What should be highest priority for devs...

[ELITEofGAZOZ]

When I read the posts about the newest Rome TW units I realized that players have different preferences.

Would like to have an overwies about our preferences...

[Stormer]

id like to vote the bottom 3 but i voted NO.3

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I voted 4. I don't care how historically accurate the units are unless they are balanced and allow fair and enjoyable play.

[theKyl]

the bottom three are all important to me, so i nullvoted.

[Shahed]

Autheticity & realism would be most important to me for RTW. It is not fantasy TW therfore it should be as realistic as possible while offering enjoyable gameplay.

It would be a pity to see units that have strengths over others but that would be realistic. Therefore I favor realism and playability above all.

A new TW would have to compete on a graphical and audio level to stay relevant in the coming world of "cinematic gaming".

[Shahed]

May I add that in my opinion, it would be very wise for a lot of research going into what the units were actually like. This would enable us to have a sound and viable representation of these units in a game which will essentially be historically based.

[Nelson]

Units can not be too authentic or realistic.

History doesn't get in the way. It shows the way.

[Monk]

voted for 4, as long as units are balance and the game is fun i wont have a problem.

[Basileus]

Authenticity and realism of units is what i like, might not be so balanced but hey http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Dîn-Heru]

voted for authenticity and realism.

[Hakonarson]

Historical and authentic units ARE balanced http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Lord of the morning]

Id say historical and authentic. Units in reality were balanced to a point. But Royal knight in MTW is better than peasants and teherefor they cost more. Upping the prices on powerfull units is what should be done. That is also something that is very éasy to fix in a patch if the game turns out unbalanced. Also the challange will be even greater if the roman armies are very mighty, then youll just play the barbarrians once youve have learned the game. What makes this game greater than something like LOTRTW is that is historically acurate.

[RTKLamorak]

Quote[/b] (SeljukSinan @ April 25 2003,09:05)]It would be a pity to see units that have strengths over others but that would be realistic.
I am a little confused with your comment Sinan... even in a balanced game units will have, and should have strengths over one another...it would be no fun having 16 units with same stats, and same strengths and weaknesses. it becomes unbalanced when units (e.g MI's ashigaru), or types of units (e.g heavy cav in MTW) have to many strengths, or less weaknesses over the other.
Yukki often refers to the "rock/paper/scissors" gameplay that Mizu's 1.03 mod for Mongol invasion achieved, and it really made for an extremely well balanced game. It sticks to the core principles of spears beat cavalry, swords beat spears and cavalry beats swords; and ensures no single unit/or unit type is over or under powered. all units still have their own strengths and weaknesses, just that none are over or underpoweered.

I voted for Balanced... if you go for historical accuracy then you will not get a balanced game. A half hearted approach is neutral for me.. i enjoy playing the game a lot but often find it frustrating that certain unit types are to overpowered.

Mods are a good answer but unfortunately not enough people use the mods.... although unlikely i would like to see some real thought into RTW balancing by the dev's but doubt this will be the case. with mtw patch.. they almost didnt think (after how many months did we wait for patch) the effect the combination of changes would have on the game balance. They made heavy cav cheaper, spears more expensive, and swords have further bonus vs spears. 2 of the 3 mabye, like cheaper cav and sword bonus but by implementing all 3 they have almost made spear obsolete. Obviously huge credit should go to the devs for this truely great game but it is frustrating to see such small things spoiling a lot of the fun in multi play. most 1v1s i play i see an army consisting of 6 heavy cav, 6 sword, 4 pav. even againest cav heavy armies spears just dont cut it anymore (pre patch they did an ok job but..) .. i reallykinda miss the days where spears actually tore cavalry apart.

In Rome Totalwar hopefully they will have one seperate stat system for single player/campain mode which is accually historicallly accurate, and then an entirely diffferent, and balanced set of stats for online play. mabye only a dream but is nice to hope http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

however i, as many people (definitely not alll tho http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif ) will buy the game to keep with the crowd of friends we have made along the way, and keep the community moving forward and expanding. I will adapt to the new system balanced or not, but the game would more new players, and retain more of the old guys if they really made made an effort to balance RTW.

so if you have not read most of this drawn out post http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif i think that

having a seperate set of stats for single player modes, that is historically accurate, and another seperate set of balanced[B] stats for multiplayer would be the best approach to try and balance Rome Total War.

[ELITEofGAZOZ]

I second your points, Lamorak.

[A.Saturnus]

Winning a battle with balanced units that are historically absurd would leave a bad taste for me. Would I prefer balance, I would play Warcraft 3. I`m not so naive to believe that real battles in medieval times actually are simulated by MTW, but it`s still much more realistic than any other game. If I would choose balance above historical accuracy (though, I, too, think there`s no need to choose), then I could go with fantasy units as well, cause realism is pointless then. That`s a singleplayer perspective, though.

[A Nerd]

Historical and Authentic...but I hope they are pretty too

[CBR]

Historical accuracy is a must..its when its not accurate we get all the problems.

Just take MTW right now.

Lancers are a bit too much right? well they are in the wrong era

Byz inf..lots of people dont like them... please tell me when Byzantines had troops like that in their armies?

Horsearchers too weak? When I can come with as many Knights as the enemy can with horse archers....

Missile units generally too weak? Did you know that Longbows actually only cost 100 florins or Jan Inf only 150? Someone got the bright idea to add 250 to longbows and 200 to all shortbow armed units. And the fix was to reduce the cost of upgrading them...upgrading that really only helps the missile units in melee.

Spears too weak? Yes lets invent some powerful sword units that eat spears for breakfast and be able to buy lots of them..and damn they look cool.

Balancing a game like this is not something you do in a afternoon. But in my MPwars mod I have found it to be relative easy when it comes to unitstats and costs..missile weapons takes longer to tweak. My main limitations is the battle engine and not enough historical units

Some of the balance issues that I still need to tweak is actually because I didnt follow the various history books/wargames army lists I have used for the mod, mainly because of the limits in MTW battle engine and how to buy armies.

No just give me historical units with historical capabilities and balance is not a problem. It's when you leave out units and invent others the problems start.

CBR

[Aelwyn]

Balance Its a given that the units should be historically accurate, and all this takes is research, which CA seems to be good at. Thats not something they need to work on, and I doubt they'd sit down and say...."hmm...this needs to be balanced more than accurate, so start making up unit names gentlemen, this needs to be very inaccurate cause we can't do both". http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif The only important thing they need to work on now is the balance http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Skomatth]

I agree with Lam and CBR. Read what they say devs

-Parrot

[Tera]

For most of us, multiplayer gaming is the only reason why we're here. And 90% of our moaning is about unit balance. I was here when the MI community was reduced to 30 maximum each night. And I blame unit balance for that...among other things.

What we really need is continous patching support...not all the imbalances of the game get out in few weeks of beta testing...it takes time.

One patch per game is not enough for the best strategy game ever made...don't you think so? Hopefully R:TW will sell a lot, maybe millions. And CA should hire guys like Yuuki or CBR again to help them creating good patches.

I hope they're listening...this is a vital point in my humble opinion.

Tera.

[DthB4Dishonor]

I also agree with Lam and CBR. If guys want all this perfectly historical accuracy then I suggest next time they play MP take 8 units of peasants about 3-4 knights and 4-5 archers. You will have some very elite Knights I'll give you that.

[Swoosh So]

Lol only 7% vote for appearance and the game is going 3d http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Magyar Khan]

Maybe MP people go for gameplay and SP people for eyecandy.

I wonder if ever a 3D figure would run as nice downhill as the yari cav in the stw demo 4 years ago....

[Crandaeolon]

I have some rather strong opinions about the "balance of history", but I don't have the time or patience to get involved in yet another long-winded argument. Let me just say that RTW is going to be a _game_ system, not an accurate simulation of every imaginable historical parameter. Abstractions have to be made.

We _can't_ have totally historical battles. There are so many variables (and plain "discomforts" for the player) in battles that we wouldn't even _want_ them all to be represented. Think about realistic command/control with delays and misunderstandings in receiving orders, logistics, rivalries of different units or army "branches", political infighting and personal rivalries of army commanders, the (dis)allowance of some tactics and strategies etc. etc. etc...

So, let's have reasonable historical accuracy within the limits of the game system. By all means. But balance should come first.

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Crandaeolon @ May 04 2003,11:46)]We _can't_ have totally historical battles. There are so many variables (and plain "discomforts" for the player) in battles that we wouldn't even _want_ them all to be represented.
No of course we cant have everything..only way to do that would be to put on our own armour and find a field..although that would quickly decimate the amount of MP'ers and we already are few enough so I prefer doing it on a computer.

A game, computer or board, can only simulate a battle..never recreate it in all details but does that mean we should put in a lot of things that has nothing to do with the historical era?

Yes I guess it depends on what we want. Some people just want a good game and thats it. But the total war engine is actually one of the best realtime engines out there with lots of details and tactical options, even small tweaks can be felt and can have unforseen effects combined. Balance is very delicate with such an engine.

"We _can't_ have totally historical battles" no but can we have battles that gives historical results or does that suddenly suck?

How do you define balance? No matter how many games in the totalwar series it has to be 4 cav, 4 swords, 4 spears and 4 missile? Or could you define balance as giving the available units a role and proper cost so they are worth buying? To be able to try out different army setups without everyone screaming "It's unbalanced" ?

All I'm saying is that most of the balance problems we have in MTW is because of historical errors and limitations of the battle engine. Things are a lot easier to balance when you at least have the basic units in place..leaving out some and inventing others upsets balance.

IIRC LongJohn said MTW was a historical themed game and not a simulation. When making a game like this, with all the factions more or less playable you have to make compromises. But I consider that to be more important in the strategic part of the game than in the tactical battle engine.

And who is complaining the most? I guess thats us MP'ers and we are not as many as what the games are aiming at..the SP'ers. Thats not because SP'ers are idiots but they have limitations in a campaign that we dont have in a MP battle and other stuff so MP'ers feel the balance problems a lot more.

What I just would like to say is that if CA is going to make changes in the battle engine then go for history as it actually makes things easier not more difficult.

If people think going for more historical accuracy means it will suck even more then I actually would call them ignorants who doesnt know what they are talking about. And they damn sure cant use MTW as an example of history ruining the game..its actually the other way around

CBR

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Magyar Khan @ May 04 2003,04:30)]Maybe MP people go for gameplay and SP people for eyecandy.
No I think that the people who just go for eyecandy will only play the game a few times anyway (SP or MP) and then leave. A game only lasts if has certain depth and that goes for both MP and SP.

I have seen many SP'ers complain about lack of depth and historical inaccuracies. We MP'ers are the simple ones who dont want to think..just buy an army and fight battles http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

CBR

[CBR]

Im confused..how can some people agree with both Lam and me?

Only thing in common would be making it possible to have seperate stats and just really only for cost and morale perhaps. Not because the historical accuracy in SP would ruin MP but mostly because we dont have upkeep or buildings/generals to improve morale in MP.

Units might feel more balanced in SP compared to MP but IMO thats because in MP there is no AI and we humans can push the units/game engine to the limits. You simply dont spot the balance problems as easily in SP.

RTKLamorak wrote:
"I voted for Balanced... if you go for historical accuracy then you will not get a balanced game. A half hearted approach is neutral for me.. i enjoy playing the game a lot but often find it frustrating that certain unit types are to overpowered."

And that is what Im trying to say: MTW is not historical accurate and the main problems/balance issues are there because of these errors. What makes you think that historical accuracy will mean its not balanced?


DthB4Dishonor wrote:
"If guys want all this perfectly historical accuracy then I suggest next time they play MP take 8 units of peasants about 3-4 knights and 4-5 archers. You will have some very elite Knights I'll give you that."

Oh yes there could be a lot of peasants in a medieval battle..just not the peasants you see in MTW. They were armed with longbows, crossbows, spears, polearms.. you name it. Most foot (if not mercenaries) where peasants or from cities and not much difference there really... depending on local region's wealth of course.

CBR

[Crandaeolon]

I didn't direct my comments at anyone in particular, CBR...

Your points are very valid, historical accuracy and gameplay aren't _totally_ mutually exclusive, but as long as compromises, abstractions and ignorings of real-life variables have to be made, I would pick "gameplay" over historical accuracy.

Even if the individual men in units are modeled to 99.9% accuracy of their historical "stats", we couldn't have battles that give historically accurate results if they involve more than a couple of units. We, as commanders of armies, simply have too many tools, too much feedback and too few limits when choosing tactics at our disposal. Our ability to control the armies is pretty much magical; the ability to give instant, tactically unlimited orders and get instant, near-omniscient feedback is one of the most prominent things that make totally historical battle resolution an unreachable utopia.

Yet, we'd definitely complain if we had to struggle with delays in command, misinterpretation of orders, inability to identify enemy units, units ignoring or countermanding their orders etc.

I do agree that there's nothing wrong with sticking to historical accuracy when modeling units, but I don't believe it would be an instant cure to balance problems. First, there are many versions of "historical accuracy". Which scholar(s) should be trusted? The majority? The newest research? Second, the fitting of those research data into the environment of the game. As noted previously, some changes _have_ to be made. The stats-tweaking still remains.

Finally, the invention of new units and/or capabilities to existing ones. Let's think about the relations of cavalry, swordsman, spearman and polearm units in MTW. IMO the intended interaction between units is a perfectly good one _and_ fits the environment of the game, even if it's not historically fully accurate. The screwup was just in its implementation. These mishaps will happen, historical accuracy or not.

[CBR]

Yes and it wasnt meant as me bashing you or anything like that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif I just see several people who has IMO some strange ideas about the relationship between historical accuracy and balance.

We all want to have a good game that we can play for months and I dont know if a discussion like this is pointless as CA might not bother to do any changes because of what we say. But back to bashing..

"We, as commanders of armies, simply have too many tools, too much feedback and too few limits when choosing tactics at our disposal...

Yes..no offense but we have heard that before. The question is what does it mean? I know at least one who more or less said that as it was not 100% accurate now we shouldnt bother thinking about it and just add more fancy features..to hell with historical accuracy.

I would love to have less information in this game to make it more uncertain. I hate to be able to see precisely what the enemy has from a long distance. Yes its nice you can do it but ruins great plans and teamwork.

And already now we have units that ignore commands..Knights going impetuous and charging enemies or simply wont follow an order to stop pursuing. Is that something we should remove so we have more control of our units or should we keep having the feature?

I know several people would want larger maps in RTW. We can see nearly everything anyway and at some point we have to move close and fight..why postpone it? You cant make any fancy out-flanking marching to surprise the enemy. So why bother with larger maps?

Command delay..well yes in a way we can do more than in real life but..you have problems if your army is spread out in 2 or more groups and your units will never react as they might do in real life as your units are stupid. And if you have all units in one large group then its not much different compared to a leader who controlled 1 of several "battles" back then. If you play a 4v4 you dont have control of all units, only your own.

If you look at a 4v4 then I would say a battle is very much like a battle in the good old days..lots of chaos and limited control. There you get misinterpreted or ignored orders and delays. From a 1v1 perspective then yes you have too much control.

The problem with units that dont have the correct abilities is that some units might end up being weak and not used. Yes that can happen if you make mistakes with stats etc even trying do to it historically.

MTW is now more than 8 months old and the sword/spear balance is still not right. Maybe a bit better with the expansion but I must admit I'm pretty sure it will still be there. And the main reason is because differences is only measured in combat stats..not in a units movement or agilty. Right now you simply cannot have 4 troop types (spear, sword, polearm and cav) because everything is measured in hm what to call it...frontal combat capability. Its basically too simple and one-dimensional

Only cav is different because it has much higher speed. But swords should be quicker than spears so they can exploit small gaps or outflank spears and not be able to wipe out spears frontally.

A lot of the unrealistic stuff we have as players..too much info, too much control etc is nothing compared to the basic capabilities of each unit/weapon type..if that is screwed balance is screwed.

Depending on what time periode and amount if details we want yes there are historians who disagree with other historians. But if miniature rule sets can do it so can CA. Then we can always write long essays about what weapons the hypaspist used.

CBR

[Crandaeolon]

Whoa, I didn't know I'm this good at trolling http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

But, now that I'm on a (t)roll, I'll keep arguing. Let's hope this gets read by the devs. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


Quote[/b] ]And already now we have units that ignore commands..Knights going impetuous and charging enemies or simply wont follow an order to stop pursuing. Is that something we should remove so we have more control of our units or should we keep having the feature?
Has the impetuousness of knights or other units ever been much of a problem? I can recall perhaps one or two instances when some Muslim infantry charging without orders has caused some problems, but the distances are so small it's not much of a problem with cav. At present, it's IMO just a cosmetic touch, nothing really meaningful. Actually, impetuous charges can be pretty useful sometimes; they give some "free will" to units.

I don't mean that the level of impetuousness should be increased in Rome. It's just an example of something historical that would be inconvenient.


Quote[/b] ]I know several people would want larger maps in RTW. We can see nearly everything anyway and at some point we have to move close and fight..why postpone it? You cant make any fancy out-flanking marching to surprise the enemy. So why bother with larger maps?

I'd _definitely_ want larger maps. But, I'd want true line-of-sight to accommodate it. I'm fine with a bird's-eye vantage point for the general as it makes controlling easier, but the player should be able to see only the enemies that his troops see. Many other RTS games have this feature. Larger maps for MTW are good too, currently there simply isn't enough room for maneuvering in 4v4 games. And "redzone camping" to deny flanking is a problem too, of course.

About control... 16 units really isn't that much. Yes the units are dumb, and this compensates somewhat. Also there can be a plenty of chaos in a 4v4, gotta agree with that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif But, consider this: even in a 4v4, a skilled player can do maneuvers with his _entire_ army acting practically in unison. Good players can, for example, quickly start moving towards an enemy's flank, hoping that he will rotate his entire army with alt+right click, leaving the backs of his units exposed to a cav charge. Skilled players can maneuver their armies so precisely that they can kill or rout several times of their own numbers even if the quality of troops is fairly equal.


Quote[/b] ]The problem with units that dont have the correct abilities is that some units might end up being weak and not used. Yes that can happen if you make mistakes with stats etc even trying do to it historically.

What, do you mean to say that historical units do not have differences in cost-efficiency? I'd say quite the opposite, that the units in MTW are cost-wise _much_ more in balance than they historically were. Historical limitations like support costs, training times, troop availability and lack of information about troop abilities are missing in MTW, and IMO _that_ is what makes armies in MTW unrealistic and imbalanced. I'm not a history expert though, so can't say for certain.

I don't know enough about the mobility of swordsmen to comment that, but was there so much difference historically? And how important was maneuvering in general in historical battles? (What about the "pushing matches" of spear/pikemen? How much maneuvering in those, for example?)Could you or someone else recommend some reading?

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Crandaeolon @ May 05 2003,16:40)]Whoa, I didn't know I'm this good at trolling http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

But, now that I'm on a (t)roll, I'll keep arguing. Let's hope this gets read by the devs. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Heh

Im just on a crusade.. The truth is out there http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif


Quote[/b] ]Has the impetuousness of knights or other units ever been much of a problem? I can recall perhaps one or two instances when some Muslim infantry charging without orders has caused some problems, but the distances are so small it's not much of a problem with cav. At present, it's IMO just a cosmetic touch, nothing really meaningful. Actually, impetuous charges can be pretty useful sometimes; they give some "free will" to units.

Well I remember one time where 2 out of 4 cav (standing outside range of enemy arbs) started charging at some enemy cav that came too close.I was so busy with some other cav that I didnt spot it until they had actually reached the enemy arbs. I have been shouting at the monitor when I needed some knights to stop and come back but just kept on going off in hot pursuit and I really just didnt have time for that impetuous crap.

So yes sometimes it doesnt have much impact but the more busy you are and the more your army is scattered, going impetuous can be a pain in the ass. I hate when it happens but love the feature http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif



Quote[/b] ]I'd _definitely_ want larger maps. But, I'd want true line-of-sight to accommodate it. I'm fine with a bird's-eye vantage point for the general as it makes controlling easier, but the player should be able to see only the enemies that his troops see.

Yes me too. Im very much in favor of reducing the radar. It should only be able to show enemy units within a certain range..dont know how big a range. I dont want to see enemy banners or be able to see a unit's name or number of ment..only when much closer than right now. I want better/bigger deployment zones too so they overlap with your allies.

All that combined will mean I cant sit back and precisely count number of enemy units and easily see an enemy concentration or know that an enemy must have 4 hidden units because I can only count 12. Right now I can see units that is even considered hidden by the radar..just because the camera can be moved up in the air. Thats wrong.



Quote[/b] ]Good players can, for example, quickly start moving towards an enemy's flank, hoping that he will rotate his entire army with alt+right click, leaving the backs of his units exposed to a cav charge. Skilled players can maneuver their armies so precisely that they can kill or rout several times of their own numbers even if the quality of troops is fairly equal.


Well I must admit I dont see the control thing a big problem. Yes we do things quicker than they could back then but we all can do things quicker..not just the attacker. Your scenario is not that bad really... the army is now 2 maneuver elements. Imagine you being in charge of the cav personally and sends a message to the commander of the infantry to march forward and wheel to threaten enemy flank. Yes it will take a few minutes maybe more before the infantry moves while youre ready to shout "Chaaaarge".

I dont consider it to be a problem really. And when you have divided your army into several groups and try to help your ally far away from your main army control is not easy. I still consider a 4v4 to be very realistic when it comes to command and control..some thing you have better control of, some other things is actually more difficult to achieve. Having horsearchers operating in several independant groups and coordinate that..

Of course we can find many battles with lots of strange things happening that simply cant be done in MTW or in the miniature rulesets I have: Allies in your army quitting and leaving the battle..oh wait that can happen when your allies suddenly realise its dinner time and Mom is angry..ok bad example..oh well there are still many strange things.. trust me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

That one army can defeat several armies out of pure skill is not something I consider unrealistic at all. A good general who could inspire his men and have a good plan and/or enemy general make big blunders..it happened back then and it happens in MTW.


Quote[/b] ]What, do you mean to say that historical units do not have differences in cost-efficiency? I'd say quite the opposite, that the units in MTW are cost-wise _much_ more in balance than they historically were

Well yes and no. We want a balanced game where all factions have an equal chance of winning so we are giving troops cost values to make sure its balanced. In real life a war is more likely to be determined by size of economy but for a game like MTW or any wargame we say both sides have equal economy..at least for the "money" spent in that particular battle. Nothing wrong with that really..you can find many one sided battles but also "balanced" battles where both sides had a more or less equal chance to win.

In MTW all unitcosts have been calculated by formulas..if a weapon has better attack/defense it means the unit cost more. FMAA and Order foot: same armour/shield and morale but spears have better attack/defense versus cav and a bit more added because they have 2 support ranks all that and suddenly one order foot soldier costs about 64% more than a FMAA. Because of some fudge factors and rounding off its reduced to only 37%. All the formulas are nice and very detailed but IMO ruins units like spears, pikes and to some degree polearm units too, because they have bonuses versus cav and therefore cost more. Now swords might then suddenly not be worth much but as said earlier you can give swords other advantages than just combatpower.

Ok long rant (and I had to take a break but I hope I remember what I wanted to say..)

One way to insure that we have all types of historically units is by cost really: Unitcost and amount of money we are meant to play with. Yes if you have too much money you will end up with 16 units of lancers. Im trying to do it in MPwars. You cant just buy all the good and expensive units..well if you do you wont have 16 units. It is a bit like a 5k MTW game,just with better morale so you dont need loads of money to buy morale. In a 5k game you are forced to make compromises when buying an army.

The differences in movement..well. All foot units in good standard marching order would more or less have same speed but when going into a battle formation things are suddenly different. Spears/pikes are close order units and they fight best working together.

We know about Roman units being much more maneuverable compared to a Macedonian phalanx. They couldnt take on a phalanx from the front but could outflank or exploit holes created in the phalanx caused by terrain.

We know how halberdiers and swordsmen moved on the flanks of the pike formations in the 16th century. Yes we have a few incidents of spanish sword and bucklers attacking a disordered swiss pike formation head-on and winning but we also have pikes defeating them when they were not disordered IIRC.

Maneuvering..hm depends on terrain and how the battle started. I'll come with a few examples later.

Pushing matches..well that can turn ugly..not the pushing but the heated debate about the existance of such pushing heh.

If Hakonarson reads this he can come with loads of stuff to read. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Otherwise I'll come up with a few books or sites later.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ancmed is a nice group with lots of discussions about ancient and medieval warfare.

Uhmm think that was it..

CBR

[Magyar Khan]

in would say there are differnt stages of visibility

-u see and hear nothing
-there is a rumour, birds, dust, whatever
-u see unitshapes but u cant figure out what the unit is like
-u get reports by scouts
-u have a clean look at the enemy units


imo the game should not work with a simple fog, in most games this is just to close
real LOS would be nice and imo can be done. but somehow this game can use options to scout as well

an old idea of me is that teh side who spends the less amount fo florin is allowed to see teh enemys army (or part) before teh game starts.

[Aelwyn]

Universal Khan? hmm...thats a pretty big title..seeing as the known universe is about 10-11 billion light years in length from our position....all lands from sunrise to sunset don't even compare. Good luck with that Magy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif. But anyways...

A limited line of sight would be good, but there would come a point where those with better eye sight would have the advantage. This just doesn't seem fair to me, at least for our older players (which I am not). Better realism would be nice (historical realism) but is kind of a compromise. If it were really accurate, a simple valour/morale system wouldn't work. Some people are better at defense, some at offense, irreguardless of the weapon. The system simply can't take advantage of individual differences, so a compromise has to be made. For instance...in SP if you merge two units, lets say one w/v4 and one w/v2, depending on the unit size, may get an average unit of v3, eventhough the valour of each man is individually tracked. So, in a bad situation, those v2 soldiers should run, while the v4 soldiers would theoretically stay and fight a bit longer...correct? This is something beyond ability to accurately reflect. So like I said, compromises have to be made.

I had a lot more to say, but this malt beer is telling me to pay attention to it, so I will summarize: The game should be historically accurate (all units in the era they should appear in), and IF POSSIBLE balanced as well (same valour spears beat same valour cavs, with all the given exceptions, etc). Playability is more of an issue with me, as true accuracy may entail a VR game where you have to worry about deserters, enemy you can't see, enemy who dress like your own soldiers, whether or not to sleep at night, etc.....others can argue over the details http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Kocmoc]

realism is nice once, but very boring after a view battles
if u look at mtw, if we would have a historical game, we would see maybe 1 cav in the whole army, and 70-80% would be peasants.

well, i think it wouldnt be fun at all.
for SP it will be more interesting, yes but for the MP its just bad, as we want fun for 1 or 2 years and not just for a few battles.

so thats a computer game and all i want is fun, and the possibility to create many tactics. this is just possible within some very nice balanced units and a good system.

koc

[Nowake]

What can I say ... I voted number 2 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Sjakihata]

Of course realism is important, but I do not care if a legionary looks like he did at the given time. I like more that he has the abilities of the time.

That said, I would not like to see RTW become a game, where only the "spear" units or "pavise" units were in use, nor would I like it to be a game with only 5-6 available units in MP due to extremely bad balances.

So, for me what is most important in battle is the balances, and balances is a must in MP. While I think I will play most MP I voted for balances.

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Kocmoc @ May 06 2003,15:11)]realism is nice once, but very boring after a view battles
if u look at mtw, if we would have a historical game, we would see maybe 1 cav in the whole army, and 70-80% would be peasants.
Im sorry but im getting tired of this... Where do you see medieval battles with forces like that?? Hell you might get lucky and find some peasant revolts like that..but hardly the thing we play anyway and it sure hell doesnt have much in common with wellknown battles fought back then.

No offense but this is precisely the ignorance Im talking about. People are so much afraid of historical accuracy but dont know anything about history. That idea of loads of MTW like peasants is just plain and simply wrong

If people consider historical accuracy to be bad for balance they better come up with something better than just repeating this peasant myth http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

CBR

[Magyar Khan]

historical accurate only favours when it added longelivity to teh game. the GAME is NOT historical. teh maps have borders, no supply charts, no pre battle major decisions. its just a game which uses some tactical rules.

so adding a longbow is nice to give a certain missile user more range than others but after all "historical" elements added it stays a game. if u want it or not.

[Magyar Khan]

another example, no shooting during moving for horsearchers. dont tell me this cant be programmed.

its nice if u CBR try to come close to historical accurate as possible but if this aim would result in boring battles your mod-audience will be limited.

[Nelson]

I don’t understand the alleged connection between boring battles and historically accurate unit values. Play a game to death, any game, and it will get boring.

The game tries to be realistic in many ways. Any shortcomings it may have in this regard is no reason to abandon all pretense toward accuracy in the interests of achieving some ethereal concept like "balance".

When someone says balance, what exactly do they mean? I think everyone's idea of balance is different. If I'm right, how could CA ever get there if they wanted to?

[Crandaeolon]

It's so late that I'm nodding off here, so no long comments this time. But go check out the Feedback on Multiplayer after VI release (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=18;t=6532) -thread (2nd post) in Jousting fields for some suggestions on what the cav-swords-spears-halbs balance could be. Yes, those aren't realistic, but IMO they would result in interesting gameplay.

I didn't mention unit speeds or "agility", just frontal attacks. There definitely is some room for improvement in modeling better the different units' ability to maneuver.

Then the army composition issue, which I consider to be the greatest "source" of imbalance... I dropped a suggestion in the A simple way how to balance unit in multiplayer (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=19;t=6262) -thread, go check that out too and put some more spam into that thread. Important things are being discussed, let's be as vocal as we can be. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

Edit: BTW, thanks for the link CBR.

[Kocmoc]

dont know where u get/got ur info CBR, but in europe, especially in german, where many battles was fought at this times we hgave many museums and much information about this time. my onkel and me work in such an museum (its a part of our hobby) we organise every year the "great Völkerschlacht" nearby leipzig. with around 250.000 visitors every year so maybe i speak to much about battles around my homecountry and maybe other battles, in byz ...turk mediterrain areas was other, this is possible as im not so good informed about this. but i think i know something about battles in central europ and german at this times. and apart from some mainarmys, the most "armys" was little groups of farmers wich got maybe some very bad weapons. they got the order to fight, they wasnt trained.

if u look at the most battles, dont look jsut at the "famous" battles, the mainpart was masses of farmers

the prob with many of the famous battles, is u cant believe it all, many historicans changed the infos as sometimes just a few mouthbased story was told and later they got written down, the victory part of a battle aslways tell more than he realy did.....thats victoryemntality...or however it got called.

koc

[CBR]

Yes you of course have "Der Bauernkrieg" around 1525 or something and we can find several peasant revolts before that.

As I said earlier peasants were involved in many battles even big famous ones with Kings involved.

But the peasant unit we have in MTW can only be considered to be a unit used in some of the revolts we know.

English Longbowmen can be considered peasants as they were yeoman and IIRC thats really just a free peasant.

The Bill which was a nice weapon is AFAIK a simple agricultural tool that can even be seen used today.

Crossbows were very common is some places so even if they were just peasants they could be considered as an important part of the army.

The Flemish rebels fighting the French in early 14th century and later... most of them were militias from both cities and villages but armed with long spears and Godendags as the most common weapon and IIRC armour were not uncommon as the area was very rich compared to other regions.

The Swiss armed with pikes and halberds but not so much armour..lots of peasants there.

The feudal levy was the most common way of gathering an army as well as mercenaries. The Italian city states had their militias and condottieri (mercenaries)

Whenever a king or general gathered an army you wont find peasants as MTW but more like spearman, urban militias..yes units of order foot quality. All depended on wealth of the region, how eager they were to fight for their king and how much the feudal lords allowed armed and trained militias..things like that.

Another part of the feudal system were the knights and retainers. Peasants couldnt be in the army for too long as they had to take care of field. But the ruling class and their escorts didnt have to worry about that so you could say they were much more common in an army that was in the field for several months.

A king could always to a certain degree expect to have many well trained and equipped men at arms ready when he called for them. Same with mercenaries but maybe it took time to find/hire them and of course they demanded more pay.

IIRC 40 days without pay was "standard" in the feudal system. But the system changed over time and was different from country to country. I can find more details if anyone is interested..right now im just using memory.

CBR

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Magyar Khan @ May 06 2003,20:15)]historical accurate only favours when it added longelivity to teh game. the GAME is NOT historical. teh maps have borders, no supply charts, no pre battle major decisions. its just a game which uses some tactical rules.
Yes we dont have everything in a game. But that doesnt prevent a game from using same tactical options a general had back then.

We fight for making this game balanced as we keep on having overpowered units/weak factions whatever. And Im saying we will most likely keep on having these problems if CA doesnt sit down and looks at what happened on a battlefield. If one doesnt understand the relations between units and what was important then something will be missed and no one knows who to fix it.

Yes its just a game but we keep on having arguments about balance and how to fix it so something is wrong. Its easy just to say "we want more balance" but how is it achieved?

When can we have a game where we dont need rules..when can have we have a game where all units are worth something, and if they are not worth much at least make them cheap.

By using history books and army lists from miniature rulesets you are suddenly a lot closer to it than we have seen so far.

CBR

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Magyar Khan @ May 06 2003,20:17)]another example, no shooting during moving for horsearchers. dont tell me this cant be programmed.
And why would you want horsearchers to do that?

Actually I had come up with a list of reasons to include it but I would like you to answer it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

CBR

[Leet Eriksson]

well its historically accurate,horse archers shoot while moving.mongols,greeks(byzantines),muslims,asians and lots of other eastern nations used horse archers.also it would make those turcomen and mamelukes more useful http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[DemonArchangel]

Making history come alive. I wanna see GORE in RTW

[Captain Fishpants]

Al "GORE" may be many things, but I don't think he's immortal. So sorry, we can't include him in RTW. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Jacque Schtrapp]

Ah come on After all he invented the internet. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

[Vanya]

GAH

"Balance is an illusion sought by those stuck on the long side of the fulcrum."
-- Vanya

To acheive perfect balance, all units would be the same. What fun would it be if youz could only get peasants to fill your army? Nobody would play.

"Inbalance" will always be a factor when people can choose units they want. If Vanya take 16 kinigits, Vanya has fielded an inbalanced army.

Balance requires all armies to be homogenous in capabilities. Yet, there is no guarantee that all playas will field average armies. Often, it is the very inbalance that creates opportunity on the battlefield. If all armies were 4 cav, 4 spear, 4 sword and 4 arbs, there would be nothing to make interesting battles.

Vanya sez... those who complain of balance simply whine because enemy chose wiser than he did and applied better tactics. Sure, if you take camels into a lush terrain and face 16 chiv sgts, you should not be surprised to walk out with a loss. But to call that inbalance is clearly "wrong".

Vanya sez... the perceived notion of balance that He understands people want is something akin to "spear pig-sticks cav, sword smashes spear, etc.". In its most basic form, Vanya sez such is "desireable". But units within each category need bonuses to distinguish them. Otherwise we have all peasants wearing a multitude of masks

"He who loses most complains the loudest."
-- Vanya

GAH

[Vanya]

Quote[/b] (Captain Fishpants @ Sep. 23 2003,10:42)]Al "GORE" may be many things, but I don't think he's immortal. So sorry, we can't include him in RTW. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
GAH

Back when RTW was conceived in a London pub one rainy afternoon... Vanya told The Man to put Vanya in the game as a special unit. Vanya said... "Headless Horseman is a historically accurate unit." At first The Man did not believe Vanya. Vanya showed The Man His surrogate head, and The Man became a devout believer.

Then, after the game had been made and cleared for release, Vanya had a Moment of Clarity. Vanya said to The Man: "GAH Headless Horseman unit too inbalanced. Having a 1-man unit that cannot be killed and is totally invincible will make playas do headless rushes and spoil MP play for the masses."

The Man was perplexed. The Headless Horseman unit was The Man's favorite unit, as it often single-handedly allowed him to win impossible battles and games he would otherwise never have won.

The Man was confused, and sunk into a feverish delusion, soaked in a tide of Vodka and "Colombian Supremo". The Vanya unit had rampaged through the QA ranks, converting all who touched it into devout followers of the Horseman. All, even The Man, had offered their sweat and blood to Vanya's "People's Crusade for the Liberation of Man from the Tyranny of Freedom". Yet they were all blind to the effects of the Vanya unit on the game.

Once all the employees under The Man had become indoctrinated in the ideologies of cutting heads off, Vanya once again approached The Man. This time, however, Vanya ordered The Man to remove the Headless Horseman unit from the game. The Man, and all his underlings could not resist the will of their god.

And so, Vanya brought balance to the game.

And the ancient prophecy was fullfilled.

GAH

[Captain Fishpants]

Ah, if it were only those four choices, how much simpler life would be http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif