs still too effective,.... slowing down there reload rate just means they will have ammo longer, reduce there range is good... but they are still too effective vs other missiles, bumping to late period would be fine with me..then I could stop crying when when my ally tells me cheerfully "Dont worry, I've got Longbows"

[Puzz3D]

If we could play at 5k florins without morale so low that most of your time is spent trying to rally units, then the upgrades wouldn't be an issue because you couldn't afford many upgrades. A high degree of routing also makes fatigue more of an issue because units tire fast when they are routing. I see the rational of applying the upgrade cost of ranged units to only that portion of their base cost that represents their hand-to-hand combat and morale, but doesn't that impact the rock, paper, scissors design by allowing ranged units to become hand-to-hand units when upgraded enough? It seems the arbalester is the only ranged unit that can maintain it's usefulness as a ranged unit in high florin games because total kills become more important as morale goes up, and that's the only ranged unit which can get high total kills. It takes a long time to get those high kills, and it's easy to end up with very few kills with them in a quick attack situation. If you knock down the arbs a lot, then you'll end up with an online game that has essentially no ranged aspect unless the players simply agree to each take a certain number of ranged units.

I believe the fact that pav arbs beat archers is intended to show the progression of technology. Moving the pav arbs to late will help archers in high, but they are still probably not going to beat regular arbs. The longbow would probably be able to beat them or at least weaken them so much that they become ineffective, but that speed parameter problem that is not allowing longbows to shoot their full range should be fixed.

Playing at lower florins makes the base cost difference between units become more of a factor. So, you'll get better compensation in terms of better hand-to-hand units if you have the lesser type of ranged units. Also, the -2 morale from taking casualties from a bow weapon is more likely to trigger a rout at low morale. However, as much as the group I play with has tried to play at 5k florins, they find the gameplay less enjoyable than at higher morale. At higher morale the cavalry is toned down a bit relative to infantry, and units can be utilized a little more independently. I don't think anything confuses newbies more than low morale because they can't figure out why their units and even their whole army runs away so easily. Isn't it the newbies who mostly play at 99,999 florins, and the vets who are supposed to be playing at 5k, but most of the vets I know don't like 5k games.

[TosaInu]

I play Totalwar games since the alpa demo for shogun was released in January 2000. I did make a few 'historical' battles, and the only available thing was morale.

When I purchased the game in May/June 2000, I found armor and weaponupgrades too. I thought: I can upgrade a units willingness to fight and endure stress (morale), I can increase their fighting (weapon) and I can improve their armor.

But those upgrades were not available in custom battles. Being an 'advanced newbie' with the settled idea that honorupgrades only affected morale and that an upgraded ashigaru would still be choped by a monk, be it that he would endure better, never thought of pitting a H9 ashigaru against a H0 monk. I was also under the impression that a weaponupgrade improved a units specialty (ie better spear vs cav for the yarisamurai, a stronger bow, or better arrowheads for archers).

The weapon and armor upgrades were also not present in online games (I started somewhere autumn 2000). Erado was doing one of the Question Times, so I for one issued the request to include those upgrades.

I was utterly shocked when I saw yariashigaru eating my nodachi and anything else that moved. Does honor have so much impact?

I gradually discovered, that the Honorupgrades not only increased morale, but also increased the basic hand to hand fighting of any unit. A weapon upgrade for the archer didn't give a better bow or arrows.

Increasing of morale on the battlefield does make sense if the unit does well, increasing his fighting skills (certainly not the amount we have now) does not.

There should be 3 upgrades for a unit:
-morale, more means you can endure stress better and fight longer, but not better.
-weapon. This depends on what kind of unit you are. It's either a better weapon or a better technique to wield it. A swordsman gets a stronger sword, being able to pierce armor or wield it faster, increasing his melee. A pikeman learns a trick to effectively stop cavalry and kill the horse. An archer becomes a marksman, gets a stronger bow or shoots faster. You won't get units performing tasks they never could.
-armor. Protects against missiles and against meleeweapons in hth, like it is now.

A unit with morale fights, but hardly kills. A unit with skill can kill but refuses to fight (that is already true: try a honor -12 nodachi with 20 melee and 20 defense against a few standard H2 ashis). These are the extremes, there are many possible combinations that will result in a good performing unit for a given situation.

Add to that a host settings menu that includes which upgrades can and can't be purchased and how many, and groups of players can adjust the balancing immediately to their own liking and needs. A game like Unrealtournament allows mods to be made, but it also includes loads of built in configurations/mutators available for the host and anyone can use it: gamespeed 10-200%, friendly fire on/off, instagib, sniper/rocket arena, special power ups available or not. If you miss a custom file, the server just uploads it to your computer. A real mod lives peacefully together with the default game, waiting to be loaded.

What online players, and offline players too, really need is the ease to play something different. The 'default' in STW was 6k, it increased to 10k in WE, in MTW it's 15k. That is because morale is getting worse. The morale off boosts morale with +12. The majority doesn't like this either. Not to mention the cumbersome logging out to enter Options to change it. Playing at high koku/florins just to get better morale to be at least able to stay on the field unlocks other problems: pumped yariashigaru and nodachi in 10k STW WE games rendering warriormonks useless, lots of lancers, knights, pumped ByzInf and cavalry withstanding arbalesters in 15 k MTW.

[Swoosh So]

Why not include an upgrades on/off option ? Options make a game more varied and can help to please all.



Swooooooooooosh

[TosaInu]

Yes Swoosh, host settings menu contains that together with speed- morale- fatigue and ammo sliders (or better input boxes), performance options, restricted camera, gametype (advanced 16v16 teamgames, 4 team games, reinforcement game -mapbugs in STW already enabled a kind of reinforcement game) auto upload of missing files on/off, rushtax settings (1-16 units and how severe), toggling units off (no gunpowder in late), disabling factions, battleawards on/off, which stat (select one like you can select maps). Of course a CA preset to help new players and a save profile for the experienced goup of players to enhance fast setting up.

[Swoosh So]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Lol i cant tell if your serious or not tosa http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif must still be toearly for me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[TosaInu]

What do you mean with serious Swoosh?

[Swoosh So]

Being sarcastic or being serious http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif The 16 v 16 team game bit threw me

[youssof_Toda]

It would indeed be nice if we have the ability to tweak our games like you suggest here. This was we can modify our games to our own liking, most likely the majority of the comm will reach an agreement on what nice settings are over time.

[TosaInu]

I'm not sarcastic Swoosh.

What I meant with the 16v16 game is an 'advanced' teamgame.

16 players in one team, 16 in the other. 15 players in a team control 1 unit and can only see what that unit can see when restricted camera is used. The 16th player is the general unit and, together with being a unit himself, can jump from camera to camera (like clicking on a unit card does now) to get the whole picture in order to coordinate.

This would allow optimal micromanagement of each unit, and will require team coordination (first person shooters have up to 32 v 32 teamgames, same idea). A normal game has 8*16 units max, this has 32 units. Expanding it to 32v32 or 2-4 units each doesn't sound impossible: a nice extra setting for the host menu. One could also allow a reinforcement system (like respawn, a common optional thing in FPS). Again, nice for the host to set (0-6 reinforcements).

This adds, ihmo, a more interesting gametype than the half the enemy one we had in MI.

Indeed Youssof, there will be lots of possibilities, and chance is that each individual player has to make concessions about what he really likes/go with 2nd choices. But there will be an agreement about what types of/tweaked games are nice to play. Maybe 3 out of 100 possibilities will become 'mainstream'. Though one could easily switch to any of the 97 other possibilities when bored with the 3, or loopholes pop up (no waiting for official patches, not really for gamebalancing anyway). And it would be easy to set up, since one doesn't have to install mods (a serious problem for some people).

But I'ld like to see improvements there too. Unreal Tournament (together with parts of Quake 3) is a very nice example here. UT has an easy to use, extended and ingame, out of the box, configuration and Mutator (mini mods) menu (that would be the host settings menu). And easily allows to put in user made stuff (other Mutators or full mods). No swapping and backing up, just install it once and you can both use the default and/or the custom stuff. It also has a (optional) file upload from the gameserver if a user doesn't have the files.

I'm making a 'large' step here (though not inovating), and it's not realistic to expect all of it to become implemented. But many of the mentioned stuff is already there, in every title of the Totalwar series. But not in a useful way. Take the moraleslider for example. It's only one setting, going from one extreme to the other, and one has to log out of gamespy to change it (I dare say that 75% of the serious problems we have in MTW is due to how we try to bypass the terrible low morale, we hardly have another option to fix that). Same goes for fatigue and ammo. Gamespeed was available in all STW titles (never got it to work in multi) but all that could be done is making the game faster.

[Nobunaga0611]

I can't take any more reading before I can post, so please forgive me if what i've said has been said already, as I don't know. I don't think the pav arb range should be reduced. Move the Pav Arb to late, yes, but I was thinking you could keep the regular arb in the high era. I agree with making the cav archer a bit more powerful, as they're fun to use. But making them have just as much range as all other missle units, and increasing their effectiveness makes them kind of a necessity to have, much like the Pav. Arb. is now, which I really don't like. So the solution? Play Early era games. But what happens then? Too many people take the Byz and run over you, just because you REFUSE to take them. So yes, increase price of Byz Inf. like others have said. Just very small changes though.
I think that increasing the effectiveness of the Horse Archer while keeping the range of the arb is a good idea, as then the H.A. would have a counter. After all, one of the most fun things about Horse Archers is the ability to maneuver it into a position where it can strike and get out of harms way when your opponent actually notices they're there. Taking out the morale upgrades while in game is good as well. Because in low florin games the power of cav is increased even more than they already are. If a unit can upgrade while in battle, then low valour cav become very dangerous, as they can upgrade and become even more deadly to your infantry that aren't upgraded.

The question I have, and maybe this isn't the right place, but why is it that these in game valour upgrades usually only happen to infantry units that have been hit rather hard, whereas units that stay almost full don't get a valour upgrade? I mean, I've had units that take less losses that get more KILLS, not just captures, but kills, than a unit that is upgraded in game, and the unit with more kills doesn't upgrade. The unit that has been reduced from say 60 to 25 does though. I guess you could argue that the troops that were better anyways are the only ones that are still around, but this doesn't equate to how valour upgrades are done with cav, if you see what I mean.

Basically, valour upgrades in game are bad.

[longjohn2]

Well I've pretty much done what Nobanaga0611 said, plus a few of the other little tweaks I mentioned.

I think I'll up the morale by 2 points for MP. Hopefully that'll be a reasonable comprise that'll still allow people to play games where morale is a major concern, but reeduce the amount of upgrading needed for people who like their guys to stick around and slug it out.

Oh, the reason that full units seldom get valour upgrades, is that the unit valour is the average of the soldier valour, so for a full unit to get a valour increase, it needs to get enough kills for every man in the unit to increase in valour. Cavalry can get cheap kills by pursuing, but generally for infantry to get a lot of kills, they need to see some serious action, which means a lot them get killed too.

[Puzz3D]

Sounds good LongJohn. I think the +2 morale will allow 10k florin/player games where morale factors and kills are of about equal importance, and flanking is a very strong tactical element. Playing at this level will also remove the prospect of ranged units becoming the equal of non-ranged units in hth ability by way of their discounted upgrades. Thanks for compromising on this point.

[Orda Khan]

Some nice ideas there Tosa. I like to have an historic feel to battles. It is sad that there are so many things about MTW that can spoil game enjoyment. The idea of teamplay where by each member controls part of the whole has always appealed to me...imagine a 4v4 where there are just two armies....but these are two 64 unit armies

......Orda

[Monsta]

Some excellent views..but sadly will it be a case of

'the oceans waves hitting the sea wall'....

thousands of years before you even dent the surface...let alone make a change that seems correct....

for some reason...

since STW our views have often fell on deaf ears.or seem to have.....

but this new found listnening ear of CA could be what we need...aslong as we dont get the.

"oh sorry cannot help you we are making a new game...heres have some hype to mke the pain go away ...oh btw can we have your money now"

[Monsta]

And he posts a reply before i manage to make mine...damn Monsta thought his 'ocean' quote was nice aswell....

btw..Puzzy...your the man..did i ever tell you that...go on fella with ya %... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[econ21]

I'm probably coming too late to this thread and taking things a little off topic, I'd like to make a belated plug for the period limits on missile units in SP to be tweaked to better match the history. I think this means the plain crossbow should be early (King Rufus was killed by one in 1100; the church vainly tried to ban them in 1139); the arbalest should late (it required the development of steel manufacturing in the late 14th century; also arbalest's performance should fall off in rain - the strings were not metal). It's not a big deal, but if the dates are up for review, it's one thing for CA to consider.

[Puzz3D]

Simon Appleton,

Crossbows available in early era was requested earlier in this thread.

[econ21]

Puzz3D, sorry for the repetition but it seems like what has been agreed is pavise arbalesters in late in multiplayer. I just think the history implies crossbows early; arbalesters late for the whole game. I'm open to correction, but that's how I understand things.

[Puzz3D]

Simon Appleton,

The requests in this thread are not being made for historical accuracy reasons. They are being made to try to address MP balance. If you move both arb types to late era, then you have a rush game in high era just like you do now in early era. Crossbows to early won't cause any imbalance problems there, and if it's more historically accurate that's fine. All the arbs could go to late if archers and xbows worked a little better, and the early era gameplay would be improved as well.

[Orda Khan]

Well I side with the church.....Ban cross bows and arbs. These were weapons chosen by those who were unable to develop the skill to use a worthy weapon. As you so correctly stated Simon, these weapons were useless in the rain. They were also extremely ( where arbs are concerned ) cumbersome and very slow to reload. There were many different designs and reloading required all sorts of additional hardware such as rachets and pulleys. For this reason mainly the pavise arbalester was more often a mercenary soldier. 30 bolts during the course of a battle would have been considered a good day.
As to the game, there are ways of sorting out the range unit mess that CA has made but do we honestly think they will bother?
There are too many things about MTW that are not right...try Arqs. How come these and Naptha throwers are rendered hopeless by rain yet the arbs keep plugging away.
Personally I will wait until the release of Rome, I'll read the Forums and see what's being said, I definitely will never pre order again. If there are stupid issues like the ones with MTW then I think I'll call it a day.
Anyone who thinks this is an MP game is very mistaken, one visit to that sad awful Gamespy Foyer will show you that MP was an after thought
I know what you are saying about rush games Puzz but don't you agree that arbs can also be rushed or that if bows could kill in this game we would see less rushing? Let's be honest you could ignore most range units if you wanted to

.......Orda

[Alastair II]

Orda, if you hate the game so much, then why are you playing it and posting in forums about it? Also, why do you insist on talking about historical accuracy when it's been expressly stated THE POST BEFORE YOURS that the requests are NOT being made for historical accuracy reasons (I could ramble to you for ages about how historically inaccurate the game is)?

[Orda Khan]

Well Alastair you have certainly deduced a lot about me from a few words haven't you?
Try as I might I cannot find the reference I made about hating this game?? I have mentioned a couple of issues within the game, ie the foyer and the inconsistency of range weapons affected by rain. These are issues that should have been solved before the release of the game as far as I am concerened. Take a little meander through the posts in Apothecary and see how many gripes you find there. There are many, do you intend to attack all of these people because they voice their frustrations?

I mentioned that range could be sorted and I believe it could. A good move would be to make arrows more effective but I still stick by my statement that we won't get much more. There was no work going into STW/MI during MTW so with Rome on the way I believe all efforts will be directed there.

I used the description and mechanics of the Arbalest to make a point about its ineffectiveness. Would you agree it is the strongest range unit in the game?
I don't think it should be and if that means because of historical accuracy then so be it. I ask you....all the posts about weak spears and strong cav, what was the argument there if not historical accuracy?

As for the MP foyer and the relogging, restarting, etc etc Does it seem like a forward step from MI? I don't think so

I pre ordered MTW on the strength of MI. I will not pre order RTW on the strength of this

So please, stop jumping to conclusions and don't flame me with unsubstantiated claims. When a post begins the way yours did it becomes a personal attack

........Orda

[Alastair II]

Orda, I apologize if I seemed irrational and angry, but I do believe I have a point. In nearly every post I have seen of yours you have lauded MI and trashed MTW; this is why I think that you should go back to playing the former.

With the inconsistency of ranged weapons in rain, try to look at the rain weapons from the perspective of balance. Personally I believe that the arbalest and the pav arbalest is fine as it is, since it provides a ranged weapon for High and Late that has an impact on the game. I think that since guns in MI (or was it STW?) were so powerful, it is right for guns to be affected by rain, since they not only have the killing power, but also have a morale effect. This, I think, is not a 'problem' that should have been 'solved' before the release; rather, it is a balancing debate that is yet to be decided.

Similarly, on the topic of range sorting: if you believe it won't be changed, then why are you pointing out that it would be a good move to make?

I would agree that it is the strongest range unit in the game, and rightly so. Again, from the perspective of balance, it provides a powerful, cost-effective ranged unit, which is not the case with most other ranged weapons. As to its historical inaccuracy, frankly, I don't give a damn. The _given_ justification for strong cav and weak spears was that it was historically accurate; personally I don't believe that for a second. I believe that the devs were attempting to rebalance a situation in which spears were dominant and cav wasn't worth it, and they went a little overboard.

I personally didn't play MP MI, but I don't mind the relogging business too much. I have been able to progress rapidly in MP without much trouble, since I put enough energy into each battle that I need a little rest in between, provided by the relog process.

Again, I apologize for my previous irrationality, but still, I do believe that you are complaining a bit much to be posting outside of the Apothecary. And I don't blame those people in the Apothecary; those people are trying to report problems and find solutions. You, as far as I can tell, are simply trying to give the devs a hard time for producing the best RTS in history.

[+DOC+]

Hi all,

Seeing as this is all being brought up again with the imminent release of VI, i'd thought i'd voice my opinions. I'll keep them brief: http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

1. Must stress that Archers/horse archers need a general improvement, even from a SP perspective. I currently have them with a little 0.05 increase to accuracy and 0.07 increase to lethality and armour piercing set to 0.75. This seems to help combat the increased armour levels to be found in MTW. Longbows got the same to their accuracy and lethality.

Arbs range lower than longbows, e.g. 5500, I was always under the impression that xbows/arbs were better for short range and bows better for range?

Either that or increase the amount of friendly kills by low trajectory weapons like the xbow and arb when firing through units.

All bow archer types should be given more ammo, i play with 32 and that seems about right.

What about loading as they move, or firing immediately options for missile troops?

2. The guns guys are simply awful with their guns. Although i do appreciate the unbalanced handgunners in hth. Increased range and accuracy much needed.

3, Likewise some problems do arise with skirmishing and javelin throwers and naptha bombers, whereby they always skirmish before they throw? Maybe increasing their range might help.

3. Agree that xbows should be in early, pav xbows and arbs in high and pav arbs in late.

4. Lancers more expensive, or slower like the Gothic Knights.

5. Like the +2 morale.

6. Lessen the amount of rain lol http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Orda Khan]

And I repeat what I said earlier about you and your personal attack. Lol you are doing it again. What a strange person you are. I can only assume that English is not your first language as you don't seem to have much grasp of it.

I refer to your statement....
'If you believe it won't be changed, then why are you pointing out that it would be a good move to make?'

Sorry you've totally lost me.

I would go on but to be honest somebody who throws out an apology then follows up with another insult did not mean to apologise in the first place. You really are not worth the effort.

.......Orda

[+DOC+]

Oh and i also believe that the reload times of Xbows and Arbs should be lowered from 15 each to 9/12 respectively.

And gunners should be lowered way down from 30 to say 20?

e.g. here's what i currently use:

Name, Accuracy, Lethality, Range, Armour Mod, Reload Time, Shoot Immediated, Reload Moving
longbow, 0.65, 0.85, 6000, 0.5, 4, n, n
shortbow, 0.65, 0.7, 5000, 0.75, 4, n, n
mountedlongbow, 0.55, 0.7, 5000, 0.75, 4, n, y
arquebus, 0.15, 4, 4500, 0.015, 20, y, y
handgun, 0.1, 4, 2500, 0.015, 20, y, y
javelin, 0.2, 2, 1800, 0.3, 3, y, y
grenade, 0.03, 10, 1600, 0, 6, y, y
crossbow, 0.7, 1, 5000, 0.4, 9, y, n
arbalest, 0.75, 1.25, 5500, 0.3, 12, y, n

[Magyar Khan]

I dont see why lancers needed to be downgradedm they are easy to beat

Archers are fine and dont need to be upgraded, they are usefull and do kill enemy troops

Horsearchers are usefull as well

The morale system is very nice as it is now, units on hold formation and hold post with teh encessarry key combos hold long enough

so please dont chance anything from teh game, the game is brilliant as it is now..... plz...

[Dionysus9]

Quote[/b] (Magyar Khan @ Feb. 19 2003,13:57)]so please dont chance anything from teh game, the game is brilliant as it is now..... plz...
What? Is this really our Khan? Has someone hacked his EZboard account?

hm.....and only a single 'teh'....

and nothing but praise for the game??
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Armageddon surely is at hand.

[Puzz3D]

Orda,

Are you suggesting to ban xbows and arbs? They are not present in early era, so you can get away from them there. The archers won't get much more because LongJohn is concerned about unbalancing the SP game. I suspect that the window for suggestions is closed now anyway.

I personally feel it's better for the gameplay to have ranged units kill slowly and thereby be rushable. Arbs are very rushable. It's the inf standing behind the arbs that deters the rush. The ranged battle ensues because of the reluctance to attack.

If you play MP with no rules, then it's simply a quest to find out what works and what doesn't. That's how I approach the game. I think it's the fact that you can handle a rush with less than 16 hth units that allows you to take ranged units. If the opponent can't successfully rush with 16 hth units, then he has to take ranged units as well as long as those ranged units can kill a whole or nearly a whole enemy unit. The arb is the only ranged unit that can do that. I believe that's why the 4 pav arb armies have evolved in MTW. If the ranged units were made strong enough to stop a rush army, then the game turns into "projectile wars". I had quite enough of that in WE/MI.

A second way to play is with rules governing unit choice. You could easily make a rule for high era such as no arbs and 4 archer minimum. That would keep the game balanced by excluding a 16 unit rush army from overwhelming an army containing a few archer units. A third way to play is with a custom stat, although opponents will be limited to those willing to use the custom stat.

[Magyar Khan]

I see no reason in banning any unit from the game, some people suggest chances that benefit solely themselves.... no kepe the game as it is. I think its very good. Itsbetter than Warcraft 3 at teh moment and adding depth might alter this. SO a definitiv no to any chance. Longjohn is highly capable of making his own decisions. Its their game... dont buy it if u dont like it.
Horsearchery and archery in general was very weak in teh medieval era. No battle was won with it. The game is highly accurate and fun. It focus highly on tactics, clicking and unitselections aint important. Read a book of Sun Tzu first before u get online.

[Crandaeolon]

It's most likely sarcasm. It _must_ be sarcasm. Yes, it IS sarcasm. ... I hope?

Though... I'm currently working in Hell during the daytime and this odd cold wave down here does bother me a little. Hmm, let's see the forecast...

"Occasional Showers of Rusty Nails, Swarms of Nasty Biting Insects, Acidic Poison Fog (Heavy), and an Invasion of Bloodthirsty Barbarians."

Hmm, could there be a connection with the last one? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Magyar Khan]

Every day i play MTW online it gets better.... man teh game is brilliant. I would like to met teh programmer he must be brilliant.

Projectile wars, i had enuf of them either. i see no use in building up tensions during a game. We live in a fast society, deploy and bash. We hate sweeping teh floor at home but w elike to sweep teh battlefield with long lines. and imo thats goood.

[Tempiic]

Right... you are scaring me

[Spino]

I completely disagree with the current system that allows Arbalesters to be built or bought in High era SP and MP games. Steel based heavy crossbows were the pinnacle of crossbow design and did not see widespread usage until the 14th and 15th centuries. Arbalesters are very effective versus the heavily armored units of the Late era and quite murderous against high value armored units from the Early and High eras. While effective measures can be used against these types of missile troops in MP games their premature introduction in SP games seriously unbalances the arms race. Arbalesters should not be available until the Late era.

Furthermore the use of the Pavise Crossbow and Pavise Arbalester units should also be limited to the Late era. Historically there is little evidence to support the widespread usage of the pavise by missile troops prior to the 14th century. I fail to see how the anachronistic inclusion of the Pavise in the High era can make for a better gaming experience in SP or MP games.

Historically speaking crossbows may have seen considerable action as early as 1000-1100 but I feel for the sake of game balance that these units should not be made available until the High era.

[Magyar Khan]

historical play MUST prevail over historical gameplay. therefor i consider arba in every period u just pointed out. arbas are easy to beat with archers. so i dont see awhy people have problems with them. imo arbas are very well done by teh developers.

[FasT]

historical play MUST prevail over historical gameplay

yes i agree.......

[Alastair II]

You're scaring me too... what's the diff b/w historical gameplay and historical play? And WTF about archers beating arbs? In sum, HUH??

[Magyar Khan]

u dont know how to beat arbs with archers?

[baz]

TW games being based on different periods during mankinds history is an advantage because it is topic that will obviously generate interest in many of us (hence the popularity of TW), but it unfortunately has draw backs because history cannot be changed (debateable http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif) and therefore this fact brings us restrictions onto the gameplay of the title .. not until TW make a game that is not based on a historical event will they make a game that really concentrates on gameplay imo http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif as the growth of internet gaming continues maybe we can dream of a day when Developers start bringing out games (or game x-pacs) that are specifically for MP http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif just a quick thought

[Alastair II]

No, Maggy, I don't know how to beat arbs w/ archers. Will you teach me? And are u talking about pav arbs or just plain arbs?

[Fairlight]

Quote[/b] (Kongamato @ Feb. 01 2003,22:58)]Given any thought to adding more morale changers, like Encouraged by the General or Dismayed by Destruction of Army?
"Disheartened by tasteless fat-free cafe mochas after lunch"

"Encouraged by sight of pretty trees that mysteriously turn as you go around them so that you always see the same side."

"UNCERTAIN: Horses not given sugarcube treats this morning."

"WAVERING: Unit leader broke a nail; standard bearer thinks he looks fat in new tunic."

[Magyar Khan]

Alastair i was just cynical. its hard to find any concensus about anything in this community so after aperiod of trying to explain whats wrong with the game i gave up doing this and just go with the flow until others see the light as well.

[theKyl]

I never played Shogun but from what I heard it was almost perfectly balanced. In MTW you need first need a good setup to win. The tactics are only secondary. But for tactical battles the CWB was created and because of the many similarities between the armies the players use it focuses more on tactics.

I still don't get the ideas of the CA.

Well, they want to make a game that is supposed to be played mostly by SP's. But I really don't get how fine graphics (Rome), historical battles or situations could interfere with a balanced gameplay. At least it's not much more work for them, they have to create some sort of unitstats anyway.

Can someone please enlighten me about the ideas of the CA guys???

[Magyar Khan]

the ideas of the low node developer to satisfy his boss and put his creativity into his work. these developers have no access to this forum during worktime

the boss must make money and listen to the producers

the producers wants to make big money and do what they learned at school about marketing

and so on.... and mp is 5% of their interests

[CeltiberoSkullXIII]

I agree with magy, though, i m a lot of tiem out of the ORG, magy is one of the players who "gave" his daily life, or better sayed, sacrificed it, for this game.

He made a lot for this community too, he was many times misunderstood and not heared. And he was often right with what he means.

Out about being a great player is a nice "excentric" person, http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif , and u all dont have to forget we are at last the customers and like customers we r KINGS. SO if this game get's better its not because are moaning for it or paying to develpers to do it, its because WE EARN IT.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif be happy

AND GOD BLESS THE INNOCENT PEOPLE IN IRAK

[CeltiberoSkullXIII]

About the origin of the post:

* What about the RELOG problem, reloging after each battle is boring, sometimes getting log on error

* Scroll Bar bug , will be repaired?

* UP SCROLL / DOWN SCROLL icons in unit selection window, maybe not showed when not a lot of units there, but they still work invisible. Funny eh? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

* What about server speed and performance?

About Units:

* I hope u think aobut RUSSIANS, since i love this faction, and they dont have good units out of a weak cav and cool boyars. but the infatery sux.

About the other units, im not an expert so i let the thema to my friends here.

cya all
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

CeltiberoSkullXIII

[Vinsitor]

I'd like to see ranged units made by 80 men instead of 60 (x-bows, arbs, arcs, arqs, l-bows, ecc).

[Vinsitor]

Another suggestion could be to make some difference between Order Foot Soldiers and Italian Infantry to make Ita Inf more useful (morale, melee, I don't know).

I agree about early x-bows, late pav-arbs, longer rate l-bows, cheaper spears, more effective halbardies, billmen and pikemen against cav, ecc.

[Kocmoc]

imo there should be units wich can hold 3 or 4 or maybe more units in a frontal fight, they dont kill many of the enemy, but they can hold.....for a time...


i just let all info, jsut this where puzzt did replay is still there....


no ideas from me again


koc

[Tempiic]

Could someone explain to me this seemingly paradox...

Vets do not like playing higher florin games since that lessens morale too much, yet they do complain about, well lots of things, but it seems it can be brought back to a too big influence morale has...

[Puzz3D]

Tempiic,

I think the paradox results because some people have a preconceived idea about how the battles should work. To me MTW is harder than STW, flanking is important, unit matchups are important, fatigue is important, unit facing is important and morale support is important. Why on earth should 3 or 4 units be able to hold off 12 units? Rushes can be stopped cold in this game, but you can't ignore concentration of force by your opponent. You have to respond to concentration of force, and it is possible to do it and still leave 1 or 2 units free to flank in 15K battles with more than enough time to carry out the flanking maneuver. As you go above 15k florins you get more time to carry out the flanking, but unit matchups gradually become more important as the game shifts from one of maneuver to one of fighting. At 25k, units can operate more independently and you can spread your formation out more than you can at 15k which requires a lot of army cohesion. At 10K or lower, big MTW games can be won with nothing more than quick double teaming just like in 5K STW battles, although, you have to be a little more careful due to the higher fatigue in MTW.

Spear units took a big hit in MTW v1.1, and they are now very difficult to use in 15k games since you can't afford to give them the kind of upgrades they really need. Archers are somewhat weak with their ranged weapon, and you have to use the upgrade discounts to get more out of them in the hand-to-hand fighting.

[Tempiic]

Mmmm hmmm i am slowly developing that view too roughly.... only that flanking and thus manouvring remains vital in 20K-25K too...

just that kocmoc's hmmm complaints kinda dunno... made me wonder for a bit...

Thanks yuukster http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Puzz3D]

Tempiic,

Yes that's true that flanking is still important at 25k. The difference between 15K and 25K is only +2 morale on average. So, the shift from a positional game to more of a fighting game is not black and white, but it is noticable. I would say that 15k games are mostly positional, but, even so, I know I do better in them if I pay attention to making good unit matchups. The only time I feel confident about disregarding unit matchups at 15k is when I am attacking into the flank of an enemy army. Also, cav is somewhat less effective in 25k games, so players who feel that cav is overpowered might find 25k more to their liking. Holding some units in reserve is also more effective tactic at 25k, since your front line units can hang on longer.

However, I think the popularity of 15k with most vets is due to the difficulty of mastering the morale factors. Morale makes the game more challenging as long as it's not taken so far that the battles are always won simply by fast mouse clicking without any concern for unit matchups. If I had my preference, I'd play at 25K, but most of the players I know like 15k. As long as you incorporate both flanking and matchups in your playing style, I think you can do well over the entire 15k - 25k range.

[Tempiic]

Mmmm hmmm im aiming to play in that florin range http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[MK_HenryV]

Just a couple of points:

Although I agree with Magyar about the importance of CavalryArchers, this is of very little assistance if, like me, you play with the English. As a personal favour, hehe, I would really appreciate it if, when you improve the archers, you could make the longbowmen EVEN BETTER, they are currently a bit weak.

Otherwise, major problems I can see:

* The fact that you can accidentally deploy when you are meaning to chat - (I know thats not unit selection, but its damn annoying)

* The fact that when players quit who haven't routed you have to spend 30mins finding their damn troops.

* Otherwise, agree with the Byz Inf and Lancers comments and generally those made about cav v spear. Spear need to be better v cavalry, but I wouldn't change cav, just make the spear better - esp Billmen (lol)

[RTKLamorak]

As was said some time ago the window of opportunity to suggest changes has probably past but i just wanted to resond to TheKyl's remark about MI. Although unofficial mod 1.03 brought some real balance to the game, the last official patch 1.02 was anything but balanced.
in MTW games,except for no arty i dont really every see any rules in mtw games. Although uber units like lancer/byz inf are irritating they can be overcome without to much difficulty.
Pretty much every game i ever played in MI there were rules, due to some (imo) very unbalanced units. the legendary peasant warriors in MI were almost laughable. i remember a competitive game where i faced 16 pumped up ashigaru. if you are expecting this (player whose done it before), or after several times it happening u figure ways to try to beat this but for many times they just walked right thru my balanced army. Peasants could beat ANY unit in the game hand to hand for the same koku level. Muskets were also to strong, and, as yukki said in another thread in MI a battle could be won purely using range units, which is not the case in mtw.
The increased unit cost after using more than 4 of one unit has help ofset quite the same tactics as the "ashi rush", but mtw still (obviously) remains in need of balancing. I havent really entered the balancing debate but just wanted to say to TheKyl that MI was far from balanced, there were probably more ways to win "unfairly" in MI than mtw imo. i havent included issues like "moral circles" in this discussion, which many honourable vets have talked againest in mtw because i am merely focusing on the unit selection side of both games. its not like CA had it right in MI then messed up in this game neither are/were properly balanced. Of course when 1.03 came out this changed considerably, with MI almost perfectly balanced however, as with all unofficial mods/patches not enough people took to the new stats. Although almost all the major flaws were fixed it seems most people liked these imbalnces as they exploited them themselves and did not, and still dont have v 1.03 as standard. i went into MI foyer the other day and noone at all uses the stats http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif. During my whole TW career i must have played mabye 3-5 v 1.03 games because so few people are willing to change their style of play. i enjoy 1.02 of course (as all do) but it suprises me that so few have taken the opportunity to almost perfectly balance the game. so.... if, whether CA or the community brought out near-perfect stats for mtw (not a patch because, as was said in thread cant change to much in mp coz of sp imbalances then) would people actually play them?? Now people are accustomed to the style of mtw play, and all the unit exploitations i dont think people would accept them.
an example of this is someone (wont name him) that is so used to being high calibre at MI that he says openly that he wont play mtw (owns the game) because he loses (not quite those words but no doubt about y)), and refuses to put in effort to learn new style of play. hed rather hide behind his musks and ashi whooping noobs that come into lobby in MI. one of the few times i saw him in mtw i hosted 1v1 called "1v1" and he joined, saw me and left saying he didnt want to lose lol. I have learned most of my knowledge/skills losing to good people (whether MI or mtw) , and am very happy to do it but some.....mabye even a lot of people would just rather play a noob and win. Sorry im diverting a bit off the point now but there are soo many people out there in mtw foyer (like MI) that like that they know the fact that lancers beat all other cav, and that byz inf are strongest inf unit againest infantry. they enjoy knowing trashing noobs with these uber units and gain much satisfaction from it. I know there are many many players like me out there who play for the knowledge/fun you get out a game rather than the win, but my thoughts are that unless a perfectly balanced official patch (which wont coz it would effect sp to much ) comes out the majority of mtw players simply will not want to use a mod that strips them of all the little "cheap" tactics/units they have discovered. Ive gone on for long enough now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.. you probably stopped reading long ago hehe but ive said some of the things i had on my mind. Im afraid that even if a perfectly balacned (is it possible?) mod came out as with MTW people just wont take to it, the majority (sadly) of online players play to win, and win only. this is evident from the fact so many players quit the game the second there front line breaks, or after they themselves were out. I remeber in MI staying in 4v4's for mabye half an hour after being doubled or something and going out and remember coming out of each game learning something from what i had just watched.

im all for any balancing issues that will come with VI but just hope they can implement all ( ormost) what is needed "officially", as a 1.03 style mod for medieval sadly just wont take off http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif. All i can do is hope CA pull it off

[Puzz3D]

Quote[/b] (Kocmoc @ April 10 2003,13:36)]imo there should be units wich can hold 3 or 4 or maybe more units in a frontal fight, they dont kill many of the enemy, but they can hold.....for a time...
4 x 3 = 12

[shingenmitch2]

Okee... I stayed outta this one cause it was so damn long, but here I go...

Koc, no backward movement or trapping in 15K? I do it all the time. Yuuk pulls all sorts of retrograde movements to give me his guy's flank... which I crash into with joy.

And yes, the game is about getting a good flank or in behind units... always has been. That is maneuver warfare and you wolves as champions of the Mongol horseman know that best.

Mass makes a difference but it isn't all rush. Typically we stone the rush and penetrate gaps or flanks.

Cav too strong? There are many counters to concentrated cav., but I do all kinds of maneuvers with them besides point-click rush... There are successful foot-oriented Factions -- talk to the guys who play Turks or Byzant.

Lancers? Okay maybe they are cheap for what they give... but they are not monks (monks could only be countered by other monks) Lancers can be stopped by : Ordered Inf, CFK, Concentrated Pavise+Longbows, Billmen... other upgraded Cav... just to name a few.

Byz inf... well if i get behind them... or mix my CMAA properly...

Some Factions have Naptha... great morale breakers... but no Europe has them...

Camels in the desert kill...

Point is... this game is pretty damn well balanced for 15k-25k in High. Depending on Climate you have even more options. Are there specialty units, you bet.

But not everyone plays Spanish and that is not just out of some sense of honor... it is because they want Longbows or Billmen or Byz Inf or JHI or Varangian Guards or Swiss Halbeards or Suped up Nubian spearmen... and they are SUCCESSFUL with those factions.

So I'd be very reluctant to make more than very small and targeted changes to the unit balance.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Mitch, Yuuki, Kocmoc,

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

I am pretty new to the game and don't have your experience, insight and knowledge of TW.

Still, here comes 2 cents, and my opinion on the topic;

I don't think cav is too strong, but I do think that among the different counter cav (spears , polearms, other cav) spears are somehow too weak with a combination of low attack and low morale. At least I would upgrade their morale.
Cav is not too strong because other counter (polearm; halb, Sw halb, JHI, FK, billmen...) are really good at killing cav.

Overall tactic; well you know better than I. For the mass vs manoeuver question, I can sort of understand both point of view. Good tactics, flanking, etc has a place and are very efficient as far as routing ennemy, and I think this is good.
However, and I would like Kocmoc to tell me if I am right, there is one morale modifier I resent; being outnumbered; example; your valliant 1*CMAA is fighting some coward 4*pav arb, your CMAA may rout just because the other 4 guys are 4, even if they don't stand a chance.
Worse, it is my undertanding that the number of units is what matter not the actual size of the unit. A full size CMAA can be routed by 60 pav arb in 4 different units, just feeling outnumbered. A lots of units wo flanking in full front assault may prevail against the same 'front size' just with outnumbering modifier.
IMO, I would suggest two modifications;
1/ relative size of units matter when considering being outnumbered.
2/ class is supposed to matter for outnumber morale modifier... Well I would like the modifier to be more helpfull for outnumbered elite unit vs non elite.

Mitch, are you playing Spanish to prove dishonorable? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif Or just to feed my JHI?

Louis,

[shingenmitch2]

Hehe ---

The Goose-meister strikes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Yep, Louis u are correct about the being "outnumbered" by UNITs. There is a morale hit (that does reach a top-max) that occurs when an enemy in next to your unit. There is a maximum morale hit for units ( like the morale hit for 8 can't get more than what u get for having 4 units near you). It is usually not enough to rout you by itself -- unless ur unit is reall piss morale. But when it combines with losses taken/ casualties inflicted at one time/ and flanking, it becomes a powerful thing. It is a good effect, and makes mass important which is true in real life.

BUT you also caught the big mistake with it -- the effect doesn't scale down as a unit loses troops. A unit with 50% of its troops still gives its full morale hit not 50% hit, which would be much better.

------------------------
Yep I use Lancers to watch whiney little biatches cry... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif


Actually I like the Spanish cause they suit my style as center-player

---------------
Koc,
What are your thoughts on games with rules?
We've played some with mod rules and they have been lots of fun --- and can be used to tone down cav. (the 3 of any 1-type max and 5 combat cav. max comes to mind)

[Skomatth]

Read the review of VI in the main hall. It's too late now anyway. However the new antipersonell organ gun has me in fear of a new cheap unit that disrupts honourable play and non-rush tactics.

[Cheetah]

Quote[/b] (Kocmoc @ April 10 2003,13:36)]imo there should be units wich can hold 3 or 4 or maybe more units in a frontal fight, they dont kill many of the enemy, but they can hold.....for a time...

koc

I agree with Koc on this point. It would be nice to have such a unit. And not because of rushers, after all as Yuuki said you can stop rushers even with the current unit selection, but in order to give a greater tactical repertoire. Do you remember the good ol nagi from MI? Very few people used them, but if you used them correctly they did wonders. I miss very much a unit like this.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ April 16 2003,13:33)]Yep, Louis u are correct about the being "outnumbered" by UNITs. There is a morale hit (that does reach a top-max) that occurs when an enemy in next to your unit. There is a maximum morale hit for units ( like the morale hit for 8 can't get more than what u get for having 4 units near you). It is usually not enough to rout you by itself -- unless ur unit is reall piss morale. But when it combines with losses taken/ casualties inflicted at one time/ and flanking, it becomes a powerful thing. It is a good effect, and makes mass important which is true in real life.

BUT you also caught the big mistake with it -- the effect doesn't scale down as a unit loses troops. A unit with 50% of its troops still gives its full morale hit not 50% hit, which would be much better.
The outnumber effect gets really big in the end of the battle.

I remember a (tired half size...) JHI getting scared at 4 pav arb in an end game. JHI are Elite. Pav Arb are not. The 4 pav arb could have been 10 guys in total it would not have mattered.

There is one big mistake with the impact not scaling down with unit size.

But I also think that elite units shall have a much reduced modifier vs non elite. Same for disciplined.

The mass question is arguable. Number of soldiers in one unit effectively fighting one unit does not matter. The unit just being there does.

I wonder how important it is for the following example;

1 Order inf front 25 * 4 rows being charged frontally by 3 CMAA on 7*8
The 3 CMAA units are not even going on the flank of the Order Inf. Just plain frontal.
I can expect the CMAA to win / win easy. But I wonder by how much this 'fake ountnumbering' will reduce the order inf morale and get it to rout if compared to a regular single 20*3 CMAA formation. 3 7*8 CMAA covers the same front as 1 20*3 but has a more important morale impact, and I am not sure I really like it / if it not too big.

If anybody has looked at that, let me know.

Louis,

PS; I also wonder if that does not hinder too much any unit ability to hold a large position as a delaying force (shall be a spear purpose thing?)

[shingenmitch2]

As far as I know, the morale hit delivered by the unit is the same no matter what type of unit it is. Elites give same hit as crap troop.

Late in the game the effect is multiplied because the units all have penalties affecting their morale (fatigue, troops losses) to their morale already and the "unit" hit could be the final tipper into Rout. (AMP used to be able to take advantage of this in MI by having his army sit still while everyone else fought -- and then come slamming full mass at tired Armies, overload a unit's morale and create quick routs)

-------
Your frontage concern doesn't bother me as much as the the % of total soldiers. -- Total frontage covered should not make a difference (and it doesn't) So in that sense the morale works good. It is unit dependant and not frontage.

however -- 2 units at 50% should equal the hit of 1 unit at 100% and they don't. They still equal 2 units at 100%. This problem, like we stated, gets more pronounced at the end of a game.

AND - it would have to be a % based effect and not done by actual numbers of soldiers --- because a 60 Cav (full strength) needs to give the same hit as 100 OFS (full strength). The Cav is at full, the hit it delivers should be a full hit -- and not 60% of the full OFS unit hit.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ April 17 2003,13:23)]As far as I know, the morale hit delivered by the unit is the same no matter what type of unit it is. Elites give same hit as crap troop.
Hum...

Here is what is written in the Entrance hall 'read me first' topic (my personnal reference when seeking the truth whatever the topic is).

Outnumbered/Outclassed 2 to 1: -4
Outnumbered/Outclassed more than 3 to 1: upto –12 depending on enemy numbers and enemy units class (Elite etc.)

My understanding is that Elite would frighten more non Elite than the opposite.

I don't know the modifier for one Elite surrounded by 3 non elite, but IMO it is too high... Particularly frustrating when those 3 units are crappy missile pav arb, bulgarian brigand and the like... I would not complain that much with 3 militian sergeant or 3 Hallebard.

Maybe I want to see another class; elite, non elite, crappy.

That would be fun to read on unit description

Louis,

[Puzz3D]

Morale is a complicated aspect of the game since so many factors interact to determine a unit's morale. I did make some measurements in WE/MI which showed a morale penalty of -8 from being in proximity (1.8 tiles = 3600 range = about 72 meters) to an enemy unit and it was not affected by the number of men in the unit. I've only made one distance test on this in MTW which indicated that the proximity distance is still the same.

If you look in the Strategy Guide, it's clear that with regard to the proximity morale penalty MTW works differently than WE/MI. In MTW, both quality and speed of the enemy unit are factors in determining the size of the morale penalty. According to the Strategy Guide, the basic penalty for being outnumbered 2 to 1 is -4, but it can go up to -12 when outnumbered 10 to 1. A statement in the MTW guide that a unit which is not in proximity to any enemy units gets +4 morale suggests that the penalty for being in proximity to a single enemy unit is -4 points. In WE/MI, the maximum morale penalty occured when facing 3 enemy units. I think it was -14 points when facing 3, -12 points when facing 2 and -8 points when facing 1. Of course, the rout point was lower in WE/MI than it is in MTW, so the effect seems bigger in MTW. Also, the 2 to 1 effect was 1/2 of the single unit effect in WE/MI, but the 2 to 1 effect appears to be equal to the single unit effect in MTW which is another thing that would make the morale penalty feel larger in MTW. The addition of +2 morale to all units in Vikings is going to make this effect seem smaller.

The use of the term "outnumbered", the fact that quality and speed of the enemy are taken into account and the variable unit sizes suggest that the number of men in a unit might be a factor in determining the size of the morale penalty. This would be an extremely tedious thing to determine by running tests, and I don't think I'm going to spend the time doing it. In practice, you are in trouble when outnumberd by 2 to 1 simply because with -4 morale penalty your units are going to tend to rout before the enemy does. In the example given where 3 CMAA, which have already seen action, attack an apparently fresh Order Foot, it's possible that those CMAA have higher morale than what they started with since they beat whatever they were fighting before, and the Order Foot is not a high morale unit to begin with. In anycase, when one of my units beats another unit it usually jumps up to "steady" morale. Cavalry will often go up to "impetuous" which is quite high on the morale scale. The CMAA will gain more morale when they start winning against the Order Foot, and the Order Foot will loose morale when they start loosing. The CMAA would have to be reduced to very few men or attacked from behind before they will rout.

Elite units attacking multiple ranged units like arbs have to contend with morale penalties from being outnumbered, flanked, shot and suffering casualties from the ranged fire. In addition, the arbs will get a +4 morale boost if they outnumber the elite unit by 3 to 1. If the elite unit manages to close for hth fighting they may suffer casualties from that as well if the ranged unit has gotten a few upgrades, although, they can also get a morale boost at that point if they are "winning".

[shingenmitch2]

Thanks Yuuk,

I was going by what I knew of the morale from MI / STW. Didn't realize that the effect had been modified for MTW.

Seems like a mess to try to figure out what that is doing to the cavalry charge en-masse, especially late in the games. But its effect may be fairly profound.

[Magyar Khan]

would it help enlighten some of u if i upload some replays of the boring battles with noncreative armyselections which are close to invincible?

its funny but i noted that i increase my change of losing for ever
shooter more than 3 (exception armies like turks)
cav less than 6

the ideal crusader army comes close to 3 pavs 8 cav 5 inf

i cant see why this is different to 5 musk and 7 ashi and 3 nagcav. maybe only now everyone can use succesfull cav. just throw them in like the early nagcav.

and still a big drawback of the game is that units esp cav gain valor during the game. the devs should skip this nonsense.

[Puzz3D]

Well I think MTW v1.1 is better balanced than WE/MI v1.02, but it's far from perfect. The basic army is 4 pav arb, 8 inf and 4 cav which is balanced and what I believe Crandaleon won the two tourneys with, and there are best units within the infantry and cavalry just like the pav arb is now recognized as the best ranged unit. You can vary that basic army somewhat and still be effective. At least it has the 3 elements of ranged, infantry and cavalry. There might be some unbalanced armies that can beat the balanced army, but they have counters so it's a bit risky to take an unbalanced army in MTW.

WE/MI v1.02 is a game that I don't like, and that's why I helped make v1.03. In WE/MI v1.02, you could take 8 musk and 8 yari ashi, and you didn't need anything else. You could take cav, but you didn't need it. Krast's 10 gun army was extremely difficult to beat. Most players ended up using the 4 max rule to limit muskets and yari ashi. If you could win the shootout with the equvalent of 2 musk units left, you had an easy win from that point on. If you went up against 6 musk with 4 musk, you had a lost game. It's not the case in MTW v1.1 that 6 pav arbs is a guaranteed win against 4 pav arbs. That's because the ranged fire doesn't determine the winner since the rate of fire is slow enough and the morale penalty low enough that you can advance in the face of fire. In an extended shootout, the arbs become exhausted to the point that they can't hit anything which frees the infantry to advance without any losses to speak of. In MTW, battles are primarily determined by the hand to hand fighting, but arbs do have enough potential that you can't ignore them. Archers you can pretty much ignore which is too bad.

Given the unbalanced nature of the game, of course players are going to eventually discover the most effective army composition after a while. After Viking Invasion comes out, the same process will happen all over again. Those players who find out what works and use it well will rise to the top. Those players who choose particular units for other reasons will find themselves at a growing disadvantage as time goes by. If you want a game where battlefield tactics alone determine the winner, then everyone in the battle has to use the exact same unit types.

How can a particular army configuration be close to invincible, when both players have access to the exact same army? That startment makes no sense to me.

[Paolai]

eemmhhh.....Cranda won the Koc/Skull tourney with the 5 cavs max rule...dont forget it....so, whats the difference between the 4 musks max? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
And...beleive me, on the great part of mine MI games, I have played with 3 musks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif and I had not many losts: with Kujon ID I had a score of 40 wins and about 3 losts and I used always 3 musks and 4 archers (2 cav arch). No...on MI the army was less important than in MTW, you had always a spot for the fantasy and creativity, instead on MTW there isnt

[Puzz3D]

Paolai,

Maybe you won because you were better than your opponents. When the opponents were equal skill, 3 musk would not beat 6 in WE/MI v1.02. If Crand played with the 5 cav max rule, why did he take only 4 cav? And, there was no such rule in the other tourney.

If you always used 3 musk, 4 archers and 2 cav archers in WE/MI then it just means you were good enough to overcome the inherent disadvantage of that army. Muskets slam archers in WE/MI v1.02. STW, WE/MI and MTW, are all unbalanced. VI and RTW are going to be the same way.

[FearofNC]

i must agree with magyar... wich i dont do often... i brought the standered 4 pavs 8 inf 4 cav.. vs him and his 3 pav 8 cav 5 inf army... i would like to think that we are very close in skill... not equall.. but very competitive.. i never stood a chance in any of the battles.... cav used correctly will rule the day.. infantry are usless... pavs are usless... we bring them because they are part of the game... not becasue they are needed... now i grant you... he didnt walk all over me with my balanced army... and im sure with enough attempts i would win a few... but the fact is that unit selection means more now than it ever did..

a good example of one of these battles is here (http://www.fearfulways.com/downloads/fungame.zip)

[Paolai]

no....I mean I used on MI 3 musks, 2 foot arch and 2 cav arch....

On MTW if you have less cavs instead, probably you have already lost, no spot or creativity, no spot for fantasy The match is already closed when you choose your army and faction. Yuki...go on the foyer and read the hosted game titles...you can see titles like "No art, no Byz, max 5 cavs, no spanish, but if you choose spanish no lancers" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif How do you can consider this game balanced? I think, if you still consider MTW balanced, well, maybe you are so strong and skilled that you understood better than me and better than many others the mechanism of this game...yes this is a possibility, but beleive me, the games that I lost on MTW are not so many, but I know that I won the great part of mine games I have played only cause I choosed a good army, and not because I am skilled

[Swoosh So]

Hasent anyone mentioned that crossbows should only be able to fire in a straight line? so that at least archers could use hills etc to hit them, i mean my god an arbalister can fire through a forrest and hit something on the other side?

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[FearofNC]

it would be nice if the host in vi or rome could set same armies for all players... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

[Knight_Yellow]

ill be happy if anti cav units do their job and archers get a chance to kill some 1 without getting minced by pavs.

[Magyar Khan]

yup i agree with nc, he did suprise me by having some cav with 3 Wupgrades vs mine with all 1 upgrade and i lost control of a flank once in a while.

it is that rushes tires me faster than normal games that i dont do them often but i got to think 2 arbs are enuf. save the unitslot for more sensible units

the best step to solve the cav is to skip teh part where they can gain valour during the game.

i saved some replays of teh games vs nc lately and u will see 30 cav routing a clumped up about 100 h4 mil serg/h3 cmaa. well w ehad this topic a while ago.

[Swoosh So]

The topic may have been a while ago but its still an important point magyar, unfortunately with the release of vi just around the corner i dont think any of these changes will have a chance to surface in it, But my god theres thousands of players willing to playtest and give advice on balancing maybe ca should start using them, WE ARE FREE http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I know everyone cant be kept happy but i tend to agree with kocmoc the game is 2d, forrests dont really matter now and neither do hills, well not as much as they should its flat featurless map totalwar time and its sad, maps and terrain were really important in shogun and mtw has lost that, a great sp game with many more features but a complete step back in multiplayer. Give us a mp stat file to play with get all senior members of the community to work together to get these stats sorted out. Why not setup a team like you guys did with the mi patch to deal with all these issues and put them forward in a readable manner. Can giljay explain the exact hill bonuses also and woods bonusess and minuses? and the fact cav are so powerfull against spears is crazy and yes i know that they wanted cav to be powerfull so the game had a certain flavour but spear should beat cav easily - the cav can withdraw now anyways from the fight. The way i see it is if cav charge a spear unit front they should lose and if they charge a flank they should win (simple).

[Puzz3D]

Paolai,

I didn't say MTW was balanced. It's unbalanced, but at least you need all 3 types of units. More unit types doesn't make for a better game. It makes for a game where unit selection takes on increasing importance. This was discussed here long before MTW was released. Viking Invasion has added units to MTW. That's not going to improve the game from a balance standpoint.


NC,

The only way to find out how you match up to another player is to take exactly the same units as he does and play a long match. Unit selection is part of the game unless you purposely take the same units. The game is going to remain unbalanced because CA doesn't have the time to balance it, so, until everyone figures out what the best units are, you won't have people playing on an even field so to speak. LongJohn did say he would look to see if he could remove the battlefield upgrades from the MP game, but, if it wasn't a straightforward change, then it wouldn't get done since his time to spend on this was very limited. It's possible that the battlefield upgrades are tied so tightly with SP that a lot of coding would be required to separate them. Since nothing has been heard about this for several months, I'm not very hopeful that it's been removed.

I don't think infantry and arbs are useless. Not long ago many players were claiming the all cav army could beat a balanced army almost all the time. Crand, Cheetah and I showed that it's not the case. The balanced 4 arb, 8 inf and 4 cav army can win convincingly. Even AMP participated in this test and lost with his all cav army. What you can't do is go chasing the cav army with the infantry army because the cav is faster. These opinions that the all cav was practically invincible were formed because some players didn't know how to play the balanced army properly.

It could be that the 3 arbs are better than the 4 arbs because you have an extra melee unit, but the player with the 4 arbs can force the other player to attack, and attacking incurs a fatigue disadvantage. Cav don't fatigue as fast in v1.1 as they did in v1.0, which was a community requested change, so they won't be at as much of a disadvantage as the inf during the attack. The infantry could just walk forward to minimize fatigue, but they will take more hits from that extra arb if they do. I'll watch your replay later, since I can't right now. The fatigue makes MTW less of a rush game than STW was, and requires that you consider fatigue in your planning and rest your units. I do think that fatigue in bad weather is too high, and in good weather is rather high. Fatigue means you have to watch those arbs and rest them also.


Swoosh,

CA will never bring the players into their program development. It's seen as too much of a risk.

The game is not really 2D. I measured a combat advantage of 1.5:1 for a 45 degree slope in MTW. It does appear to be less than it was in STW, but the hill bonus was rather large in STW. Remember how tough it was to take that little bump of a hill on Totomi or that ridge? In anycase, LongJohn said that the downhill combat bonus was not changed between STW and MTW. So it's a mystery why it is less, but it's not zero. Also, ranged weapons gain considerable effectiveness from even a small height advantage.

MTW tree density is 1/2 of STW. The trees are larger in diameter to compensate somewhat. There was a technical programming issue that required the reduced tree density, and I think it had to do with having larger maps. Spears loose their rank bonus in trees and cav loose 4 combat points in trees and move through trees slower.

There was a long thread back in Sept about spears vs cavalry in which many historical examples were put forth that cav could penetrate spear formations. As a result of that, in the v1.1 cav was given a chance of pushback on a man holding a spear who is facing the cav. In another thread at that time, it was argued that swords were not beating spears the way they should, so swords got a combat boost vs spears and spears got a cost increase. Cav was also considered overpriced in a different thread, and it got a cost reduction. The interaction of those changes resulted in spears that don't do too well against cav, although, it did stop the battles from becoming an all spear affair which was the path players were discovering worked best in v1.0. Spears are also a defensive unit, so they don't kill very fast. They are really the only defensive unit in the game. Their low morale tends to have them run away too soon for a defensive unit which should be able to block an enemy for a long time. Viking Invasion has +2 morale, so that should hale spears stand an fight, and maybe spears got a cost reduction, but I don't know for sure. Polearms are faster cav killers.

Cav are modelled to win by routing the enemy on contact. You can see the ineffectiveness of cav by turning morale off. Lots of players complain about this routing, but that's how it is. The small cav units don't have much chance of winning a melee against big infantry units unless they rout them. The +2 morale in Viking Invasion is going to reduce the effectiveness of cav a bit. The battlefield upgrades changes cav quite a lot later in the battle by making cav so strong that it can win melee against much bigger inf units. The battlefield upgrade also increases the charge bonus since the attack factor which is increased by valor gain is added to the charge. It will defeinitely help things if this has been removed in Vikings.

However, I think archery is still going to be relatively weak in Vikings.

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Swoosh So @ April 29 2003,14:57)] I know everyone cant be kept happy but i tend to agree with kocmoc the game is 2d, forrests dont really matter now and neither do hills, well not as much as they should its flat featurless map totalwar time and its sad...
No offense but have you played the game at all? Yes bonuses are smaller than in STW so I guess that is a matter of taste of how big a hill should be to give a certain bonus for a defender. But to say the game is 2d is a silly comment..sorry.

Even a small rise in the ground gives your missile troops an advantage..a bigger hill gives lots of bonuses for your melee troops. And of course woods matter as spears lose rank bonues and cav is weak in woods.

Hell yes this game is not balanced and it could be improved but it would be a lot better if we focus on the real problems...please

Why should spears defeat cav easily? If you want to kill cav fast buy some halbs/bills. Nothing crazy about that really. The main problem is too powerful swords that forces people to buy loads of swords instead of spears if they want to win. Yes cav can withdraw so what? The enemy has just sent his cav into range of your arbs and you might be able to counter attack while he is disordered.

CBR

[Tempiic]

Hmmm some curiousity...

Those people who complained bout too strong spears and too weak (i get that impression) pre-patch are they the same roughly who complain now about too weak spears and too strong cav?

BTW i'd like to see the valour upgrades during the game be gone too, though these valour upgrades are partially influenced by your own casualties as well as your kills/prisoners

[CBR]

Well I can only speak for myself http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I was very active in the "cav should be better" threads but I was a just a young and innocent noob back then (now I'm just a noob) and didnt care much about the spears versus sword treads although I would be arrogant to think I could have influenced anything there http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

But improved swords killed the whole idea of stronger cav as spears just became too weak.

Thats the problem with loads of people coming with shitty suggestions. Noise level is too high and its difficult to understand the overall effect of all the changes...oops sounds a bit arrogant..oh well.. my therapist said I should try and believe in myself a bit more http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

There were several things I wanted changed..primary reason why I started modding and ended up with the idea of MPwars.

CBR

[longjohn2]

I did take out the updgrading of units during battle for MP only. Sorry if I forgot to tell you that.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Puzz3D]

Thx LongJohn

Removal of battlefield upgrades in MP should make a big difference in gameplay. The relative balance of the units will now stay constant throughout the battle, and cavalry won't become stonger just from chasing down routers. This combined with the higher overall morale will tone down the cavalry relative to the infantry. Also, the MP Wars mod will benefit greatly since you play that with units at valor 0 where the battlefield upgrade is at it's most apparent.

[Mithrandir]

Not a question of balance sorry (and sorry if this can be read in this thread/somewhere else too), but is the option to declare war on your allies in MP taken out ?

I _hate_ this option, and many with me, perhaps make it an option for the host to enable... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

[TosaInu]

Spears in 1.0 are quite different from spears in 1.1: 1.0 spears were quite powerful, 1.1 are quite weak.

-Increased upgradecost (to 70%) -> upgrading cheap units didn't make them better than expensive V0 units. Many spears fit that category.
-Basecost of spears increased.
-Sword (?) units gained +1 attack when fighting vs spears.

Also:
-Some swords cheaper.
-Cav cheaper.
-Something seems done to morale.

All effects stacked, make for a huge effect.

VI will (as far as I know/remember correctly):
-Remove battlefield upgrades (will 'hurt' cav and small swordunits).
-Add +2 honor (units will fight slightly longer and the effect of cavcharges and proximity effect will decrease).
-Decrease the basecost of some spears.
-Remove pavarb from the high era.
-Improve effectiveness of arrows.

Looks fine to me. We'ld have to play it to see how good it is, but it'll undoubtly change the game as we know it. I expect it to become better.

Edit: Mithrandir, I've declared war on my allies when the victory was near more than once and didn't even notice it. I've played 100's of STW games and never had that happen.

[GilJaysmith]

Quote[/b] (Mithrandir @ April 30 2003,20:50)]Not a question of balance sorry (and sorry if this can be read in this thread/somewhere else too), but is the option to declare war on your allies in MP taken out ?
I'm fairly sure we took that out too.

[Mithrandir]

Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ May 01 2003,14:46)]
Quote[/b] (Mithrandir @ April 30 2003,20:50)]Not a question of balance sorry (and sorry if this can be read in this thread/somewhere else too), but is the option to declare war on your allies in MP taken out ?
I'm fairly sure we took that out too.
Thanks

the pop up message is annoying since you cant order your units to do anything else while it's there.

I've had about 3 times that I declared war on my allies due to fast and stressed clicking, thanks a lot http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ May 01 2003,21:46)]I'm fairly sure we took that out too.
Oh no...what else can we find to complain about now?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

CBR