View Full Version : First impressions on mp
First off whilst i may have been playing the series since STw, i have only been playing mp since Rome.
I hated RTW mp due to the uber units, and ultra-fast routing.
Now i just played my first M2TW mp game. 10000 each, me as England, them as France. We both choose balanced armies, mine a mix of billmen, longbowmen and some knights, his a mix of dimsounted knights, noble cavalry, pikemen and cannons. I loose narrowly, i suffer 96% casualties, my opponent 86%, the deciding point of the battle was a long melee in the middle between my infantry and his before his superior cavalry made the difference. Battles last a long time, movement speeds are very good as well.
From my first impression i would say that mp is MUCH better than RTWs.
I loose narrowly, i suffer 96% casualties, my opponent 86%, the deciding point of the battle was a long melee in the middle between my infantry and his before his superior cavalry made the difference.
Such high casualties suggest the gameplay is now a battle of attrition. In the last Samurai Wars 3v3 MP battle for MTW/VI which was very closely fought the total losses for each player were:
Winners: 68%, 67%, 84%
Losers: 86%, 88%, 81%
They are indeed, his higher quality infantry gave him the edge in the battle, and because our armies were well balanced it was basically just grnd each other down. If my cavalry hadn't been killed by his so early on i could have sued them to flank. Instead thats what he did with his, cavalry may be less powerful than in RTw, but they are still battle deciders.
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
11-10-2006, 15:58
We played too MP. Our clan impressions:
- The battles are much better than in RTW (speed and unit behavior )
- Elefants are too strong. They destroyed 5 or 6 units. Very annoying.
- 3vs3 was impossible. Has had anyone other experience? At least 3vs3 lagfree is mandatory needed.
- We missed the exhaustions bars and the units exhaust too slowly. I had one unit, that marched over the half battlefield, was fighting until only 6men left and they was still fresh o_O
- In my opinion there are too less maps.
Something about the unit selection. If one team has already a faction the other cannot choose it or the game cannot be started. Why they don't remove these faction from the panel?
They are indeed, his higher quality infantry gave him the edge in the battle, and because our armies were well balanced it was basically just grnd each other down.
This type of gameplay will not bring back the STW community. Also, it doesn't appear that those factions are balanced if he had the better infantry and the better cavalry. Since factions cannot be chosen by more than one player, it's important to have balanced factions. In STW all factions are the same, and in MTW factions can be chosen more than once.
He had the better infantry because he chose more high quality infatry than i did. The factionas are all pretty well balanced, i just went more for numbers in my selection instead of quality.
Espionage
11-10-2006, 18:06
Just had my first match against somebody who picked the French vs my English. This is my first ever multiplayer game with the total war series, and I'm bloody impressed. Perfect sync, almost thought I was playing off-line.
And a nice victory to boot ; )
Orda Khan
11-10-2006, 18:20
We played too MP. Our clan impressions:
- The battles are much better than in RTW (speed and unit behavior )
- Elefants are too strong. They destroyed 5 or 6 units. Very annoying.
- 3vs3 was impossible. Has had anyone other experience? At least 3vs3 lagfree is mandatory needed.
- We missed the exhaustions bars and the units exhaust too slowly. I had one unit, that marched over the half battlefield, was fighting until only 6men left and they was still fresh o_O
- In my opinion there are too less maps.
Something about the unit selection. If one team has already a faction the other cannot choose it or the game cannot be started. Why they don't remove these faction from the panel?
Some disappointing issues here........
I suspected 3v3 would be hard or impossible. Sorry that is not good enough to bring back old players. Clan challenges at 2v2??
Still fresh after a long march and a long fight? Can't say that sounds promising either.
Back to the one player one faction nonsense? That was fixed in MTW and appeared again in RTW.....and it is STILL the same. So if we want a faction v faction team battle we are screwed. WOW, fantastic news :wall:
........Orda
x-dANGEr
11-10-2006, 18:28
Any news about Athlon XP compatibility issues?
NihilisticCow
11-10-2006, 18:36
Athlon XP's lag badly online... works fine single player, but at a total crawl online... Not sure if there's anything to try except replacing processor, motherboard etc.
I had a 2v2 and everyone got into game pretty quickly, and yet it still lagged like hell. :(
Spartanian
11-10-2006, 22:13
ati x1950xtx
amd 5000 dc
2gig ram..........and cant play 2v2 without lag..not to mention a 3v3 or 4v4..
When i see some guys host a 4v4 i just cant believe that they can play that..
I tried all settings but allwys lag,when its moore then 4000 units:help:
maybe a amd issue???anyone got the same prob ??
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
11-11-2006, 00:21
Still fresh after a long march and a long fight? Can't say that sounds promising either.
We played again this evening. Now the exhaustion was okay. Yesterday we played over Hamachi and LAN. Maybe there are other values. That makes hope.
t1master
11-11-2006, 01:58
how is the chat? can you easily highlight your friends/clan and have a nice private chat??? i don't expect the throwback to shoggy, but mtw:vi had a fully functional chat lobby. is it the same confusion that rome is/was????
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-11-2006, 05:37
MP might not be bad from what I hear from here and other places, though I will have to try it for myself when MTW2 comes out here in the US Monday or Tuesday then..
wow...sounds pretty good...ive never played multiplayer...beacause i do not know how...how do i play multiplayer?
x-dANGEr
11-11-2006, 08:24
Athlon XP's lag badly online... works fine single player, but at a total crawl online... Not sure if there's anything to try except replacing processor, motherboard etc.
I can't see the reason of that.. If the game doesn't lag in SP, it has no reason to lag in MP, except of bandwidth problems, of which you're confiriming that they aren't the problem..
PLayed my first ever mp-battle in a total war game,a 3v3:2thumbsup:
It was a very close defeat,(enemy had 30 men left :s),but it lagged quite a bit.Wait a minute,you guys are saying there can't be two HRE's in one battle?
I did it yesterday:oops:
Orda Khan
11-11-2006, 12:05
Wait a minute,you guys are saying there can't be two HRE's in one battle?
I did it yesterday:oops:
Can you expand on this please hoetje? It was one of the best fixes in MTW when more than one player could select the same faction. RTW MP would not allow this, yet it was possible to create an historical battle and field more than one army per faction. If CA have fixed this for MP it is great news.
How bad was the lag in the 3v3? Was it considerably worse than the lag people are reporting even in 2v2?
I am a bit concerned by the initial comments on battles, victory seems to be very marginal with losses very close on both sides. Could it be the case that battles have become too attritional? I would not want to see battles decided by only a few men standing at the end.
Has anyone tried XP Athlon v Intel to check how that runs?
......Orda
I can't see the reason of that.. If the game doesn't lag in SP, it has no reason to lag in MP, except of bandwidth problems, of which you're confiriming that they aren't the problem..
Err, it does have more reason to lag. I don't lag at all in sp, but do mp. My internets a decent broadband setup, besides I would have lagged badly in rome if its internet related.
tibilicus
11-11-2006, 12:36
The game play is much improved. If you STW players don't want to come back due to niggles in the lobby your choice. ~;)
But it is a greater improvment to RTW. I never played STW online can't say. But instead of listening to other people get in the lobby and try it yourself m8's.
Tib
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
11-11-2006, 12:46
The game play is much improved. If you STW players don't want to come back due to niggles in the lobby your choice. ~;)
But it is a greater improvment to RTW. I never played STW online can't say. But instead of listening to other people get in the lobby and try it yourself m8's.
Tib
I wasted my money with RTW, and worse, I wasted quite a bit of time.
I can probably live with a bad lobby if the gameplay is good. Just better than RTW is not good enough, I want at least as good as MTW/VI 2.01.
Part of gameplay being good are:
- being able to play 3v3 or 4v4 without lag
- good balance
- good speed so that it's a tactical game, not a lump it all mass click fest
Unfortunately, there is no chance that the two latter can be assessed properly until a couple of months, minimum. Until then, I'll read what you write and have fun playing other games...
(and when January comes, EU3 will be out... so maybe I just pass alltogether anyway)
Louis,
We played too MP. Our clan impressions:
- The battles are much better than in RTW (speed and unit behavior )
- Elefants are too strong. They destroyed 5 or 6 units. Very annoying.
- 3vs3 was impossible. Has had anyone other experience? At least 3vs3 lagfree is mandatory needed.
- We missed the exhaustions bars and the units exhaust too slowly. I had one unit, that marched over the half battlefield, was fighting until only 6men left and they was still fresh o_O
- In my opinion there are too less maps.
Something about the unit selection. If one team has already a faction the other cannot choose it or the game cannot be started. Why they don't remove these faction from the panel?
It is early too say any unit is too strong. I am sure by the time i could play M2TW, my Elephant Corp will easily be destroyed. :)
Not only 3x3, 4x4 is a must.
Hmmmm deja vu? In RTW, it was the same until a patch, that once a faction is chosen, it cannot be chosen again. This must be fixed.
Anniep
Err, it does have more reason to lag. I don't lag at all in sp, but do mp. My internets a decent broadband setup, besides I would have lagged badly in rome if its internet related.
Yes, In SP, you have only 1 computer to worry about: your own. In MP, like in the real army, the march is of the slowest. Also, in MP, we have to syncrhonize between players.
Anniep
tibilicus
11-11-2006, 13:41
The lobby lag can be explained quite simply. Like most games when a lobby goes up there always laggy/annoyng for a few days. No doubt this will chnage soon ~:)
Tib
The game play is much improved. If you STW players don't want to come back due to niggles in the lobby your choice. ~;)
I expect CA to maintain the standard of play they set with the first game. It would be to the benefit of all the players if CA did that.
But it is a greater improvment to RTW. I never played STW online can't say. But instead of listening to other people get in the lobby and try it yourself m8's.
Better than RTW isn't good enough. It's already clear that M2TW MP is not up to the standard set by STW. I know a lot of vets that have left Total War MP, and I have too much respect for their intelligence to suggest that they play an inferior game.
Back to the one player one faction nonsense? ........Orda
BI works the same way (one player one faction) and it works well. Basically it is forcing the players to play with different faction and to find factions that work well together. Lot more factions are played this way.
This type of gameplay will not bring back the STW community. Also, it doesn't appear that those factions are balanced if he had the better infantry and the better cavalry. Since factions cannot be chosen by more than one player, it's important to have balanced factions. In STW all factions are the same, and in MTW factions can be chosen more than once.
We dont know as yet whether MTW2 factions are balenced or not. It seems though that there are similar factions like: Milanese/Venicians, Hungary/Poland, perhaps even more.
Also, there were many battles in MTW which ended in a war of attrition dozens of tired men slugging out in a true last man standing situation. I even remember that once we had to chase out one, yes one man that was still fighting in a 4v4 to get victory!!!
IMO this kind of situation is expectable with infantry heavy armies led by equal generals. The problem starts when mistakes cannot be punished and the player who makes these mistakes cannot be chainrouted. However, we do not this as yet.
tibilicus
11-11-2006, 17:21
I expect CA to maintain the standard of play they set with the first game. It would be to the benefit of all the players if CA did that.
Better than RTW isn't good enough. It's already clear that M2TW MP is not up to the standard set by STW. I know a lot of vets that have left Total War MP, and I have too much respect for their intelligence to suggest that they play an inferior game.
Well m8 some times you just got to live with things. I for one am not a particuarlar fan of CA. RTW was awful agreed but you might have to live with the fact we may never return to those days. It's their choice give it a wirl see if they like it or go by third hand opinions.
Tib
Better than RTW isn't good enough. It's already clear that M2TW MP is not up to the standard set by STW. I know a lot of vets that have left Total War MP, and I have too much respect for their intelligence to suggest that they play an inferior game.
Shogun had like 12 units in the whole game, M2TW has over 100, factions with all different units. I think one man and his dog could balance the amount of units shogun has. You shouldn't be comparing M2 to Shogun because Shogun isn't even 100th of the scale that Medieval 2 is.
I'm not saying Shoguns not good, I never played it however I'm just saying its very unfair comparing to two. Also, I am one of those people who likes variety in their games, different factions, different units, different strategies, Shogun seems to not have much variation. I wouldn't usually say that because I've not played the game but since you're judging M2 without playing it I guess fairs fair.
"I expect CA to maintain the standard of play they set with the first game. It would be to the benefit of all the players if CA did that."
Please clarify this point, I don't really understand it properly :no:
Also, there were many battles in MTW which ended in a war of attrition dozens of tired men slugging out in a true last man standing situation. I even remember that once we had to chase out one, yes one man that was still fighting in a 4v4 to get victory!!!
That was caused by battlefield upgrades, and using too many upgrades on high morale swords. We got LongJohn to remove the battlefield upgrades in MTW/VI v2.01, but swords still had too much upgrading and the discount on ranged unit upgrades allowed too much upgrading on those units as well. MTW is not the standard of comparision that I would use. In Samurai Wars for MTW/VI v2.01, we don't have units fighting to the last man except perhaps the hatamoto and ninja which are small high honor units. AMP and Swoosh helped identify a problem with small cav units being too effective at the end of a battle in Samurai Wars, and we corrected that problem.
Battlefield upgrades are back in M2TW. Their effect might not be as strong as in MTW, but if the overall morale level has been raised, then even weaker battlefield upgrades could easily be too much towards the end of the battle. The battle engine only operates well over a relatively small range of morale.
Just out of interest - how are MPers finding archers and missiles? In the SP game so far, they seem to fire rather slowly. They remind me of arbs - slow but lethal. I can't imagine they are very useful in MP as it seems you could close within a volley or two. But then again, I've never played MP and gather arbs were popular.
x-dANGEr
11-11-2006, 21:31
To the "vets". Why do you get the feeling that what you liked is what's perfect? I really don't care if a battle ends with 20 men left or 300 men left, I really don't care if upgrades are in or not, I really don't care if a unit can move 140 m/sec instead of 139 m/sec.. And I'm sure, most of the community doesn't.
As for the lag matter.. I'm saying that if you can have a SP game with 6000 men with no lag, you should be able to have it the same way in MP. Though, due to Athlon in-compatibilty issues, I thought that maybe Athlon users had to do some extra calcs or something, and by that lag the game?..
Orda Khan
11-11-2006, 22:43
BI works the same way (one player one faction) and it works well. Basically it is forcing the players to play with different faction and to find factions that work well together. Lot more factions are played this way.
Exactly........it forces you to choose separate factions. Do you think that is good? Personally I would prefer a choice.
Back in MTW days I enjoyed many faction v faction battles and the replays of these battles looked like epic historical battles. What is the chance of this type of enjoyment when forced to select different factions? It means many factions will be used. Big deal, it means I can not host what I would like to host. I prefer something that looks realistic but now I do not have that choice
........Orda
Orda Khan
11-11-2006, 22:56
To the "vets". Why do you get the feeling that what you liked is what's perfect? I really don't care if a battle ends with 20 men left or 300 men left, I really don't care if upgrades are in or not, I really don't care if a unit can move 140 m/sec instead of 139 m/sec.. And I'm sure, most of the community doesn't.
I am sure that most of the vets would not not think what they liked was perfect but it was far better balanced than the gameplay that followed with each new release. The problem is x-dANGEr you are almost talking to yourself. The vast majority of MP vets left these forums ages ago. Those who remained gave up on MP when RTW appeared and Total War .Org became almost exclusively SP orientated. There are other sites of course where you could pose this question but it would be to little avail. With luck maybe M2TW will attract some MP interest again but to achieve this the gameplay and balance must at least match previous titles
.......Orda
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-11-2006, 23:08
STW, Monarch, was Balance. Me,myself, never playing STW MP, the the SamWars mod for VI, will say a piece for my fellow MTW Vets. RTW was a awful game. Bad MP gameplay,etc...
STW, Yes Monarch, only had X number of units, and a army could only hold 16 units total, but it was balance. Nothing wrong with the gameplay, exustaion bars,so on so forth. MTW/VI was better, Unit Wise. Same Great Gameplay and such.
To Clarify that, let me see if I can explain it good..
Alot of People Monarch, Are STW Vets, or MTW Vets (like myself,which I'm pround of) played TW for many months or years before RTW came out. You could say we pave the road for MP on RTW/BI and even MTW2 for you new people to MP, like you Monarch and others. When RTW/BI was a flop, Sure, Clans like Grey Wolves, BHC, and RTK and Cetiblero for example,stayed on RTW for a bit, but the rest left, ethier back to MTW, like Aggony or 7Bear7Bottom, or just leave for good, like Kenkicua (sorry for misspelling) or FF (not sure). That Leaves only a HandFul of Vets around, with alot of "newer" people,so to speak, on RTW. Nothing wrong with that, but when none of the old vets are willing to play any more TW MP anymore,then you got a ploblem m8..
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
11-12-2006, 00:06
Can you expand on this please hoetje? It was one of the best fixes in MTW when more than one player could select the same faction.
A new player and/or rtw player joined our game. He was in an other team and took also the english faction. The game was not starting. He started a discussion. A very annoying feature.
How bad was the lag in the 3v3? Was it considerably worse than the lag people are reporting even in 2v2?
After the evening today I am sure, that I will sell MTW2. I cannot imagine, that they can fix the lag problems. The lag is this "beautiful" graphic engine I think. Or who can notify about positive things about the multiplayer?
Has anyone tried XP Athlon v Intel to check how that runs?
yesterday we tried a 1vs1 XP vs Intel. At the end the game got big network problems. We couldn't finish the battle.
Shogun had like 12 units in the whole game, M2TW has over 100, factions with all different units. I think one man and his dog could balance the amount of units shogun has. You shouldn't be comparing M2 to Shogun because Shogun isn't even 100th of the scale that Medieval 2 is.
MTW went to 100 unit types, but they weren't balanced as well as the STW's 12 units and many of them are redundant. In the final version of MTW/VI, the spears and ranged units are so weak that the gameplay degenerates to using only cav and swords. So, you are only using two components of the RPS. That's why the gameplay in STW is more interesting. In addition, fatigue rate and morale level were close to optimal in STW. The game wasn't perfect, and at the time we thought the gameplay would improve with each new version of the game, but that hasn't happened.
I'm not saying Shoguns not good, I never played it however I'm just saying its very unfair comparing to two. Also, I am one of those people who likes variety in their games, different factions, different units, different strategies, Shogun seems to not have much variation. I wouldn't usually say that because I've not played the game but since you're judging M2 without playing it I guess fairs fair.
We made the Samurai Wars mod for MTW/VI, and it has 14 unit types. I can say without any doubt that there is more to do tactically in a Samurai Wars battle than there is in an MTW/VI battle. MTW doesn't really have more variety than STW because players number crunch the unit stats and use only the best units which gives a greatly reduced set of usable units. In STW each unit has a clearly defined purpose within the RPS system which means every unit has an effective counterunit, and all of the unit types are useable. Each unit has to be used correctly or it will loose badly. Also, the dynamics of the gameplay are well adjusted, and the 16 unit armies of STW push the limit of what a very good player can handle.
"I expect CA to maintain the standard of play they set with the first game. It would be to the benefit of all the players if CA did that."
Please clarify this point, I don't really understand it properly :no:
Well, in MTW they went to larger maps, but forgot to optimize the fatigue rate for those larger maps. The fatigue rate was what was used in STW on its small maps. They also switched to purchasing units at valor 0 rather than the valor 2 of STW, but forgot to add in the +4 morale that valor 2 provides. Therefore the game turned into a routfest if you tried to play at the default florins. This lead to players using more florins, but that allowed the rather inexpensive swords to be upgraded to the point where they could defeat cavalry. In VI, +2 morale was added, but it should have been +4 morale. They added armor to most units, but didn't readjust archer effectiveness. Archers were exactly the same effectiveness as in STW which meant they were almost useless in MTW. They went to xbow firing rates that requires 15 minutes to use all the ammo which meant they get too tired and can't hit anything, and also makes for long boring shootouts. They reduced the density of trees which meant trees didn't provide as much cover as they did in STW. Initially, spears were too strong. They adjusted them but they were then too weak. They were left this way despite the opportunity to readjust them in the final v2.01 patch.
In RTW, fatigue rate for running was reduced so much it was no longer a consideration when playing. The running speeds were increased by 50%, and this was coupled with 25% more units and a delay in the response to orders turning the gameplay into "blobbing" attacks. Charge was too effective causing fast routing. The overlap penalty was removed so stacked units became very strong. Battlefield upgrades were brought back. The archers was more effective, but there was no penalty for using them in deep formations. I can't think of anything else right now, but there are other issues with RTW MP.
x-dANGEr
11-12-2006, 10:38
I am sure that most of the vets would not not think what they liked was perfect but it was far better balanced than the gameplay that followed with each new release. The problem is x-dANGEr you are almost talking to yourself. The vast majority of MP vets left these forums ages ago. Those who remained gave up on MP when RTW appeared and Total War .Org became almost exclusively SP orientated. There are other sites of course where you could pose this question but it would be to little avail. With luck maybe M2TW will attract some MP interest again but to achieve this the gameplay and balance must at least match previous titles
.......Orda
The vast majority of MP then left, but a new community is growing, at least a new MP player base is growing.. Sure, there might be a lot of immature kids through it, though, it was the same case with MTW, except you couldn't notice because of the lobby "features" I guess. (Maybe in STW there weren't at all.. Because at that time, I think internet and Computers weren't as popular).
Orda Khan
11-12-2006, 11:28
A new player and/or rtw player joined our game. He was in an other team and took also the english faction. The game was not starting. He started a discussion. A very annoying feature.
Sounds like RTW. I left many games due to someone refusing to take a faction that was not already selected. That is something I hoped would be fixed because the longer we stayed in this "Why should I change? You change!" limbo the more likely it seemed that the game would crash for whatever reason.
Request to CA :
Please fix this feature with a patch or MP will be a miserable experience
.......Orda
tibilicus
11-12-2006, 22:42
Well found somethign that annoys me. Cavalry. Despite what people say it IS overpowerd. Most good cav costs around 800 each and most good inf around 650 each. Head on head the cavalry is winning. This is still the case even with spears. Slightly disapoitns me as they got rid of it in BI but it's now similar to rtw 1.3 which was a mess..
Why some stay, and why some move on, there are many reasons.. its just part of life. But for sure, those names still appearing on .org since the day i joined .org.. must have a great passion for TW MP, maybe not for the different favour of TW MP, but for sure have or had great expectation for this genre of MP game.
Just a fish's experience..
STW MP was a great experience.. maybe it was because it was first of its kind? I was still learning the rope and getting to know the battle engine and game balance.. the few years was most exciting.. and its japanese :) The game was not free of problems, but the gaming experience was very enjoyable.
MTW.. somehow i missed the trees in STW. I missed yamato and ugly polar. Never knew the fear i always had facing AMP in STW was so enjoyable. I find the MTW MP fun despite issues (like STW but probably different). Spent equal time online as STW.. but generally couldnt recall any memorable battles now. Many clans to play with. More variety of team tactics i find, because factions were different (not like STW); the turk esp enjoyable playing with or vs.
RTW.. graphics was impressive. Didnt like the control interface. Didnt like the roman. Didnt like the cav. Missed the trees in STW. Game not as fun as before. Kinda feel like control and timing was not that important anymore.. hardly see someone with the dancing skill as Magyar on Totomi. Felt like its been a year+ since i stopped being active.
M2TW.. looking forward to it.
Enjoy STW most.. hopefully M2TW MP can let me play for another year with my buddies.
Hey goldfish, how are you mate? ~:) Nice to see you around. :bow:
Do you remember what you said to me after our first 3v3? ~;)
Well, news about MTW2 MP is that good to be honest, though I do not have the game as yet, so I cannot confirm or disprove anything.
cromwell
11-13-2006, 05:08
Hey Guys, I hope MTW2 MP turns out to be a great experience. I miss the old clan days, great battles between all the powerhouse players. It seemed as though people conducted themselves in a more mature manner.
In my opinion the lag is a result of people's computers not being able to handle the game. In MP your only as fast as the slowest person. When RTW came out there were terrible lag issues. Once people upgrade, or a patch , some how optimizes the network code, we should be good. (I hope)
Really in this day and age, all game companies should be able to put together a good MP experience. Most if not all the RTS games out there, have a good MP interface and experience.
I'm looking forward to picking up this game, on Tuesday this week. I certainly didn't get my money's worth from RTW. So I hope this is better.
Cromwell
I agree with Tootee and Yuuki on this issue, but of course we should adapt a larger view.
Shogun was perhaps, a paradox. From the outside, it only had very few units and all the factions were the same. The graphics were not stellar, and during its period PCs had advanced in a way that made 3v3/4v4 hardly an issue. But this had its distinct advantages in multiplayer combat:
- Battles were largely lag-free (post 1.12) and there was even a way to recover most battles which seemed lost due to connection problems (TTTTTT ;))
- 3v3/4v4 were very popular, epic battles
- All the factions were the same, and there were few units. Easier to balance. Spears. Swords. Cavalry. Missiles. All had a role - sometimes they were not 100% balanced but overall the gameplay was very good, and it was ultimately perfected by 1.03 +. STW 1.12 and MI 1.03 were the best Total War I ever had.
So maybe Shogun's external simplicity contributed to having a more enjoyable and balanced multiplayer. Which in return created a very hardcore and serious community, and combat - although seemingly simpler by MTW/RTW standards - actually got very technical and complicated.
Lastly, the theme was special. Samurai..honour...clans. All that is gone, and the Medieval/Roman setting is different.
--------
MTW was overall good. Like most Shogun veterans, I did not enjoy the first versions of Medieval, but later patches - especially Viking Invasion - fixed many issues. I enjoyed Viking Invasion very much, although it had flaws - for example, Spears really lost their role. Swords, Cavalry and Missiles were the only relevant unit types. Also, the battles - especially on Steppes - tended to become tedious "hold-the-line" wars of attrition, rather than the fast-paced devastating offensive assaults of Shogun. But that is understandable - European Medieval combat was meant to feel different than Japanese one.
- The gameplay was different, but it felt still very enjoyable! You just had to accept the different style and adapt. Steppes on High with the standard European factions was admittedly tedious. But the combos you could make with different maps, eras, factions (Friendly, Late, Mongols, Muslim factions etc) was VERY fun !!! And I do have fond memories of some battles.
- The engine was basically the same as STW.
- Like STW, 3v3/4v4 were popular and enjoyable.
So that was it.
--------------
Rome killed all that. Different engine altogether, which I didn't like at all. Pitiful tactical overview of the battles, and awesome 3-d zooming action which serves no use to the multiplayer experience. The Roman theme filled the community with new people which just didn't match with the previous community. Unit balance, pace of battles, conduct of multiplayer...was all different. Big games impossible...
------------
And I'm waiting for feedback for M2TW. However...
The impossibility of having same factions and the impossibility to play 3v3/4v4 already killed much of the hope. :(
However, if the unit balance and gameplay is good and it is similar to the feel of MTW: VI, then there is hope. Maybe some patches to improve multiplayer code and performance - I don't know.
Keep us updated
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
11-13-2006, 10:14
To the "vets". Why do you get the feeling that what you liked is what's perfect? I really don't care if a battle ends with 20 men left or 300 men left, I really don't care if upgrades are in or not, I really don't care if a unit can move 140 m/sec instead of 139 m/sec.. And I'm sure, most of the community doesn't.
Are you on the payroll of CA? :laugh4: If you are not interested in playing multiplayer, you shouldn't write in this (EDIT:)multiplayer forum.
- Battles were largely lag-free (post 1.12)
So am I to assume even Shogun lagged before it was patched? Obviously theres hope for m2 then.
My wish list for a patch:
Ability to change weather (rain lags)
Ability to have England Vs English (for example)
Much less lag in general, I can live with no 4v4s, although I am dissapointed, but 3v3s are an abolute must, I mean you can hardly have clan tournaments with 2 people :dizzy2:
A bit of work on balancing, it is in general very good, I just want those musketeers nerfed :P
So maybe Shogun's external simplicity contributed to having a more enjoyable and balanced multiplayer. Which in return created a very hardcore and serious community, and combat - although seemingly simpler by MTW/RTW standards - actually got very technical and complicated.
Nice to see someone who can articulate the fundamental principle. We played five 3v3 multiplayer battles (5500 men total) in Samurai Wars for MTW/VI v2.01 yesterday in a 2 and 1/2 hour playing session with no lag and no drops. We have a gameplay that's reminiscent of original STW v1.12, but with superior playbalance (no monk rush, etc).
So am I to assume even Shogun lagged before it was patched? Obviously theres hope for m2 then.
Yes, but the problem wasn't as severe. A network coding problem was corrected in the STW MI add-on which improved performance by 15%. Ironically, this degraded the gameplay because it made controlling all 16 units more difficult. It was already difficult enough in STW to control all 16 units. Units could turn and change direction quite fast in STW. This turning speed was slowed down a lot in MTW.
The 1.12 patch for Shogun, released in Late 2000, mostly fixed the multiplayer code. Before the patch even small battles gave problems. The game itself was not very demanding on the system. An improvement in the networking improved performance by a lot.
I believe the problem with MTW2 is the steep system requirements, apart from maybe a weak networking code. So probably your best bet is to play at minimum detail levels and with smaller unit sizes. However, this is not controllable..many or rather most players will not have tweaked the options, thinking that since they played single-player just fine, multiplayer will not be a problem. And the game runs at the pace of the slowest player. :(
To some extent, RTW/M2TW are defeated by their own success in terms of graphical detail etc.
About Weather: Can't you turn it off in Options?
The 1.12 patch for Shogun, released in Late 2000, mostly fixed the multiplayer code. Before the patch even small battles gave problems. The game itself was not very demanding on the system. An improvement in the networking improved performance by a lot.
Oh I see. I didn't go online until after the v1.12 patch was released.
I don't think CA will ever be able to make mp as balanced as it was in STW again, simply due to the much increased variety in units in every game since. STW with its identical factions, and small unit rosters was obviously much easier to balance than M2Tw with its 200 odd units.
ArmaEtLorica_Mongoclint
11-13-2006, 20:50
Well, obviously the 3v3 and 4v4 lag will have to be fixed quickly to make this a viable MP game, but it certainly seems (based on the developer blog page) that CA is willing to work with the community to iron out MP gripes. After the Rome fiasco, I just hope It doesn't take too long to patch the major issues that come up.
I hope Clan Heerban will give them a little time before they dispose of their games. :)
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
11-13-2006, 23:50
Well, obviously the 3v3 and 4v4 lag will have to be fixed quickly to make this a viable MP game, but it certainly seems (based on the developer blog page) that CA is willing to work with the community to iron out MP gripes. After the Rome fiasco, I just hope It doesn't take too long to patch the major issues that come up.
I hope Clan Heerban will give them a little time before they dispose of their games. :)
Hi Mongo ~:) Nice to see you here. Well as you say after Rome we are not very confident, that they solve them multiplayer problems. That would be very sad, because the battle system itself, seems to be okay.
Orda Khan
11-14-2006, 11:35
So am I to assume even Shogun lagged before it was patched? Obviously theres hope for m2 then.
Original STW lagged. That was six years ago. Surely that sort of problem should be a thing of the past
.......Orda
I played MTW for some months, joined a clan and had a lot of fun playing it. I also played STW and both were good games at their time. The thing is: they are gone! Come on, i loved to play them but who can play STW or MTW now? Look their graphics! its just ridiculous. I tried to play some MTW these days and got sick playing on both campaign/battle maps, and i feel the same way when someone start talking about "STW" golden days.
RTW was an ambitious project. They created a totally new engine. There is not a single RTS game that is good as RTW as it is. Guys, they work on new things, they step ahead. That is hard.
Yeah, they could do like blizzard with warcraft, or microsoft with age of empires... keeping the same engine for allmost a decade. Wold be a safe investment, of that i have no doubt. But they work on new things, like they did when they made STW and MTW. And you cant create a new product free of bugs and so on, its a experimental field.
If MP is sucking now im sure they will fix that as all other bugs. If not trough patchs they will do it in a new and "perfect" game. But, till this very day, im suporting them and their games cuz i know that someday they will make the kind of game that everybody (vets and rookies) want.
For those old vets wich left TW series, i just feel bad for them, cuz they left this brillhant comunity. Get back to Mario Bros!
Orda Khan
11-14-2006, 17:14
I played MTW for some months, joined a clan and had a lot of fun playing it. I also played STW and both were good games at their time. The thing is: they are gone! Come on, i loved to play them but who can play STW or MTW now? Look their graphics! its just ridiculous. I tried to play some MTW these days and got sick playing on both campaign/battle maps, and i feel the same way when someone start talking about "STW" golden days.
RTW was an ambitious project. They created a totally new engine. There is not a single RTS game that is good as RTW as it is. Guys, they work on new things, they step ahead. That is hard.
Yeah, they could do like blizzard with warcraft, or microsoft with age of empires... keeping the same engine for allmost a decade. Wold be a safe investment, of that i have no doubt. But they work on new things, like they did when they made STW and MTW. And you cant create a new product free of bugs and so on, its a experimental field.
If MP is sucking now im sure they will fix that as all other bugs. If not trough patchs they will do it in a new and "perfect" game. But, till this very day, im suporting them and their games cuz i know that someday they will make the kind of game that everybody (vets and rookies) want.
For those old vets wich left TW series, i just feel bad for them, cuz they left this brillhant comunity. Get back to Mario Bros!
Well just to answer some of your points.
If the Shogun server still existed I would play that rather than the others because at least there tactics won the battle. I don't really consider close up graphics when playing a 4v4 where battlefield overview is far more important. Graphic bliss is only any use when viewing a replay.
M2TW MP is bad and it will be fixed? What makes you think that? RTW MP was not fixed and it is still bad
.........Orda
UglyandHasty
11-14-2006, 17:54
Do you guys really think things are gonna change/improve ? I dont think so. I always wish for the best, but expect the worst.
Anyway, i know many vets, who like me, are waiting to have some feedback on mp. MTW2 is the first TW game i wont buy on release day. Of course, who am i kidding ? Sure i'll buy it. Sure i'll try mp. Many "old" face will come out in the incoming weeks. If its good enough they'll be back. If not, i'm sure it wont affect the usual RTW crowd.
Hope I'll see a couple of ya online. Its been awhile since i've been routed by a Cheetah and a Golfish :laugh4:
I played MTW for some months, joined a clan and had a lot of fun playing it. I also played STW and both were good games at their time. The thing is: they are gone! Come on, i loved to play them but who can play STW or MTW now? Look their graphics! its just ridiculous. I tried to play some MTW these days and got sick playing on both campaign/battle maps, and i feel the same way when someone start talking about "STW" golden days. RTW was an ambitious project. They created a totally new engine. There is not a single RTS game that is good as RTW as it is.
The fact is that STW/MTW graphics are better for playing the battles. STW/MTW sprites are sharper than either RTW of M2TW sprites, and sprites are what you see when playing at a normal perspective. In addition, the armies and units are clearly distinguishable from each other and from the ground textures. STW was best since each man had a sashimono (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sashimono) which clearly displayed his clan's color.
The fact is that there are tons of custom maps available for MTW and those maps are bigger than either RTW or M2TW maps.
The fact is that the RTW/M2TW battle engine is inferior to the STW/MTW battle engine.
STW was not an RTS game. The new ambitious project that CA embarked on with RTW was to move the gameplay closer to standard RTS gameplay which is not an innovative move.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
11-14-2006, 21:58
Do you guys really think things are gonna change/improve ? I dont think so. I always wish for the best, but expect the worst.
I don't expect much change from now on; either the gameplay is good as it is, or not. There might be some marginal improvement in speed, in balancing, or in bug fixing (such as swipe, or the uber archer from RTW), however, it's only going to go so far: if 3v3 are not playable today, then it's unlikely 4v4 will be tomorrow.
Anyway, i know many vets, who like me, are waiting to have some feedback on mp. MTW2 is the first TW game i wont buy on release day.
Same here... It's been out for a week, I still don't have it, and the more I read about it, the less I feel like buying it.
Of course, who am i kidding ? Sure i'll buy it. Sure i'll try mp. Many "old" face will come out in the incoming weeks. If its good enough they'll be back. If not, i'm sure it wont affect the usual RTW crowd.
Hope I'll see a couple of ya online. Its been awhile since i've been routed by a Cheetah and a Golfish :laugh4:
Well, for SP, I think TW is outclassed by Paradox game, and EU3 is coming in January, so I'd rather get that one.
And for MP, well, if the current situation remains, it's not worth buying to play MP only.
So I might very well drop it alltogether. Too bad, there are many people I wish to play against or with, but if the game is not good, everybody will drop it sooner or later anyway...
Louis,
1master1wakibiki
11-15-2006, 00:45
This is sad. Speaking as an old timer I just looked in to view the general feel of the new game and while you always expect the odd groan if it’s not playing 4v4 its lost all the fun. Kinda proves the fact that more and bigger is not always better: chess has only 6 different pieces yet its variations are infinite and the gameplay unsurpassed. Are you ever going to get a balance with 100 different types?
The problem is that after the fantastic MP experience of the earlier games the SP just gets boring. Perhaps like Civ2 you’re never going to be able to hit that mark with the ones after.
x-dANGEr
11-15-2006, 08:00
Are you on the payroll of CA? If you are not interested in playing multiplayer, you shouldn't write in this (EDIT:)multiplayer forum.I'd be grateful if you showed me where I stated that I am not interested in playing multiplayer.
Ok guys I played since MTW and this is my first impresion after about 20 games.
For those who still don't know, allies can choose same factions.
I play with Portugal
factions seem balanced to me, played against all though mostly against France, England, Spain, Biz, Egypt ppl like those more so the first 3.
Art -doesn't seem to be overpowered anymore, unless u just stand there all bunched up, can't expect nothing else, I usually loose about 30-60 men (mostly cheap units) to 1-2 units of art, but I also don't stand around for long I admit.
had about 6 games where foe had 2 or more art, fine by me I say.
Eles-I only had 3 games with eles lost the first and won the next 2.
Eles are tough, must play against more to have a better opinion, they arn't that easy to root or run amok. one game took me 4 units of archer fire arrows and 2 of jav to counter them.
If you dont counter them early you toast for they will tear up your ranks with an experienced player, a bit like a gamble if you counter them you win if not you lose.
they cost 2400-2800 each unit and much more after the first.
Cav- well to tell the truth I only played against 1 al cav army, The mongol and got wiped big time has I mention below, my fault though. they dont seem uber to me. My men seem to do ok against cav if not flanked. Pikes wipe them out.
HH armies are a pain, only played one game and got wiped, can't say more because I noobishly went chasing after the mongol army, (I had 4 crappy peasant crossbows) and lost big time.
Archers- again seem to be fine if ure not bunched up for a long time. they arn't pants either, if u let them fire against the flanks they get some good kills. My 4 peasant crossbows units usually kill around 45-40 men each, nice for a 220 florin unit.
You cant ignore Gunpoweder units, they dangerous but not uber. I lost lots of men because at first I didnt target them with my mobile units and later regretted it, you will get shredded if you ignore them, on the other hand they seem fine if paid the right attention.
Inf.-Pikes-- very good when formed and braced. my aventuros stand against anything up front they can stand most of the entire foe's army if deeply ranked (I choose 5-6 units) and don't root straight away if flanked. levies do though.
they will let u fight the entire battle, flank the rest of the army and still beat any enemy up front.
Inf-Heavyinf-- cant say much about them for Portugal doesnt have much choice. played with dismounted portuguese knight and they seem blah. with an 24 attack you would seem they were uber but no, in the 4-5 games I chose them they killed like 10-25 men each, to few for the price.
maybe Im biased for my pikes but I think they pants.
Inf-Light- Great, very good to me, I sometimes play an all Skirmisher army with Portugal and do great. My 330 gold lusitanos kill around 35-40 men each (mostly Heavy troops and cav) and my Almuhgarves 40-45 same thing.
they seem to skirmish well too.
Moral- seem fine, men root when reasonable outnumbered or outclassed, u will get much more flanking time then in rome, (not those 3 sec roots that didnt even give you enough time to click your units card.) Just dont try to use levy or militia has pinners and You will be fine.
Speed -seems ok, walking and running speed could be a bit reduced, but on the other hand I played a lot of games that in the end i was glad the speed was a bit faster.
killing speed is just fine by me.
weather- doesnt seem to do much or enough to me. Rain doesnt seem to cause gunpowder or archer units much disadvantage. Fog is awsome u cant see anything 100m in front of you. never played in desert.
Fatigue- ok again. depends alot on the units stamina. my almogarves can fight a whole battle and be half tired while others get exausted. hills and mountains are evil for your mens stamina, they get pooped after running up one of those.
Game connection- in about 20 games I played 15-16 went through ok, the rest hanged, 1-1 battles never hanged.
Lag- all my 1-1 and 2-2 battles played out with little lag.
Some 3-3 played out with only a little lag, and 2 were lag fests.
WORK U STUPID AI, MOVE.--ok this for me is very bad, when a player drops the AI just stands there, he does'nt move, its like your just lost all your allies help. PLz Fix this CA.
Game options- A bit Gah for my taste, very few maps, no desert option, only winter or summer, maps could be 20% bigger too at lest we could have normal maps and big maps.
normal is ok for me in an 1-1 battle, but for 2-2 and 3-3 its a bit small
so every player teams up and its one big center map fight, doesnt offer any tactical movement options.
Community- mostly nice ppl, havent played against very skilled opponents yet, except for that mongol guy, (he seemed very good) but some are good enough to give a tough challenge, on the other hand I havent got a total noob yet either, Rome had tones of those, maybe because i just play 10K games.
Most ppl still ban ART and ELES, and in 2 games limit gunpowder to 1-2 units.
there arn't much players yet but you dont have to wait long to get a game going, the 3-3 games can take a wee bit longer, but nothing very frustating
I will end by saying it's still too early for a final verdict, like on unit balance, but so far its good, just FIX THE BRAINDEAD AI PLZ.
RomoR out :) its very late, have to go to work in 3 hours must sleeep.
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
11-15-2006, 11:47
I'd be grateful if you showed me where I stated that I am not interested in playing multiplayer.
I really don't care if a battle ends with 20 men left or 300 men left, I really don't care if upgrades are in or not, I really don't care if a unit can move 140 m/sec instead of 139 m/sec.. And I'm sure, most of the community doesn't.
You criticized the discussion. But these points are important to have good multiplayer matches. There are many factors to make the battles interesting.
Very nice first impressions, RomoR. :bow: I'll link to it on the M2TW forum. It's good to hear pikemen are worth it. I'd be interested to hear more MPers go into details like that.
Shogun had like 12 units in the whole game, M2TW has over 100, factions with all different units. I think one man and his dog could balance the amount of units shogun has. You shouldn't be comparing M2 to Shogun because Shogun isn't even 100th of the scale that Medieval 2 is.
I'm not saying Shoguns not good, I never played it however I'm just saying its very unfair comparing to two. Also, I am one of those people who likes variety in their games, different factions, different units, different strategies, Shogun seems to not have much variation. I wouldn't usually say that because I've not played the game but since you're judging M2 without playing it I guess fairs fair.
"I expect CA to maintain the standard of play they set with the first game. It would be to the benefit of all the players if CA did that."
Please clarify this point, I don't really understand it properly :no:
May i say bullshit?
If not, a mod may del it plz.
This kind of posts are the major problem. U can have ur opinion ofc, but after reading it, i had to worry abotu the future of our whole world...
Honestly, u didnt play shogun, but try to tell us, that u cant compare shogun and mtw... U have no idea about how hard it was to balance shogun.
At least it was possible to balance it, to balance m2 isnt possible, we will end like in MTW, that u host games where u dont allow certain units or have restrictions.
So its nice that u got tons of units, but after all its pretty useless as u wont use em.
I can tell u, that the majority of the armysetups was almost 90% the same, always. IF u want to win a game there are a must of 80% of units to get a strong army. this wont change.
And to come along to tell us, that someone can balance 100+ different units, which are many times same units but different names and look, isnt possible.
Point is, that puzz is without a doubt a very smart guy, he know his shit and apart a handfull player hes one of those i mostly agree about the analyzes of the TW games.
Anyway, its came like many of us did fear, eyecandy shit, major hardware stuff uneed and still u cant play 3v3. Not to mention that AMD seems to have major problems. We didnt even start to exploit some stuff.
There is a blog from some guy who work for CA and as hes an "old" player, he stated there that we wont find any problems or any exploits!
Honestly, whats goin on there in the CA department?
They brainwash people?
Now come on and plz be honest to urself. CA surely got 8 standart computer, they test a 4v4 and to not realzie that u cant play it without heavy lag should be possible or not?
Nono, its obvious, once again they dont really care for MP.
I myself will read here, test in computershops and wait some time till the first and only patch arrive to even sort the major problems and make it playable.
Koc
just to drop a positive line here,
I have played since the first medieval. Rome was a drawback with respect to several issues, as other posters have remarked, there was the impression that CA wanted to replicate a standard RTS in many respects. It was a disappointment for me as well as for many vets.
Some things will never come back: the 10 units of Shogun, the idea of perfect balance, we all know that it will not come back.
But Medieval-II shows an inversion: it is MUCH closer to the first medieval than to Rome: marching/running velocity, killing velocity, even the starting 10k seems to offer (at first glance) a certain balance, massing troops is not working anymore and flanking gets its benefits.
In short, the CONCEPT of CA is, IMHO, changing back to the direction of the original TW games. The lag in the 3v3 and 4v4 might be solved by patching, yesterday there was Palamedes in the lobby asking around. There was Magy! and he did not look displeased of the game (well he did not say much honestly, this one is just an impression).
This game has potential. I say, lets look, lets wait, lets pinpoint the problems, lets be also harsh to CA, why not, I payed the price, 49 eur, because there is written MULTIPLAYER UP TO 8 PLAYERS, so I want that one too, I will SCREAM for that. But lets also recognize that there is a change.
And a tihng I would really love, is that they would find a way I can RECOGNIZE THE UNITS BETTER ON THE BATTLEFIELD. That would be sweet, sprites were much better, poligons could become some kind of sprites from far view, something I can see well, perhaps if I want to give up the "splendid eye candy" (eye candy is good, just, I don't care for it, I want to recognize the living from the death, mine from the enemies, arcers from heavy inf, and so on.
Sorry for the length,
Phoinix_Madmax
I forgot to mention that it can get quite hard to recognize your troops so I am constantly using the faction button. This allows you to easily recognize your own men from foe. Your men are green, enemy is red and ally is blue.
I forgot to mention that it can get quite hard to recognize your troops so I am constantly using the faction button. This allows you to easily recognize your own men from foe. Your men are green, enemy is red and ally is blue.
It doesn't work with the minimal_UI, and the colored circles don't stay illuminated. It's a good feature in view of the difficulty in distinguishing the units, but poorly implemented.
t1master
11-15-2006, 15:05
logged in last night and witnessed some of the usual suspects acting like halfwhit monkeys, but thats to be expected. :yes:
joined a game, it dysncyed, then the lobby froze. logged back in, played two games last night. one was a 3v3 with surprisingly little lag, especially since it rained the entire battle.
whilst it's obviously not the finished product, much like the rome mp was/is, the overall feel is better than rome and i see myself playing this game more than rome. more in tune with mtw imho, which is promising.
they need to give us control of the weather. summer/winter is not gonna cut it, fix the factions on opposite teams.
i like that my old gamespy accounts work!
x-dANGEr
11-15-2006, 17:19
You criticized the discussion. But these points are important to have good multiplayer matches. There are many factors to make the battles interesting.
Well, through my experience in RTW, and it's mods (Variation in speed here), I never really care about speed. Just give me a game and I will get used to it. You don't modify the mechanics to your taste, instead, you adapt to them. 139 m/s is really no different than 140 m/s. And to clear one more point, I do play RTW MP, and I play loads of it.
Well found somethign that annoys me. Cavalry. Despite what people say it IS overpowerd. Most good cav costs around 800 each and most good inf around 650 each. Head on head the cavalry is winning. This is still the case even with spears.
Spears should cost about 1/3 of the cavalry it beats. Certainly they shouldn't cost more than 1/2. This is because cavalry has higher mobility which is of great value. Apparently, spears have to be stationary to have a chance of beating cav which means it's dangerous for them to move at all when cav is in the vicinity.
And to clear one more point, I do play RTW MP, and I play loads of it.
You're satisfied with the worst TW multiplayer game; a game that many multiplayers say is awful. My whole clan won't play RTW multiplayer, and I know other clans that won't play it either.
Honestly, u didnt play shogun, but try to tell us,
Me:
I wouldn't usually say that because I've not played the game but since you're judging M2 without playing it I guess fairs fair.
So its nice that u got tons of units, but after all its pretty useless as u wont use em.
I didn't so much mean units in a faction as factions themselves. In rome for instance you've got Greek, Egypt, Roman and Barbarian factions. Now Rome this was useless as they wern't balanced, but in m2 you've got easterns, christians, mongol type factions etc. Thats the variety I meant. :shame:
Point is, that puzz is without a doubt a very smart guy,
I know, and he's also a very, very good player. At first I thought he made some good points, but a gazillion anti-ca, anti-m2 posts later I got knida sick of it, even more so when you know he doesn't even have the game which he hates so much.
Anyway, its came like many of us did fear, eyecandy shit, major hardware stuff uneed and still u cant play 3v3
As someone on org has said before, Shogun when it was first released wasn't so great online either.
Nono, its obvious, once again they dont really care for MP.
I have no doubt sp is hugely more important to CA, the campaign, TBS side of the game is its major feature and selling point. Personally I prefer mp as do many others but the are nowhere near as many people compared to sp supporters. However I think they do care, the recruited palamedes for a start, and just generalyl on the forums/blogs have given mp more of the spotlight than I expected.
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
11-15-2006, 18:55
Well, through my experience in RTW, and it's mods (Variation in speed here), I never really care about speed. Just give me a game and I will get used to it. You don't modify the mechanics to your taste, instead, you adapt to them. 139 m/s is really no different than 140 m/s. And to clear one more point, I do play RTW MP, and I play loads of it.
RTW MP is the worst game of the TW series regarding the multiplayer part. If you never played STW or MTW Vi - sorry - but then you don't know enough about TW to criticize game mechanic discussions. MTW isn't just a Command and Conquer or RTW. It has an own character and is much more tactical than these action games. Tactical games has to be balanced well.
Please, do we have to re-fight the RTW MP vs STW MP issue incessantly in this thread? Surely this thread should be devoted to new impressions of M2TW in MP? At present, I count only around half a dozen posts reporting on that, out of 75 posts in total. (I apologise in advance for not following my own advice - I've never tried MP.)
x-dANGEr
11-15-2006, 19:39
You're satisfied with the worst TW multiplayer game; a game that many multiplayers say is awful.
In your and their opinions.
My whole clan won't play RTW multiplayer, and I know other clans that won't play it either.
As I said, IMO, it is just that you (As in you and other clans, the so called "vets") are being too stiffed to actually try and adapt to RTW. Orda's complaints about RTW are mostly issues that only appear when facing newbies on it, so I guess he would've liked RTW a lot more if he had got to play with the right folks. Still, you guys keep talking about speed again and again, and I keep having this discussion. The buttom line always comes out at we both agreeing that the "delay" in responses is bad, and all other things samely disagreed upon.
RTW MP is the worst game of the TW series regarding the multiplayer part. If you never played STW or MTW Vi - sorry - but then you don't know enough about TW to criticize game mechanic discussions. MTW isn't just a Command and Conquer or RTW. It has an own character and is much more tactical than these action games. Tactical games has to be balanced well.
I appreciate your opinion, I do strongly disagree with it, though. Oh and, I have played MTW, but I have to admit, never played it on MP.
One more thing. The only reason you see me replying in such a strong tone is that your repetitive complaints and CA bashing is just.. annoying. For a game that thousands of people enjoy, it sounds strange, no, raging that a handful find it so disgusting, and want it modified to their taste. I don't really find trouble with that, though, I'd appreciate it if you speak for your own. Yes, that might apply to me as well, but for all I know, all those playing RTW and M2TW now share my view, or at least, a very big margin of them does.
Edit:
Oh and Simon, my last off-topic input here ~;)
As I said, IMO, it is just that you (As in you and other clans, the so called "vets") are being too stiffed to actually try and adapt to RTW.
Don't tell me I didn't try to adapt to RTW. My whole clan tried, and 3 of us were on the RTW v1.2 beta team in hopes of getting the gamplay back up to at least the level of MTW. That was 3 months of hard work to end up with a game that we all quit playing online. All the time was spent tracking down bugs such as the multiplayer desync and disconnects, and a lot of SP problems.
After the first impressions posts on M2TW that I've seen so far, I wouldn't touch this game.
x-dANGEr
11-15-2006, 22:06
Most first impressions carry optimistic news, except the lag issue. Of course, there are people who just won't accept that it is good and will keep picking up issues.. Issues of such is the faction choosing scenario.. Wouldn't it be stupid if you wouldn't buy the game because of that?
Oh, and I respect your efforts in that, Puzz3D. You need to keep in mind that you always tried to fix RTW, or play it as if it was Shogun. Well, it isn't mate. It's a new game, with a new reference point of balance. With a new set of tactics, and a fascinating deep experience if you ask me. Except for the "blobbing" issue and the upgrades, RTW 1.5 was hell of a good game. Phalanx simply owned cavalry if used right, though, if a cavalry unit manages to get into a fight with an un-organised phalanx unit, it will decimate it. Wedge formation actually means something. Against a spear unit (Triarii), if you put wedge on, you can simply break the spear unit's formation head on with the right conditions, assuring you the kill. That is, your cavalry being fresh, the Triarii being exhausted, and of course, the Triarii unit not ready for the charge. The really beautiful feature in RTW (Which I'm not aware if it was in MTW/STW) is that what you see is what really matters. It is not about numbers. If you charge a unit of Cataphracts into like 3 units of Urban Cohorts, and in the process through them or "pin" them into a Levy Spearmen phalanx spear tips, those Urban Units will be toast, and so it goes..
Oh, and I respect your efforts in that, Puzz3D. You need to keep in mind that you always tried to fix RTW, or play it as if it was Shogun.
No I didn't. I played MTW as it's own gamestyle, and RTW as its own gamestyle as well. My philosophy is to find out what works and use it. That doesn't mean these games were as good as STW. After I found out what worked in MTW and RTW it was clear that the gameplay wasn't as deep as STW. RTW and M2TW have an inferior battle engine, and there is no way to bring the level of the gameplay up to the previous games. That wasn't fully apparent to me during the RTW v1.2 beta.
Where do you draw the line that you won't go below. RTW is below that line for me, my whole clan and other clans as well. Right now in M2TW it might seem relatively balanced because players don't know what units are best. Once players start number crunching the stats that could change for the worse.
Most first impressions carry optimistic news, except the lag issue.
Sweetzero posted that he's been playing 4v4 with no lag. There may be nothing CA can do about it.
STW and MTW are more tactical, and thus more fun, for me. They are different from each other, but more or less their 4v4 are very enjoyable.
RTW.. you guys can argue whatever you want, but I know most MPs who started in STW or MTW, mostly played RTW much less, and moved on to other games. It lacks the tactical depth of its predecessors.. just can't keep me glued to the keyboard like STW or MTW.
But imo it is not right for us to judge M2TW now. I am seeing CA is making effort to engage the MP more pro-actively? I will get the game once its available here.
I would greatly appreciate CA could quickly issue a patch to improve the lag esp for 4v4 (if that is an issue)...
:bow:
Hey goldfish, how are you mate? ~:) Nice to see you around. :bow:
Do you remember what you said to me after our first 3v3? ~;)
Well, news about MTW2 MP is that good to be honest, though I do not have the game as yet, so I cannot confirm or disprove anything.
Yoo Cheetah, i am good and how are you. :bow:
Its been a long time, years i should say, and my memory isnt as good as what it used to be :smash: :sweatdrop:
did we win that battle?
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
11-16-2006, 10:50
As I said, IMO, it is just that you (As in you and other clans, the so called "vets") are being too stiffed to actually try and adapt to RTW. Orda's complaints about RTW are mostly issues that only appear when facing newbies on it, so I guess he would've liked RTW a lot more if he had got to play with the right folks. Still, you guys keep talking about speed again and again, and I keep having this discussion. The buttom line always comes out at we both agreeing that the "delay" in responses is bad, and all other things samely disagreed upon.
I got no problem to try and adapt to new games. I play different games that I find fun in different ways. If I like them, I keep playing them, if I don't, I stop.
I have not found RTW interesting to play. Have I tryed hard? Well, I was also part of that exercise of frustration that was betaing RTW1.2. After that beta, I also gave a shot to some modding for MP purpose. I think that was around a couple of hundreds hours in 6 months. Probably more.
And I gave up. I don't find playing RTW interesting. If that's not enough, let me tell you that then it's probably too long for any player to adapt.
Sure, it's my own opinion... And you if you like RTW good for you. If MTW2 is like RTW, you'll be happy with it, and I won't. Then I won't buy it. That's why feedback matters for me here: I'll make a buying decision based on that, and it will also a few evenings that I might either waste, or find fun.
Some of the criteria I base my decision on are simple to assess:
- possibility to play lagless 4v4
- stability (no disc)
- no desync
- lobby interface design -> ability to keep ignore list, ability to have multiple private chat with ease.
So far, MTW2 does not seem to meet my criterias.
Others are a matter of taste, such as speed, kill rate, even balance is a bit in between (although, we'll see in a couple of months if the game ends up with more balanced army, or if "one type" army gets the upper hand).
So far, it does not look clear if it's good or not.
For a game that thousands of people enjoy, it sounds strange, no, raging that a handful find it so disgusting, and want it modified to their taste.
I don't really care about it getting modified, I lost hopes about CA changing the game to please MPer, about bug list or petition.
It's either to my taste, and I buy it, or not to my taste, and I don't.
So far, my purchase is on hold.
Louis,
well, no doubt about RTW, many if not most of the old clans stoped playing it.
Now u can go and find out why...
MY reason was the lack of style, tactics and the dumped down try of a "tactic" game it was once. When people can win a game by clicking somewhere a few time its already too late.
Adapt to games?
Well, yes ofc, but only till a certain degree, i accepted MTW as a step down already, but in the end it was playable and u could enjoy it.
I tried RTW 2 days, than never played it again, it was to easy to see all the problems in a short time.
Louis hit the nail on the head, i dont try to change a game, either it hit my expectations or not. If i dont like it i dont play, i dont try to learn to find something good.
Right now i will wait some time till they patch M2, when its done i will consider to buy it, but till that day i wont give CA any of my gold, they dissapointed me and many otehr many times already, now there is no need to pay once more for something which is a early beta but not a game which should be sold!
There is no doubt about the stage of this game, its not done and they brought it out with the full knowledge of the major bugs.
Positiv, well, i think that many are sure abotu that its better than RTW, once the bugs are solved and its playable, we maybe will find it entertaining again.
mars
I think that some people have major problems to understand the basic problem within TW.
First, this game doesn’t have the potential to get 10.000 or 100.000 player hugged and playing for months or years. This gamestyle doesn’t work like some other games.
Second, one real problem is the way CA see their own game, they don’t see MP as a big factor, but still the MP cause more problems than the SP. There were minor SP bug and many MP.
The point is, that in a campaign once u build some buildings, u got better units, this units ofc had to make u feel a difference to what u used before. This lead to an imbalance, this imbalance is made on purpose.
Sadly these imbalance cause problems in MP, that’s why we got 3 eras. Still the imbalances between units or counterparts are not feel able or not notice able if u play MP.
How much u care for spears compared to cav in a campaign, where u got 3 times better armies than ur opponent?
Third, the potential of this game is maybe around 3000-5000 people playing it online.
With a good system and an own server ( most important) CA could collect tons of info about structure of setups and change the prices or even stats after using the collected info.
U need a ladder, many people have epeen and want that other know about who is “best” or at least how good they are. We know that the laddersystem was not the best and that it got exploits, but anyway it was an indicator and people know what to fight for.
Forth, tourneys, clanwars….there is so much…
All in all, the last 7 years the TW gamestyle changed a lot and the problem is, that it didn’t change to the better. Grafix got better and we got more units, there are other improvements, but after watching some nice grafix u end with playing a game, if the game is bad the best grafix doesn’t help.
The gamestyle, the basic changed to worser stages, till RTW as we was the final cut and the community changed almost completely. Now with M2 we see a step in the right direction, if it really will bring back some real tactical gamefeeling we will see the next months.
Mars
Orda Khan
11-16-2006, 11:35
Orda's complaints about RTW are mostly issues that only appear when facing newbies on it, so I guess he would've liked RTW a lot more if he had got to play with the right folks.
Please explain.
My complaints about RTW are many. New players have always been around, even in STW. The gameplay, the lobby and even the maps and deployment zones are below the standard that the MP community were used to. You already said you did not play MTW online, so I presume that goes for STW as well. Given this fact I do not understand why you criticise players who did. Sure, you may well find negative posts about a game you enjoy to be annoying but you may be totally unaware of the amount of work these players put into the game. I am glad you enjoy RTW, there were plenty who did/do. I mentioned already that the vast majority of the MP community left after giving up on RTW. These were players who played all the games in the series. You do not see them post negatively because they do not post here any more, only the few survivors. Now I ask you a question. Do you honestly think all these players were wrong?
.....Orda
For my taste too much words was already spent on RTW. Not worth it. Atm the only reason why I still log in RTW lobbies is NapoleonicTW 2 mod made by the Lordz. Lobbies are still crowded with poeple who seems to play 1.5 (hardly anyone playing BI) regulary and I don't mind if they continue to play the game which I've left behind after few months of trying to get something of it (NTW 2 is exception - feel almost like a new game).
- possibility to play lagless 4v4
- no desync
Two minimums which needed to be fixed.*for the time being let's suppose that gameplay is ok - not too many exploits*
I've almost not seen anyone talking about any game exploits yet and this might be due lag issue which is main issue to be solved atm.
I've heard from someone (don't know if this is true or not) that lbows are very strong unit..in melee.
While we are discussing MP issue someone already made a ''mod'' for MTW 2 http://www.twcenter.net/ *sigh*
x-dANGEr
11-16-2006, 17:55
No I didn't. I played MTW as it's own gamestyle, and RTW as its own gamestyle as well. My philosophy is to find out what works and use it. That doesn't mean these games were as good as STW. After I found out what worked in MTW and RTW it was clear that the gameplay wasn't as deep as STW. RTW and M2TW have an inferior battle engine, and there is no way to bring the level of the gameplay up to the previous games. That wasn't fully apparent to me during the RTW v1.2 beta.
How do you define "deep" ?
Sweetzero posted that he's been playing 4v4 with no lag. There may be nothing CA can do about it.
Sooner or later the lag will be fixed, one way or another. I remember in RTW 1.3 I had horrible lag even in 1 on 1's, but then it got fixed magically one day.
STW and MTW are more tactical, and thus more fun, for me. They are different from each other, but more or less their 4v4 are very enjoyable.
Again, why do you see them more "tactical" ?
I got no problem to try and adapt to new games. I play different games that I find fun in different ways. If I like them, I keep playing them, if I don't, I stop.
I have not found RTW interesting to play. Have I tryed hard? Well, I was also part of that exercise of frustration that was betaing RTW1.2. After that beta, I also gave a shot to some modding for MP purpose. I think that was around a couple of hundreds hours in 6 months. Probably more.
And I gave up. I don't find playing RTW interesting. If that's not enough, let me tell you that then it's probably too long for any player to adapt.
Sure, it's my own opinion... And you if you like RTW good for you. If MTW2 is like RTW, you'll be happy with it, and I won't. Then I won't buy it. That's why feedback matters for me here: I'll make a buying decision based on that, and it will also a few evenings that I might either waste, or find fun.
Some of the criteria I base my decision on are simple to assess:
- possibility to play lagless 4v4
- stability (no disc)
- no desync
- lobby interface design -> ability to keep ignore list, ability to have multiple private chat with ease.
So far, MTW2 does not seem to meet my criterias.
Others are a matter of taste, such as speed, kill rate, even balance is a bit in between (although, we'll see in a couple of months if the game ends up with more balanced army, or if "one type" army gets the upper hand).
So far, it does not look clear if it's good or not.
I don't really care about it getting modified, I lost hopes about CA changing the game to please MPer, about bug list or petition.
It's either to my taste, and I buy it, or not to my taste, and I don't.
So far, my purchase is on hold.
Louis,
I respect your opinion. Though, I just want to comment on adapting. As I've been playing RTW at all versions on MP quite a lot, I can tell you that RTW 1.5 is a game that has nothing to do with either 1.2 or 1.1. I admit the 1.2 and 1.1 were all about exploits, but I can tell you that 1.5 is just perfect. (Even with the Butt-Spike bug for phalanx.. It just makes things hotter IMO)
My complaints about RTW are many. New players have always been around, even in STW.
Well, it is a rough guess, but I believe in Shogun; due to the better lobby functions, and the diffficulty at which you could obtain an internet connection back then, I would guess there were more mature people.
The gameplay, the lobby and even the maps and deployment zones are below the standard that the MP community were used to.
Sure they all were different, but not importantly worse. Gameplay.. I can't judge that, but I can say RTW's is good. The lobby, well I agree it is poorly-designed, but I don't enter the game to chat anyway, even though I do that a lot in it, and I don't seem to face trouble. The maps, well, there are like more than 90 maps in map-packs ready for you to pick what you like (If you're talking about their size.. Well, that's another thing. Though, the current map size is enough for a HA army to move good without having any trouble. I can't see why would you need more space). Deployment zones.. I can't judge it as well, but I can't see what's wrong with the current one. And if any, not a game sabotaging thing for sure.
Given this fact I do not understand why you criticise players who did. Sure, you may well find negative posts about a game you enjoy to be annoying but you may be totally unaware of the amount of work these players put into the game.
The amount of work they put into it is simply irrelevant. I didn't like A: TW at all, do you see me "criticising" it everyday? The problem is, sometimes they're simply bashing. Heck, sometimes they're bashing a game they don't even own!
Do you honestly think all these players were wrong?
No, I don't. The majority of them left at the earlier versions of RTW, the really imbalanced ones. So imbalanced that they didn't allow for the tactical depth of the game to be realized, because simply, with Cataphracts having a tremendous charge attack, and spears phalanx not working, no matter how deep tactics are, the Cataphracts will kill the phalanx.. Sure, you might say an all HA army is just powerful, but it can be countered with the right army.. Oh, not another spam army btw ~:)
How do you define "deep" ?
Three rock, paper, scissors systems operating simultaneously that worked because the units were well balanced resulting in combined arms tactics. Optimal moral level and fatigue rates. Standard money level which was consistently used. Gamespeed that allowed individual control of all 16 units at the height of a battle which is necessary to make use of the combined arms tactics. Seemingly infinite variety of army formations designed to counter particular enemy army formations. No "best" units because all units were useful and cost effective which lead to variety in army composition. No army purchase rules. No max 4 unit type tax. You had to account for every single enemy unit because leaving even a single unit unaccounted for would cost you the battle. Variety of weather effects which had a significant affect on the units and on visibility conditions. Significantly superior battle engine (squeezed too tight melee penalty calculated for individual men, deep formation ranged unit penalty, individual man line of sight and distance calculation for shooters). Large number of events used to resolve unit combat which gives a reasonable level of statistical uncertainty. Proper ratio of cav speed to infantry speed. Well selected reload times for ranged units. Well paced battles which mostly lasting between 20 to 30 minutes. Highly distinguishable units from each other and from the ground textures. Fatigue indicator on the unit icons which provides quick assessment of all the units fatigue level. Definable subgroups within groups. Independent toggles for hold position and hold formation.
There were some slight playbalance issues, but nothing even remotely comparable to the playbalance issues of the later games.
Sooner or later the lag will be fixed, one way or another.
Not if it's caused by people playing with inadequate machines.
x-dANGEr
11-16-2006, 22:33
Not if it's caused by people playing with inadequate machines.
You can't expect CA to hang back on the Graphics side just to let more people be able to play the game.. "Technology moves on." People eventually will get to upgrade. I can almost guarantee in a period of 6 months to have rare lag issues.
About the "deep" gameplay point, I will reply later since I have no time now..
You can't expect CA to hang back on the Graphics side just to let more people be able to play the game.. "Technology moves on." People eventually will get to upgrade. I can almost guarantee in a period of 6 months to have rare lag issues.
I don't expect CA to do anything. You just stated a reason for not buying this game for at least 6 months. It doesn't matter if you have a good machine yourself. You're going to have to wait for the players with insufficient machines to either upgrade or quit.
These fancy graphics aren't necessary for good gameplay. They actually hinder the gameplay by causing performance problems and visualization problems.
tibilicus
11-16-2006, 23:12
I don't expect CA to do anything. You just stated a reason for not buying this game for at least 6 months. It doesn't matter if you have a good machine yourself. You're going to have to wait for the players with insufficient machines to either upgrade or quit.
These fancy graphics aren't necessary for good gameplay. They actually hinder the gameplay by causing performance problems and visualization problems.
Gah.
What are CA meant to do? Keeep romes graphics for every total war game due to some people not having the machiens to play it. MTW2 is designed to target an audience. The vast audience being those who wish graphics to move on. If you don't wish to, then don't buy the game. But what I will say is you seeem to be critisizing the game which you yourself have said you havn't played. I agreee fair enough there is some lag issue. I can't personly agree its a major problem as the games I have played with that does lag is minimal and doesn't effect the game. To truley critisize the problems at heart you have to play the game m8. Each experience is different from different people due to different veiws. At the moment it is to early for people to be taking one universal veiw on the matter.
Tib
What are CA meant to do?
How about blocking AthlonXP from playing online since their game doesn't support it for multiplayer. Also, if a machine has insufficient processing power for a particular hosted game, don't allow that machine to join that game.
I played the demo, and I can see the visualization problems, and I can also tell you that these fancy graphics don't improve the gameplay. You lost all that stuff from the battle engine that I mentioned in my earlier post for better graphics, and the ironic thing is that the sprite graphics in the new game are worse than the original game they made 6 years ago.
t1master
11-17-2006, 00:51
possibly time to move on yukki and orda mates...
total war is not going to be the same as shogun, ever. it's done, mtw:vi is all but done too.
i hear what you are saying and for the most part agree with it, but stating it tenfold is not gonna change anything, it didn't with rome, it won't with m2. there is also little value in attempting to explain to folks who never played shogun or mtw:vi, and no point rehashing old debates with folks who are satisfied with their current mp experience in rome and now m2.
:bow:
for my part, as critical as i was with rome, i am mildly surprised with what i've seen in m2 mp. it's not perfect, it's pretty much a copy of rome, but they've tweaked something that makes the game play more intuitive. at least to my untrained, and lazy eye.
so hope to see you on the field. :balloon2:
Orda Khan
11-17-2006, 00:52
How about blocking AthlonXP from playing online since their game doesn't support it for multiplayer. Also, if a machine has insufficient processing power for a particular hosted game, don't allow that machine to join that game.
Wisest proposal so far.
I played the demo, and I can see the visualization problems, and I can also tell you that these fancy graphics don't improve the gameplay. You lost all that stuff from the battle engine that I mentioned in my earlier post for better graphics, and the ironic thing is that the sprite graphics in the new game are worse than the original game they made 6 years ago.
This is very true. I can't think of anyone who has time to zoom in on the action and kill animations and still manage to control all their other units or check that their ally does not need assistance or communicate a problem to team mates. The important factor is battlefield view, there is no need for the graphics other than watching a replay. The current sprites are quite shabby IMO and it is quite surprising. STW sprites were pretty darned good, they were incredibly detailed. From the red armour plates of the Naginata down to the helmet details and even the Katana and Wakizashi the archers had. Puzz3D, I just loaded STW and had a shock, I've got to admit I forgot just how good they were
.......Orda
http://www.madminutegames.com/gallery.htm
This game has good Sprites
How do you define "deep" ?
Sooner or later the lag will be fixed, one way or another. I remember in RTW 1.3 I had horrible lag even in 1 on 1's, but then it got fixed magically one day.
Again, why do you see them more "tactical" ?
It is a combination of factors, you would have to experience it in order to appreciate.
STW
Do not be fooled by the simplicity of STW; despite all factions having similar units and the variety of units are not as many compared to later TW, this actually helps STW. If you looked through the archive, the discussion about game balance, the bashing, etc, was even more than MTW or RTW. However even when most felt the game could be better balanced for MP, it did not make any unit useless; almost all the available units are 'usable', have its tactical value, and are used in battles.
You have the yari, naginata and heavy cav, all reasonably priced and served different functions. You have the yari samurai, nodachi and warrior monk, found in every game hosted; even the super peasants that were hotly debated, didnt tilt the game balance too much, is not all over-power. You have only archers and musketeers, but one doesnt rule the other, and are used in different ways. Later on you have special units like battlefield ninja and the loneman kensai, that are both fun, and not unbalancing (maybe except taking multuple kensai for its morale effect if i recall correctly). And the horse-archers, they are one hell of a unit when used with skill, but even then are balanced and countered effectively by yari-cav.
You have good scissor-paper-stone system between the unit types. It is like chess, the players have similar pieces, all useful and 'balanced' (not a word imaginable then, but looking back..). This provide the mean to give STW very good tactical depth, but by itself cannot guarantee tactical depth.
As proof, see http://shogun-academy.tripod.com/battle_154803_pg1.html
STW games become more tactical primarily because of control imo. Somehow I feel the control interface in STW to be better than MTW, and for sure RTW. And control of the army is one key attribute to winning the day; and control not as in grouping a bunch of horse spam, and clicking it behind the enemies, and routing them off because of super-duper morale penalty effect you get when all the cav charges hit one poor infantry unit along the line. Control then was at individual unit level; although STW has only 16 pieces compared to RWT, but RTW feel more like 5 pieces at most to me, STW is true 16 pieces.
And control is enhanced by what I feel is the right speed of units.. I just feel STW units speed to be the better balanced, between walking and running. You can tell when trying to catch those horse-archers; they are fast, thus serving their function of harassing the flank, but if you dont watch them, they can be quickly caught by yari-cav. You dont get this is RTW.. some how even if I ignore my horse-archers in RTW they do fine by themselves.
IMO, it was these reasons that then the players attracted to STW were mostly tactical minded, and we enjoyed many massive 4v4 (and constantly having heated debate on game balancing :smash:).
Also, the ladder made a difference. Even able to know the ping reading in the foyer made a difference.
MTW
Now you have many many unit choices, and factions have unique units. This expanded the tactical breadth, since now there is tactical importance in making the appropriate team armies, or rather, to employ different tactics with different team combo. The scissor-paper-stone system between the unit type is still there, but imo didnt feel as good as STW. Factions like turk and mongol are entirely different, and this is good; team need to play differently with or vs them (but the mongol in late probably not as fun as turk).
You have cav swipe bug initially but this was resolved later with a patch. Cav is more important in MTW imo, but it is appropriately so given the warfare nature of this period. It was in MTW i think you see players all cav army, and winning games. But these were not that bad as experienced balanced army players can counter effectively.
I still prefer STW maps (and the trees.. man i missed those trees) and terrain, but MTW maps are fun.
4v4 were very enjoyable like STW.
Overall, MTW tactical breadth and scope shifted w.r.t to STW, but is not much less than STW in term of playability, and required a paradigm shift, a change in tactical mindset.
Control of army is still highly relevant.
RTW
Not much I wanna say.. just roman.. and cataprachts. And my favourable faction is the german.
:bow:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-17-2006, 03:00
Here is my Opinion
Me,being a MTW/VI Vet, Also Realiezes, TW Will Never be like it was, on STW, or even on MTW/VI. Never. Period. We can fight till we can't fight no more, and it stil lwon't matter. That was 6 years ago, when I first got STW. I was 8 1/2 years old, and in 3rd grade. MTW2, now I am 14 1/2 and in 9th grade. Can't change Back Time. We can't go back to STW or even MTW/VI, with the good gameplay, with the clans like GreyWovles,Mizu,7Bear7Bottom and SA and other clans playing... I think People are so attached to the Old Games, like STW/MI or MTW/VI, Like Myself and others here, we can't let go. But We have to move On. We Have to ethier start fresh on MTW2, and start playing so other vets would come back,mabye, or just don't play it and play old STW or MTW like old times... I seen RTW tear up many clans, and I seen RTW take away every single MTW person I known on my unpatched server. Everyone,no lie. All 50+. I think We just have to accpect the fact TW will, Sadly, never be the same..
Only quick mentioning that people are many times mistaking when to mention ''tactic'' and when to mention ''strategy''.
I don't recognize anything such as more strategical/tactical or less. Understanding of this depends only on how good you understand strategy and tactics and how good you are to use this ''theories'' in the practise. So it can be tactical or strategical, average or simply nothing of this.IMO
For example if we would be playing chess against good chess player who knows a lot about chess and it's theoretical approach - meaning that he is better tactician then we. If he is not able to put all his tactics to work with a good strategy he is going to lose against us, if we consider that that we are better strategiest.
x-dANGEr what Puzz is trying to explain to you, is that RTW didn't (don't) requier any finenesses. You need up to 8 rules to made match playable - read:less spam then no rules matches. Secondly you get the feeling that RTW engine is ''behaving'' almost coincidental. Thirdly you had to pick strongest units if you had any intentions to win the match. Fourthly your units won't sustain ''flooded'' attack from your opponent and we could keep counting.
Instead of saying why MTW was ''more tactical'' then RTW, let me use another expression - you needed more effort to put in MTW match if wanted to win it.
And Puzz is trying to explain to you that in STW you needed 90%-100% ''effort'' to win the match, in MTW this was 80%-90% and in RTW it was below 50%(oldies will probably give you less then 20%).
Of course another important thing here regarding game engine is that for example MTW allowed you many more ''tactical situations'' then RTW ever could. This is what Puzz wanted to say with ''more tactical''.
How do you define "deep" ?
Very simple. In those matches you were almost there. The atmosphere in those matches was fantastic. This is same as reading two different books. Good book is ''deep'' and the other one is ''shallow''. RTW is the other book here. Simple as that.
And about graphics.
I can't think of anyone who has time to zoom in on the action and kill animations and still manage to control all their other units or check that their ally does not need assistance or communicate a problem to team mates. The important factor is battlefield view, there is no need for the graphics other than watching a replay.
I second this. I don't deny that they have done good job on graphics, but honestly how many people - even SP players are going to watch cinematic features during the match? When I want something like this I go to the cinema or I run media player.
Let's say that after RTW we have finally good nice game with MTW 2, but there is another problem now. You simply can't have lag free games..
x-dANGEr
11-17-2006, 08:57
Please.. Think closely before you write. Being repetitive only eats more of my time to reply..
Three rock, paper, scissors systems operating simultaneously that worked because the units were well balanced resulting in combined arms tactics.
Available in RTW 1.5. Though, it is just more complicated. You need to know how to use a spear unit to make it "decimate" cavalry, and how to use infantry to make it "decimate" infantry (It gets to an edge, that you can kill the most expensive phalanx unit with an archers unit in melee), you need to know how to use a cavalry unit to be able to kill a spear/infantry unit.. Of course, the last one doesn't mean that cavalry is imbalanced. Yes, it can kill all, but "can" doesn't mean that it does. If you give your units' backs to it, it will kill them, and that is what I mean by can.
Optimal morale level and fatigue rates.
I'd call the Morale level of RTW 1.5 optimal, but then, I can't compare it to STW/MTW, because I barely remember a thing of the later, and haven't played the former. Fatigue rates.. The same.
Standard money level which was consistently used.
I can't see what has this got to do with "deep". Though, I think the most suitable money level in RTW 1.5 is 10k, though most people use 12.5k, which seems fine. It weakens Barbarians, though.
Gamespeed that allowed individual control of all 16 units at the height of a battle which is necessary to make use of the combined arms tactics.
Watch a replay of a battle of some experts, and you'd notice how they have no trouble controlling their 20 units, coordinating with allied armies and executing nice tactics with that speed, even at the peak of battle. As I said, it is a matter of getting used to the game, and adapt.
Seemingly infinite variety of army formations designed to counter particular enemy army formations.
How is this different in RTW? The only thing that was gone is the "Elite: Doesn't get affected by lesser units routing" factor.
No "best" units because all units were useful and cost effective which lead to variety in army composition.
If this really bothers you, just think that all the non-used units are their for the campaign, not MP. Yet, I think games with 10k would allow even more units to be used. I remember at the start, when playing with 10k was more popular, you could see every unit Roman factions had, same going for other factions.
No army purchase rules.
What has this got to do with "deep"? At any cost, I won't stop playing a game because of 1 or 2 rules, and those rules really got born beacuse of the amazing imbalance RTW 1.2 had. If people would give 1.5 another chance, most of them will be erazed, me thinks.
max 4 unit type tax.
"What has this got to do with "deep"?" And, you haven't tried it yet, so I suggest you don't comment on it. Maybe it just fits M2: TW greatly balancing it intensly.
You had to account for every single enemy unit because leaving even a single unit unaccounted for would cost you the battle.
So the battle was decided by the army set up? How could that be deep..
Variety of weather effects which had a significant affect on the units and on visibility conditions. This is available in RTW 1.5, but no one really uses it.. Also, due to the "restricted camera" option always unchecked, it won't matter at all.
Significantly superior battle engine
Let's see.
(squeezed too tight melee penalty calculated for individual menIf you need a penalty through numbers, then yea, it is not there. Though, it is there in a gameplay way.. It gives you a better chance of doing more things to the enemy, it simply just makes him valnurable.
deep formation ranged unit penalty
"If you need a penalty through numbers, then yea, it is not there." Simply, a 4 ranks deep archer unit will suffer more from arrows than a 2 ranks deep one.
distance calculation for shooters
It was already wrong to count the distance for each man, because really, their isn't a maximum range for an archer. It just varies a lot. So, the difference that this not included in the archer battle is quite minimal, and quite realistic.
Large number of events used to resolve unit combat which gives a reasonable level of statistical uncertainty.
Hmm?
Proper ratio of cav speed to infantry speed. Well selected reload times for ranged units.
You can't define "deep" by this. It is a matter of taste when it comes to these things, and in mine, they're all fine in RTW 1.5.
Well paced battles which mostly lasting between 20 to 30 minutes.I don't know who were the guys you played on RTW, but I know that the least of my battles take 20 minutes.
Highly distinguishable units from each other and from the ground textures.
They were distinguishable in RTW, and I'm sure they would be in M2: TW, after people get to know every unit's look.
Fatigue indicator on the unit icons which provides quick assessment of all the units fatigue level.
Talk about deep 0-o.
Definable subgroups within groups.
Isn't this more like a complaint about the UI, rather than the "depth".
Independent toggles for hold position and hold formation.
GAH.
You just stated a reason for not buying this game for at least 6 months.
Nothing's wrong with that.
These fancy graphics aren't necessary for good gameplay.
Well, kind of they are.. In other words, people care for them, which is why it's the best seller point in the game.
How about blocking AthlonXP from playing online since their game doesn't support it for multiplayer.
Well, since they can play, they will let them decide wheather they want to have the trouble and get a battle, or not.
Also, if a machine has insufficient processing power for a particular hosted game, don't allow that machine to join that game.
What if 2 friends want to play together, even if the battle will lag?
And Puzz is trying to explain to you that in STW you needed 90%-100% ''effort'' to win the match, in MTW this was 80%-90% and in RTW it was below 50%(oldies will probably give you less then 20%).
It depends on your opponet.
Thirdly you had to pick strongest units if you had any intentions to win the match. Fourthly your units won't sustain ''flooded'' attack from your opponent and we could keep counting.
How is that "wrong"?
@Tootee: Sorry, I couldn't reply to your post.. Simply, because it was filled of "feelings" ~:) No offence intended of course. ~;)
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
11-17-2006, 09:57
Edit:
Oh and Simon, my last off-topic input here ~;)
And now you tilt a barrel of oil into this thread. ~;)
People from all world loved RTW, lots of people keep saying "RTW is the best game ever". Now M2TW is out and again lots and lots of people love the game even more! I loved RTW even more than MTW, and i cant wait to put my hands on M2TW. But here you see, again, these old vets complaining cuz M2TW is diferent, cuz its not like an old game released 6 years ago, bla, bla, bla. Dude, i think we should make a new comunity, cuz this comunity, and the others dont express the voice of the people wich play CA the games anymore. This old comunitys are crowded with people cursing every new release. People with no gratitude. RTW was GREAT! M2TW is even greater!!! But they are upset cuz the game is not like STW, or MTW and keep rejecting every good and incredible aspects of these new games. Every single new and revolutionary feature!
"The game is not like STW, The game is bad, i will leave this comunity and i will never buy a new TW game again!' they say, but they are still here, trowing rocks again, and again, and again. Play STW, play pacman, play Age of Empires. But stop.
Lots of people join the comunity cuz they love the game and then they read this crap "M2TW, AI, i will never buy it again bla bla." Come on. There is not a single purpose on complaining and talking about STW, the game is GONE!
Who cares if they had monks of ninjas!? Play Shinobi!
Help the comunity or leave! Do you know how many posts i readed where people sayd "well, if the game is bad like that i wont buy it". Just because of this. :furious3:
Precisely, its the feeling. Numbers only quantify.. they do not qualify. How fast is fast? how depth is depth? In the end its all about the gaming experience, a feeling.
I had enjoy STW immensely, MTW greatly, RTW barely.. I only wish that M2TW can be a good game. So far MP reviews has been mixed but biased towards positive so things are hopeful. Hopefully these will bring back the good players I have enjoyed playing with.
Oh yes, if things go smoothly, I should be having my copy of M2TW in 2 hrs time ~:pimp:
Will post something that is more relevant to this thread :bow:
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
11-17-2006, 10:41
But here you see, again, these old vets complaining cuz M2TW is diferent, cuz its not like an old game released 6 years ago, bla, bla, bla. Dude, i think we should make a new comunity, cuz this comunity, and the others dont express the voice of the people wich play CA the games anymore. These blody and old comunitys are crowded with people cursing every new release. People with no gratitude. RTW was GREAT! M2TW is even greater!!! But they are upset cuz the game is not like STW, or MTW and keep rejecting every good and incredible aspects of these new games. Every single new and revolutionary feature!
At first: The name is MEDIEVAL 2 Total War. Not ROME 2 Total War. It is legitimate to compare MTW 1 and MTW 2. And what are the new features? Please tell me new features MTW Vi <--> M2TW. There are some more factions, a new graphics engine and that's it. Don't forget we discuss about MP!
And MTW isn't a game, that you play 40 hours and then you delete it. It makes sense to fight for it. And the "new" community would also have a benefit, if somebody of CA would listen to the "old vets".
Ser Clegane
11-17-2006, 10:47
[rant combined with swearing and personal attacks]
To tell the truth, their complaints seem to be much more constructive and helpful to the community than your post.
Asking other patrons to leave is highly inappropriate in this context.
R'as al Ghul
11-17-2006, 11:57
Variety of weather effects which had a significant affect on the units and on visibility conditions.
This is available in RTW 1.5, but no one really uses it.. Also, due to the "restricted camera" option always unchecked, it won't matter at all.
I'm curious x-dANGEr,
are you playing MP battles with unrestricted camera?
Is/was this the norm in RTW?
So you can always scroll over to your allies or the enemy's back to see what's going on without having to move a unit in that area? Seems pretty convenient. For me part of the fun and tactical depth is not to know what's going on at the other end of the field but to guess. That's also where fog and rain come into play. There're many battle reports where fog and rain played immense roles on the outcome of the battle. If I want to know what's going on at the other side I've to go over there with a unit, which is also realistic imho.
BTW, someone mentioned that MTW/VI and STW MP are dead. Well they are not. Both games are still being played online.
R'as
The greatness of a game is relative. Can't you see?
STW and MTW are very similar in engine and design. They come from the same branch and appealed to the same type of people. They were highly-rated games, but hardly mainstream. The community was small and hardcore, very serious and overall mature. We miss those times, along with the simple fact that not being very demanding, the STW/MTW engine allowed large games like 4v4s easily. Moreover, the foyer was simply better and the community was so tightly-knit that it was like a big family, and not simply a huge collection of players enjoying the same game from a distance.
RTW and what followed is very different, and so far M2TW is more of a RTW in a medieval skin, rather than a true successor to the original MTW. There are many who say RTW is great and its the "best RTS ever" and that STW/MTW are way too small, ugly and seemingly simplistic compared to the grandeur of the Rome engine. It's a different community altogether, and I doubt we will ever agree or integrate. RTW totally destroyed the old notion of Total War, while creating a new, even bigger community which is very different but still very loyal to this 'new' Total War.
Posts like X-Danger's and others only confirm this feeling. People try to convince the old crowd that RTW 1.5 is "just fine and very enjoyable" when for you it might be so - as you did not taste the old Total War - but for many of the older players RTW 1.5 is simply a complete disaster anyway, just maybe a little better than the utter and complete catastrophe which was RTW 1.0 - which single-handedly destroyed the old community. The rest of these posts focus on Ok, this feature might be missing or different..but see..it's still good!. NO it's not!
Let me just take a simple example. Yuuki observed that RTW/M2TW doesn't have different toggles for Hold Formation and Hold Position. X-Danger's reply to this observation was a simple GAH!. Many other 'replies' to such problems were along the same lines, trying to justify what is - to the old gamer - wrong. My friend, Hold Formation/Position and with it countless of other things like camera and army control, 4v4s, unit balance and so on were just what Total War was all about, and now they're gone, in favour of your lovely 3-D graphics and mainstream controls. Tactically, the game went down in options and size..you can't play huge games anymore and individual control is much less with dissapearing options and very very poor unit sprites when viewed from above. Simply speaking, RTW/M2TW might look cool but they are "dumbed down" versions of the original Total War games. It was done to appease the masses of the traditional RTS players, and the masses have indeed come - although loud, rude and as a result destroyed the old notions of our community.
Conclusion:
This is simply a matter of taste, but the fine wine that the old community used to savor so well is no longer available in the cellar. We thought that M2TW could be a re-discovery of the fine ways of Total War, but in the end it's just RTW skinned in a different way.
Which might please many, but will dissapoint others and there isn't much to do about it, I am afraid. Maybe Palamedes together with CA can solve some nagging MP problems which are annoying even the new community and maybe throw bones to the old crowd...in the faint hopes things can really be better.
Please can the forum moderator rename this thread "STW/MTW vs RTW/M2TW Pissing Contest"?
And then start a new one called "First Impressions on MP"...
:creep:
x-dANGEr
11-17-2006, 13:21
And now you tilt a barrel of oil into this thread.Yet, nothing off-topic ~:) (Since a part of my post was dedicated to M2: TW ~;) )
I had enjoy STW immensely, MTW greatly, RTW barely.. I only wish that M2TW can be a good game. So far MP reviews has been mixed but biased towards positive so things are hopeful. Hopefully these will bring back the good players I have enjoyed playing with.
I respect and believe that. I did enjoy MTW Campaign a lot more than RTW's after all.. It is just that, to not like a game is one thing, and to bash it is another.
I'm curious x-dANGEr,
are you playing MP battles with unrestricted camera?
Is/was this the norm in RTW?
So you can always scroll over to your allies or the enemy's back to see what's going on without having to move a unit in that area? Seems pretty convenient. For me part of the fun and tactical depth is not to know what's going on at the other end of the field but to guess. That's also where fog and rain come into play. There're many battle reports where fog and rain played immense roles on the outcome of the battle. If I want to know what's going on at the other side I've to go over there with a unit, which is also realistic imho.
BTW, someone mentioned that MTW/VI and STW MP are dead. Well they are not. Both games are still being played online.
R'as
Sadly, yes! A very great feuture to revive in the new M2: TW is making fog, rain, etc.. worth something by removing the Unrestricted Camera option IMO.. Nothing feels better than surprising your enemy by a couple of cavalry units who went the long way ~;)
Yuuki observed that RTW/M2TW doesn't have different toggles for Hold Formation and Hold Position. X-Danger's reply to this observation was a simple GAH!. Many other 'replies' to such problems were along the same lines, trying to justify what is - to the old gamer - wrong.
You must be kidding.. If you find one really wrong, just argue it.
Though, on other basis, as in on-topic:
Up till now, all can be heard is good about the game. Sure, some people are just mad at the lag, but that is a problem that will fix itself. To sum it up, I think the Multiplayer experience will get to it's best in 6 months.. With a couple of patches fixing whatever needs fixing, and the lag problem minimized hugely.
Up till now, all can be heard is good about the game.
That's not true. Lusted's first post indicates there is a problem in M2TW MP morale level.
Did it? I thought it just showed a very good drawn out fight between 2 weel matched armies.
Orda Khan
11-17-2006, 13:37
Let me just take a simple example. Yuuki observed that RTW/M2TW doesn't have different toggles for Hold Formation and Hold Position. X-Danger's reply to this observation was a simple GAH!. Many other 'replies' to such problems were along the same lines, trying to justify what is - to the old gamer - wrong. My friend, Hold Formation/Position and with it countless of other things like camera and army control, 4v4s, unit balance and so on were just what Total War was all about, and now they're gone, in favour of your lovely 3-D graphics and mainstream controls. Tactically, the game went down in options and size..you can't play huge games anymore and individual control is much less with dissapearing options and very very poor unit sprites when viewed from above. Simply speaking, RTW/M2TW might look cool but they are "dumbed down" versions of the original Total War games. It was done to appease the masses of the traditional RTS players, and the masses have indeed come - although loud, rude and as a result destroyed the old notions of our community.
I could not agree more,Tera
to not like a game is one thing, and to bash it is another.
Similarly, to understand and enjoy one game is one thing. To criticise with no foundation, those who experienced all the games is another
.......Orda
Please can the forum moderator rename this thread "STW/MTW vs RTW/M2TW Pissing Contest"?
And then start a new one called "First Impressions on MP"...
I agree. :book:
I've read a post from KenchiTib on their forums:
Me trash and another choas member had a good 3v3 versus Elites of boon/fogolin/kakhan...
With other words it seems that this is possible and that MTW 2 offers a good MP experience. I've played few matches yesterday and I have to say that first impressions are very positive. It gives you that ''good feeling''.
Orda Khan
11-17-2006, 13:46
I agree. :book:
I've read a post from KenchiTib on their forums:
Me trash and another choas member had a good 3v3 versus Elites of boon/fogolin/kakhan...
With other words it seems that this is possible and that MTW 2 offers a good MP experience. I've played few matches yesterday and I have to say that first impressions are very positive. It gives you that ''good feeling''.
I agree Aonar, there is a 'feeling' there. That feeling would be twice as good if 4v4 once more became possible
......Orda
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
11-17-2006, 13:48
I've read a post from KenchiTib on their forums:
Me trash and another choas member had a good 3v3 versus Elites of boon/fogolin/kakhan...
With other words it seems that this is possible and that MTW 2 offers a good MP experience. I've played few matches yesterday and I have to say that first impressions are very positive. It gives you that ''good feeling''.
I was not online the last 2 days (shortage of time). But at the beginning of the week, I played some games with the Elite clan together. They used small units if they played 3vs3. In my opinion, these size is too litte.
x-dANGEr
11-17-2006, 14:00
Similarly, to understand and enjoy one game is one thing. To criticise with no foundation, those who experienced all the games is another
Maybe, but that has got nothing to do with criticizing bashing it ~;)
Did it? I thought it just showed a very good drawn out fight between 2 weel matched armies.
If the casualties you reported are typical, I'd say there is too much attrition.
Orda Khan
11-17-2006, 14:36
Other than your own perception of bashing and of course, the way you dismiss things you never experienced so therefore do not understand. Since you never played STW online and certain members are making direct comparisons, why do you get the impression that you can convince them differently? A written response to your questions to prove the point is simply not enough is it? From your reply to Puzz3D's post that should be obvious, there is a counter to every argument and this could run and run until next year and longer. The simple truth is, no matter how much he tries to explain you will never agree with him. How could you? You don't know what he is talking about
........Orda
If the casualties you reported are typical, I'd say there is too much attrition.
The other day i fought a 2v2, and casualty rates were much lower on the winning side as we managed to rout lot of the enemy units early on.
Played a 2v2 yesterday with 3 guys from the Huscarls clan, my side lost, but still I had by far the most kills of us all.
They simply had units with more morale, while I went for Slash and bash type units which do massive damage on charge. But due to their morale they didn't rout (as they would in RTW) they kept fighting, since my cav (and my allies) was defeated they could kill use easely, even tho I killed more.
tibilicus
11-17-2006, 16:26
Well im going to say my final peice here as ths threads getting rather silly now. Orda, puzz and others. If you don't like MTW2 thats fine, don't play it. But what I do find annoying as how you can critiasize a game you havn't even played? lol? If you don't like it fine. But maby play it or use some first hand comments isntead of trying to make this game look awful. I agreee theres a few issues, personly though they havn't effected me. So far my MP has beeen a good one, much better than RTW at that.
Thanks
Tib
the masses of the traditional RTS players, and the masses have indeed come - although loud, rude and as a result destroyed the old notions of our community.
Please don't generalise too much. Personally I see the "new" clan community in two. There is the annoying, yelling "war" (aka screenshot posting) mouthy clans, and there is the respectable side of the community who focus on playing the game and tournaments, clans such as Round Table Knights, Vandal Horde and the Huscarls.
Sorry but I just hate it when mtw players automatically think of rtw players like the general yelling lobby people.
are you playing MP battles with unrestricted camera?
Is/was this the norm in RTW?
So you can always scroll over to your allies or the enemy's back to see what's going on without having to move a unit in that area? Seems pretty convenient. For me part of the fun and tactical depth is not to know what's going on at the other end of the field but to guess. That's also where fog and rain come into play. There're many battle reports where fog and rain played immense roles on the outcome of the battle. If I want to know what's going on at the other side I've to go over there with a unit, which is also realistic imho.
BTW, someone mentioned that MTW/VI and STW MP are dead. Well they are not. Both games are still being played online.
I would like to play restricted camera, but only if they modified it. ATM it only lets you see the area around you, this makes team games very hard to play with godo teamwork because you don't have a clue whats going on on your allied sides. If they made it so I can see the fog of war around me, and all my allies then it'd be much more usable.
However I admit I'm so used to unrestricted now its difficult to go back :shame:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-17-2006, 16:54
Sometimes i just wanna curse STW and MTW. People from all world loved RTW, lots of people keep saying "RTW is the best game ever". Now M2TW is out and again lots and lots of people love the game even more! I loved RTW even more than MTW, and i cant wait to put my hands on M2TW. But here you see, again, these old vets complaining cuz M2TW is diferent, cuz its not like an old game released 6 years ago, bla, bla, bla. Dude, i think we should make a new comunity, cuz this comunity, and the others dont express the voice of the people wich play CA the games anymore. These blody and old comunitys are crowded with people cursing every new release. People with no gratitude. RTW was GREAT! M2TW is even greater!!! But they are upset cuz the game is not like STW, or MTW and keep rejecting every good and incredible aspects of these new games. Every single new and revolutionary feature!
"The game is not like STW, The game sux, i will leave this comunity and i will never buy a new TW game again!' they say, but they are still here, trowing rocks again, and again, and again. God! Just leave, play STW, play pacman, play Age of Empires. But stop spreading this bullshit.
Lots of people join the comunity cuz they love the game and then they read this crap "M2TW, i will never buy it again bla bla." Come on. There is not a single purpose on complaining and talking about STW, the game is GONE!
Who cares if they had monks of **** ninjas!? Play Shinobi!
Help the comunity or leave! Do you know how many posts i readed where people sayd "well, if the game is bad like that i wont buy it". Just because of this. :furious3:
Took Offensfe from that, Because I don't like People, to come here and tell us to leave.
We Trying to Help the Community Kid, but Like Someone said here Eariler, Mabye Puzz or Orda, not sure, If CA Actually Listen to the Old Vets, we won't be complaining right now. Eques, Why do you play SP/MP? Is it because of the Graphics Mabye? Mabye it becauses you want to see how good you are?
Anyhow, I see no good points in your post for me to talk about, so what I wrote above is it.
Face it, CA has changed, talk to Elmo, t1 or Obake or anyother old Goat, they might not like it but this way CA gets loads more money, why care about 10 people who won't buy it if you can get 10.000 who will buy it?
tibilicus
11-17-2006, 17:04
Took Offensfe from that, Because I don't like People, to come here and tell us to leave.
We Trying to Help the Community Kid, but Like Someone said here Eariler, Mabye Puzz or Orda, not sure, If CA Actually Listen to the Old Vets, we won't be complaining right now. Eques, Why do you play SP/MP? Is it because of the Graphics Mabye? Mabye it becauses you want to see how good you are?
Anyhow, I see no good points in your post for me to talk about, so what I wrote above is it.
Ok were to start.
2) I wasn't remotley aware you even play mtw m8. If so the few MTW players I know don't know that.
3)Warman. Which side are you on. You played rtw more than any one here probably. So I don't see were your critisicm is coming from.
4) Warman, dont take it out on people like Equeus. There making a point. Please stop taking a side your clearly not on. You played RTW, you liked it. I don't see where your veiws are comign from or if your just trying to imrpess some of the members here. If so, your only liying to yourself.
m8, it's unfair to take it out on some one with a completly different veiw. If you want to say the same to me. I think MTW2 is an improvment from RTW. Im enjoying it. Equeas made a point. Don't be all up in his face blowing his words compelty out of proportion.
Tib
why do you all argue so long about what you do like, about what you don't like and about what you never played?
"the old vets" have a quite unanimous opinion. Many want to know how is MTW-2 before spending the money and ask in the forums... to the other old vets which could not resist and did buy first. What's wrong about it?
and if I have to say the truth, my opinon is somehow different from Tera's: I think that M2TW is a step toward the old Med, and back from Rome. Therefore I tend to be optimist.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-17-2006, 17:15
Ok were to start.
2) I wasn't remotley aware you even play mtw m8. If so the few MTW players I know don't know that.
3)Warman. Which side are you on. You played rtw more than any one here probably. So I don't see were your critisicm is coming from.
4) Warman, dont take it out on people like Equeus. There making a point. Please stop taking a side your clearly not on. You played RTW, you liked it. I don't see where your veiws are comign from or if your just trying to imrpess some of the members here. If so, your only liying to yourself.
m8, it's unfair to take it out on some one with a completly different veiw. If you want to say the same to me. I think MTW2 is an improvment from RTW. Im enjoying it. Equeas made a point. Don't be all up in his face blowing his words compelty out of proportion.
Tib
2. Yes I been saying that for Years and I made it Known. Again, If you Read my Posts,doubt you haved, you would known I played MTW/Vi on the unpatched Server
3.Because it something called Addcition. BHC growed, I got addiction to it, even though I didn't like the gameplay, I came back anyhow to start BHC.
4.Who Ever Said I like RTW? May I have Pics or Links Please? None? there you go. I'm backing my Fellow Vets.
m8, it is Fair. In the World of Debate. MTW2 is a slight imprvoement AI wise, yes I admit, but not much better.
Nah MTW2 is better then RTW, but then opinions differ.
Mind you if loads of old vets buy it, even Elmo will give it a try "hint hint"
May I hope that all harsh language is gone when I log back in 2 hours?
Like, not like. It's all fine with me. Voicing opinions based on feel, numbers, experience, dreams, bad dreams, I don't care. But keep the discussions clean and grant the other to play his game. This my Hulk p@wns your Spiderman talk is silly. You like Hulk: you watch Hulk. He likes Spid: he watches Spid.
Quit nagging each other with words: be happy that someone else buys this game, which in turn allows you to obtain the copy cheaper than it would be otherwise, if at all available.
And if you don't like it: voice in acceptable words why not, move to things you do like and quit telling others that they are not it.
I think all agree that there are problems with M2TW MP. How is CA supposed to fix that if they have to wade through these brawls?
:scastle:
tibilicus
11-17-2006, 17:45
2. Yes I been saying that for Years and I made it Known. Again, If you Read my Posts,doubt you haved, you would known I played MTW/Vi on the unpatched Server
3.Because it something called Addcition. BHC growed, I got addiction to it, even though I didn't like the gameplay, I came back anyhow to start BHC.
4.Tib, Isn't this suppose to be your final Piece here? I mean Last post, or mabye the post before that? Who Ever Said I like RTW? May I have Pics or Links Please? None? there you go. I'm backing my Fellow Vets, Not People like you,Tib or Eques..
m8, it is Fair. In the World of Debate, you ethier tough up and suck it up, or just don't argue at all. MTW2 is a slight imprvoement AI wise, yes I admit, but not much better.
And theres no such thing as adiction with out a cause. No one forced you to play rtw, you chose to. And the one you are yet to play which btw handles MP rather well.
Tib
I'm backing my Fellow Vets,
Thanks, I needed a good laugh :laugh4:
Nah MTW2 is better then RTW, but then opinions differ.
Mind you if loads of old vets buy it, even Elmo will give it a try "hint hint"
Elmo, where? I miss Elmo!
Annie
.com or simply at the Pond
x-dANGEr
11-17-2006, 18:09
Other than your own perception of bashing and of course, the way you dismiss things you never experienced so therefore do not understand. Since you never played STW online and certain members are making direct comparisons, why do you get the impression that you can convince them differently? A written response to your questions to prove the point is simply not enough is it? From your reply to Puzz3D's post that should be obvious, there is a counter to every argument and this could run and run until next year and longer. The simple truth is, no matter how much he tries to explain you will never agree with him. How could you? You don't know what he is talking about
Then, I guess we should just stop arguing. On the same sense, how can you be convinced when you haven't played RTW 1.5, and don't know the tactics/strategies in it. And also, it falls in the same sense, that you are talking bad of a game you haven't played, which AFAIK, I haven't done yet ~;)
At any cost, upon the request of others, this discussion as it seems is a dead end, and therefore I will stop it.
*END*
@Tib: To get this topic back on track.. Can you detail to us how your MP experience was? Thanks.
tibilicus
11-17-2006, 18:13
Hi X-Danger. To sumarize my experieince.
Overall feel much better than rome. More blanced feels more relastic so on.
Only bad points I have found is some times it's a little laggy. Only effected one of my many games others have had mimimal if not any lag. Cavalry a little but overpowerd but theres bound to be a few issues.
That's it in a nut shell. ~;)
imo cav is almost underpowered compared to RTW, they're very bad when fighting after the charge.
BTW I don't have any lag, might have to do with the fact I'm on Univeristy network which gives me a very quick connection, but I don't know.
afaik t1 does seem to like this game
Orda Khan
11-17-2006, 18:22
Well im going to say my final peice here as ths threads getting rather silly now. Orda, puzz and others. If you don't like MTW2 thats fine, don't play it. But what I do find annoying as how you can critiasize a game you havn't even played? lol? If you don't like it fine. But maby play it or use some first hand comments isntead of trying to make this game look awful. I agreee theres a few issues, personly though they havn't effected me. So far my MP has beeen a good one, much better than RTW at that.
Thanks
Tib
You see, when things get out of control, issues become clouded and are lost in endless argument. That I do not have the game does not necessarily mean I do not like it and neither does it mean I have not tried it. If you knew the truth it may surprise you.
My main concerns with MP are already posted :
Lag.
SSE2.
And before we go back over the "Can't blame CA for progress" approach, it has already been posted that this will not stop AthlonXP users from joining your battles. When someone posts what they see as an issue, the stock reply seems to be motivated by some inert hatred that anyone should dare criticise the gameplay of a game you enjoy. I must admit it is highly amusing.
The game shows some promise, it still has many issues and of course it is very early yet. Who knows what will be uncovered in a month or two
........Orda
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-17-2006, 18:38
No one forced you to play rtw, you chose to. And the one you are yet to play which btw handles MP rather well.
Tib
Go Get MTW/VI, Meet me on MTW/VI, lets do some games, and you see the difference. I played RTW because I wanted to move on, makes Sense?
I also be able to play MP on MTW2 Tib, if I could actually get some help logging on.
Back on Topic:
Cavarly is overpowered, when I did some custom games and such. I had a SP game of, 3 Cav units, 2 Heavy Cav, 1 of them being General Unit, and a few weaker inf unit .vs. a French Army of Armounded Sergeants and 1 General Bodygurad Unit. my 3 cav units took out the whole enitre force themsevles, after my 48 pesaent archers did their damage, and killing about 20 Armounded Sergeants. OverPowerded? IMO yes it is.
Elmo, where? I miss Elmo!
Annie
elmo elmo elmo elmo.. sorry spam:smash:
blah couldnt get the game till 24th :( has FF started playing m2tw Ann?
x-dANGEr
11-17-2006, 19:18
Hi X-Danger. To sumarize my experieince.
Overall feel much better than rome. More blanced feels more relastic so on.
Only bad points I have found is some times it's a little laggy. Only effected one of my many games others have had mimimal if not any lag. Cavalry a little but overpowerd but theres bound to be a few issues.
That's it in a nut shell.
NOoononooOOOooOo!
I said "detail".. Details please, details!
~:)
SoxSexSax
11-17-2006, 19:32
Overall, I'm quite impressed with MP, other than the lag:
-> Cavalry are only uber in the charge (and boy if they charge right are they uber!), but when they get bogged down its horsemeat sandwiches for supper
-> Missile troops feel about right, not too deadly not to poop
-> Movement speed is a leetle too quick, but the lag kinda makes up for it
-> It just feels a little more polished than Rome in pretty much every department
My only gripes are:
-> Spears don't seem effective enough against infantry. In fact, spears suck at everything except absorbing a cavalry charge. Even armoured pikemen didn't cut it for me. Note that I don't expect spears to be great against infantry, but even decent spearmen get shredded by weak swords.
-> Massively depleted cavalry units (say like reduced to 3 troops) take ages to die/rout even when surrounded.
I can see myself playing a lot of MP. It's not quite like the original MTW, but it feels more like that than it does Rome, IMO, which is a GOOD thing.
Gregoshi
11-17-2006, 19:35
It is great to see you posting again tootee. Thanks a million for providing a link to that STW battle report. I'd forgotten about it. Twas a nice walk down memory lane.
The title of this thread mentions "first impressions" and with the game only being out about two weeks, impressions are about all that can be expected. Over the coming weeks and months with patches, tweaks and experience, more definitive pronouncements can be made as to what M2TW is or isn't.
In the meantime, for those of us who must wait until Christmas to get our copies, keep the impressions, good and bad, coming - impressions of the game, that it. ~;)
Hope I'll see a couple of ya online. Its been awhile since i've been routed by a Cheetah and a Golfish :laugh4:
We can help about this. ~D ~;) How are you mate? Hope to meet you on the battlefield soon. ~:) Visit our forums in the meantime.
Yoo Cheetah, i am good and how are you. :bow:
Its been a long time, years i should say, and my memory isnt as good as what it used to be :smash: :sweatdrop:
did we win that battle?
I am fine, thx. ~:)
Btw, we played against eachother. :knight: You were with Justy playing your usual nodachi/nag cav rush ... ~;p ~;)
And just to stay on topic: IMO the title of the thread is fine, just people need to read it. ~;) It says: MP impressions.
I dont think that it should be hard to realize that different people can have different impressions. Those who started the game in STW will view STW as the "golden standard", on the other hand those who strated it in RTW could be more than happy with the RTW gameplay. There is no contradiction here just people from both sides should realize that impressions -by default- are subjective and thus there is absolutely no point in arguing over them.
Going just one step further it is not hard to realise that there are many ways to balance a game. What might the "perfect balance" for one might be the "worse game" for someone else. Just as before the fine details of "perfect balence" depends on your taste and depends on your previous experience.
Also a point worth consideration that STW is gone and gone forever. I loved STW and I regard it as the golden days of the TW MP community but those days will not come back. I do not want to live in the past, I prefer to live in the present and I do my best to enjoy the present. ~;)
One has basically two choices: either to play the game what we have today and to help to improve it; or not to play it at all.
I prefer the first.
Going just one step further it is not hard to realise that there are many ways to balance a game. What might the "perfect balance" for one might be the "worse game" for someone else. Just as before the fine details of "perfect balence" depends on your taste and depends on your previous experience.
Balance is not arbitrary. You need units in each category of the RPS, and those units have to be cost effective otherwise they won't be used. Imbalance in the units will cause the solution to converge to a limited army composition. We saw this in MTW/VI where sword/cav armies dominated. You need balance between maneuver and attrition which means setting the morale at the proper level. The range of morale over which the system works properly is very limited. You have to set the fatigue rates properly relative to the size of the map, and how long units fight. You have to have the fighting time balanced such that a local superiority achieved by maneuver isn't negated by supporting units coming from long distances, and yet you can't have fighting time so short that there isn't enough time for flanking attacks by supporting units or allied armies that are close.
If you've worked on stats as much as I have, you can see the units falling into a certain mathematical relationship as the gameplay improves. You can also see that changing the stats of a single unit causes a ripple effect that affects the balance of other units. In fact, it's easy to imbalance a stat, and good players can exploit relatively small imbalances on the order of 10% or possibly even less.
*yawn* .... this all happened before.
I know it's not a very constructive comment, but it's amazing how many circles one can do. I do admire you all for your tenacity, you are CA's best asset, a fanbase which constantly tried to improve the game and does'nt give up. Incredible. My Respect. I really wish you all the best of luck and deeply admire your efforts. Hope you can enjoy MTW2 like you did STW or MTW mp, with all the great graphics (and hopefully some realism too).
Sounds very much like the discussion after MTW was released. At that time, snice I played very little STW online, I was'nt sure what everyone was talking about. Then with RTW, I really got the idea. Well, I'll keep reading around here before I buy.
Meanwhile, I started a 1vs1 Hearts of Iron 2: Doomsday, online. That is the first game I played in a while. terrific. No fancy graphics, but depth and detail, immersion is total. Effortless, glitch free, 'balanced', in depth. Brilliant.
Salute !
peacedog
11-18-2006, 03:48
Random first impressions:
heavy infantry seem to rule the battlefield, which is ok by me.
horse charges need to be well timed to be effective.
you need to get horses out of melee fast or there dead
archers feel about right.
gunpowder units are very good in the endgame
elephants are easy to counter
fatiuge needs to be upped
maybe spears and pikes underpowered
battles feel a bit like the RTR mod
lobby still ugly
laggy in big battles
Someone told me after a game that they felt the Scots units were overpowered. This may well be the case as ive won about a dozen 1v1s straight with them. Ive been playing TW for a long time but i wouldnt say im that good.
Overall id say if the lag is sorted so we can play 4v4, i could be online quite a lot. Its not back to MTW1 standards, but its miles better than Rome.:2thumbsup:
Orda Khan
11-18-2006, 12:49
Random first impressions:
heavy infantry seem to rule the battlefield, which is ok by me.
horse charges need to be well timed to be effective.
you need to get horses out of melee fast or there dead
archers feel about right.
gunpowder units are very good in the endgame
elephants are easy to counter
fatiuge needs to be upped
maybe spears and pikes underpowered
battles feel a bit like the RTR mod
lobby still ugly
laggy in big battles
Someone told me after a game that they felt the Scots units were overpowered. This may well be the case as ive won about a dozen 1v1s straight with them. Ive been playing TW for a long time but i wouldnt say im that good.
Overall id say if the lag is sorted so we can play 4v4, i could be online quite a lot. Its not back to MTW1 standards, but its miles better than Rome.:2thumbsup:
Good analysis. I had this impression with Scots also, at 10k I was able to purchase a full 20 unit roster and still had money to buy plenty of upgrades. This army completely steam rollered an English army. It is still too early to say but this could be pointing towards cheap units, cheap upgrade relative to unit cost, leaving a unit that even with upgrades costs less than the unit it can now defeat. I hope this is not the case ( I hated this in MTW/VI ) and it's the main reason I keep calling for an end to upgrades in the MP game. Mars already pointed out that upgrades are a SP feature and part of the campaign, where you gain rewards for improvement. You are not building in MP and balance/gameplay is far more important in MP, we all know that. The same balance/gameplay is already very fragile ( see the comment by Puzz3D ) the ripple effect caused by altering stats has a very large influence.
Those who started the game in STW will view STW as the "golden standard", on the other hand those who strated it in RTW could be more than happy with the RTW gameplay. There is no contradiction here just people from both sides should realize that impressions -by default- are subjective and thus there is absolutely no point in arguing over them.
You are quite right, Cheetah, my argument has never been about this. However I do take issue when those who have witnessed MP in all the titles are being told by those who have not that they are wrong. This kind of argument has no foundation.
Sounds very much like the discussion after MTW was released. At that time, snice I played very little STW online, I was'nt sure what everyone was talking about. Then with RTW, I really got the idea.
This quote from Sinan (Hi mate, hope you are well) explains my point.
My main impression regarding the state of MP is that it could be better than RTW. Whether it provides anything near the experience of MTW is another thing and it is way too early to comment on that
......Orda
Hi Orda ! :)
All's well.
It's the same case now, people who never played RTW, will play MTW2 and that will be their standard. People who never played MTW, but played RTW, and that will be their standard.
When I joined the MTW community and saw the comments from the vets, I did not understand them, always, I challenged them sometimes but I respected them always (except the childish whining). Obviously the people who played thousands of hours online in STW must have had something intelligent to say about MTW, and they did.
CA has moved the game away from the super niche finesse of STW towards the mass market of RTS. They have profited (in dollar terms) from the dedicated fan base of STW (subsequently MTW) to launch themselves on a "grander" scale in the RTS market. The research and historical accuracy of each game was less than that of it's predecessor.
The key is to understand that the movement is AWAY from everything STW was. With each title (though MY jury is still out on MTW2), the player base increased and the strategic and tactical aspects of the game were diluted.
With the increase in the player base also came a dilution of hardcore wargamers, who founded the online community for the Total War Series. As this CORE of the MP community became a smaller and smaller fraction of the overall player base, their input was considered less and less important. They became less and less important, in market terms.
RTW could have been much better than MTW, and MTW2 much better than RTW as well. As you know I have little faith that CA will do anything for me. I've moved on from their games since RTW was released. However I'm sure you guys can influence the company to do some thing to make the game better for you, as you have successfully achieved in the past. In general though, as you know, I don't expect much from CA with regards to Mp, historical accuracy, etc. They seem to have a different view of the game now than I do and that's fine. Nothing wrong with that, it's their product and their company and they decide where they go. Just that I can't enjoy their games for playability like I used to, and that's all.
I'd like to play MTW2, probably will once there is a decent mod out for multiplayer. Not sure yet. I want to see the graphics ! Eye candy ! YAY ! Where's my popcorn and coke !! This could be better than Kingdom of Heaven. At least that little girl, what's her name ?... Orlando BLOOOOOM does not star in MTW 2 !! (joke)
All the above is commentary and not gospel, so everyone, remember that.
Salute !
Dragging this topic kicking and screaming back on-topic, i've played a couple more mp battles.
Units which might have been overpowered in mp, such as the cannon elephants, are not if you have the right units to deal with them. Attrition rates vary depending on what units each side has and how thew battle goes. I won one battle with 56% casulaties to the enemies 96%(i routed and chased down most fo his units before dealing with his last unit of elephants), and the next 60% to 87%, with me attacking up hill into his position which was protected by stakes from the front.
M2TW mp is definitely way better than RTWs, things feel much more balanced, and combat last longer, and battles last long enough for proper tactics to be used.
x-dANGEr
11-19-2006, 15:34
However I do take issue when those who have witnessed MP in all the titles are being told by those who have not that they are wrong. This kind of argument has no foundation.
So.. If you had played all the titles in MP, you're a god and can't be wrong? Now I get it, ok. Apology. ~;)
@Lusted: That sounds really good.. Can you give more details on the hill situation..
Orda Khan
11-19-2006, 15:58
So.. If you had played all the titles in MP, you're a god and can't be wrong? Now I get it, ok. Apology. ~;)
Oh please. If you are unable to understand the point what is the use? Who said a thing about being a god?
You constantly reply about a subject you have no knowledge of, you said yourself that you never played STW online so how can you compare any other TW title with STW?
I stand by my statement that your argument has no foundation. No doubt you will have more to say but quite frankly I'm not interested
#ignore
.....Orda
x-dANGEr
11-19-2006, 19:14
how can you compare any other TW title with STW?
All my argument has nothing to do with STW, go think comparing with it.
@Lusted: That sounds really good.. Can you give more details on the hill situation..
It was the Eifel mountains map, he deployed on the big hill in the corner. He had 4 units retinue longbowmen with deployed stakes in a semi-circle at the front, with a schiltron of sergeant spears on either flank. Behind the archers were 2 units cannons, with 4 units dismounted english knights. At the rear was his general and 2 units demi-lancers. There was a wood on his right flank. We were playing on 10k florins, so he went for quality rather than quantity.
I went(Venice) for 1 general, 2 men-at-arms, 4 militia cavalry, 4 pavise crossbowmen, 4 venetian heavy infantry, 5 pike militia.
I advanced all of my infantry and general up most of the hill to behind a small ledge so his cannons could not hit me. I moved my cavalry to the other side of the woods on his right flank, lining them up ready for my assault. I advanced my infantry up the hill, wth my pikemen heading for his left flank. My pavise crossbow militia drew hia archer fire which allowed my Venetian heavy infantry to make it to his longbowmen without too many losses. As they arrived my cavalry also executed the attack on his right flank, wiping out the 2 units of spearmen he had repositioned there, and inflicting severe casualties on 2 units of dismounted english knightsd he had also moved there.
My Venetian Heavy Infantry, backed by my pavise crossbowmen who i move into melee, beat up his longbowmen and the english knights and cannon crews he sent in to reinforce them. My pikemen arrive on his left flank and engaged one of his demi-lancers. His general and remaining demi-lancer he sent in to engage my cavalry who overwhelmed them with numbers.
So overall he had a very, very good defensive position, but by using the terrain to render his cannons almost useless, well timed frontal and flanking assaults, and my numbers i was able to beat him.
Do you guys really think things are gonna change/improve ? I dont think so. I always wish for the best, but expect the worst.
Anyway, i know many vets, who like me, are waiting to have some feedback on mp. MTW2 is the first TW game i wont buy on release day. Of course, who am i kidding ? Sure i'll buy it. Sure i'll try mp. Many "old" face will come out in the incoming weeks. If its good enough they'll be back. If not, i'm sure it wont affect the usual RTW crowd.
Hope I'll see a couple of ya online. Its been awhile since i've been routed by a Cheetah and a Golfish :laugh4:
~:wave: How have you been my friend?
So have you bought M2TW or gone online? What do you think?
Just downloaded TC2M demo.. hope this will fill my void between now and 24th :juggle2:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-20-2006, 04:13
I fought two games today (finally), One against my friend FEAR from the German clan Croton, and one against Kurogane from Grey Wolves. I did good both games, winning my first one, and losing a good game against Kuro. I expericend some Lag, and Cav seem kinda odd, but not bad. Those Handgunners... OUCH!
UglyandHasty
11-20-2006, 19:55
~:wave: How have you been my friend?
So have you bought M2TW or gone online? What do you think?
Just downloaded TC2M demo.. hope this will fill my void between now and 24th :juggle2:
Salut Tootee
I'm doing good thanks. I have one little ugly running ammoc in the house, and another one due this winter. I hope everything is ok on your side. Is Clarence still playing ?
I have buy MTW2. I'm a bit disapointed. SP look like and fell like a reskin version of RTW. At least speed and killrate seem much better.
As for MP, well i wish i could tell, i keep receiving a NAT failure message when i try to join a game. I'll keep trying, but my patience might run short.
You will love TC2M. That game is a blast !
edit ... 500th post of :spammer:
RTKBarrett
11-20-2006, 23:31
imo cav is almost underpowered compared to RTW, they're very bad when fighting after the charge.
BTW I don't have any lag, might have to do with the fact I'm on Univeristy network which gives me a very quick connection, but I don't know.
afaik t1 does seem to like this game
Thought id add my two cents to this thread... its been quite, well... yes interesting to read considering i know all the MP ppl putting through their views :laugh4:
Greetings to all old time players, i joined the series in medieval, found rtw like ureselves not as successful but am highly optimistic of this latest title. I hope u dont find anything i say on these boards too extreme :2thumbsup:
Hi Aonar how are things, we need to get some more games in sometime. Always was a pleasure...
As for the quote, stig i remember our games and i cant see how u can say that considering my clan mate took full advantage of what he has learnt about the game so far concerning cav...
In no way are cavalry underpowered, ud have a much better chance arguing that they are overpowered which they arent. Think of it logically and in a realistic sense... why is it that u think a pikeman is superior to a spear man against cav. A medieval knight is basically the equivalent of a tank, a great amount of weight and force is focussed on the end of a lance which is what makes a knight what it is, a shock unit. An 11 stone man holding a stick cannot withstand such force, he would have his arm torn off even trying... even in tight schiltron the shear force of mounted lancers would hit these guys for 6 in big bloody bulges... A Pike is different as the ground absorbs the force of an angled pike and stops allcomers in their tracks.
Knights die quickly in melee because they shouldnt even be there, end of story really lol. I hope that helps u understand bud, a stopped horse against a spearman is more often than not a dead horse....
Many of us MP players know of Lebedis and his helpful advice to "go flank a schiltron" :D
Ive played alot of multiplayer games, collected alot of replays and watched them... Im enjoying it very much. Sure its all unstable and network problems are more common in team games than ever but thats an issue a patch will certainly address.... i hope.
The gameplay i think is very gd... battles last longer and in a multiplayer aspect things have moved on considerably since rtw. Id be happy to go on but i fear ill be repeating many of u :embarassed:
Hi Aonar how are things, we need to get some more games in sometime. Always was a pleasure...
Looking foward to. :bow:
Recently I've spent more time playing MTW 2 and I have to admit that MP is quit enjoyable experience (without lag in mind).
After 6 pages of replys we are aware that MTW 2 is different then it's previous precusors of TW series. It is a step in the right direction. Let's hope that this will continue from here on.
Main stain of MTW 2 MP is lag issue, but if I'm not mistaken even STW was laging until it was patched.
Those Handgunners... OUCH!
Handgunners are more "zomgz they make a big bang lets run away" kinda unit than "ouch". They kill very few, but route very many (if you can get them round an enemy flank).
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-21-2006, 22:11
In my Opinion Guys, MTW2 lobby is jsut a re-skin of the RTW lobby. but Gameplay wise, FAR better then RTW. I expericene some lag so far, but that because I got 8 MB Cable and half decent comp, so only some lags occurs.. I think if all the vets return, or if most do anyhow, it be a good game then..
Holy sum'n'r'other. This thread is VERY festive. I love econ's suggestion for renaming the thread.
OK, I'll toss my two cents into the mix.
My background: I've been with the TW games since the beginning, bought em all and the expansions within a week of release. Never really played that much multiplayer though, throughout the entire series of games and my memory thereof isn't always that great, but I do remember some bits and pieces. I also don't consider myself to be that great of a player, but I can... hold my own, if that's valid. I doubt anyone here would remember me, I went by either "Whacker" or "Treach", or some variation thereof. I wasn't ever involved in a clan, nor do I think any of the clans would have wanted me except for cannon fodder.
STW and MI: Given the fact that it was a unique game for it's time, it was a hell of a lot of fun to play. The pre-patched game was full of lag and some bugs here and there, but for the most part it was playable. I don't think I ever played anything but 1v1 against some random opponents, noone else I knew was playing the game at the time. I will say that I have good memories of my games and opponents, people in general just felt more courteous and respectful. I liked the interface at the time and didn't feel it was hard to use. Never did get the real hang of the finer points and hairsplitting between units, but the basics were easy enough to grasp. Spears beat cav, cav beats archers, etc etc... without getting into the bowels of the mechanics.
MTW and VI: Wow, this was different and yet the more of the same. It was a bit surprising to see the old game engine reused in '02, because at the time the 2D sprites were pretty dated in terms of graphics. I for one prefer a wide variety of units and factions to play as, this certainly satisfied my tastes there. However as our beloved cranky ol' Puzz3D points out, this does throw quite a wrench into the mix when it comes to unit balancing. The lag issues were for the most part a distant memory to me. The bugs and exploits were amusing and aggravating to watch, try, and be on the receiving end of. Again I never did really grasp much of the finer points of relative unit strengths and weaknesses, so the better players did tend to kick me around quite a bit. I want to say I played a few 2v2 matches and what naught, but in general it was 1v1. I had one friend who picked up MTW and I played against, but in general I would play against random folks. In general, the folks that I ran into and had the pleasure of playing with and against were honorable and respectful. The "normans" as Mr. Monarch called them did start to crop up here and there, but it wasn't that bad.
RTW and BI: Hrmmm... A new engine, it was certainly pretty, I'll give it that. The gameplay is much faster paced in multiplayer, and that old lag problem is back. I still experienced it all the patch revisions, even when I was playing on my monster rig and against my friends who I knew also had computers that didn't lag. By this time we all had solid broadband connections or better so that obviously wasn't the weak point. The cav spamming was definitely a huge problem and it ruined the atmosphere some. I have mixed feelings about what CA did in the patches, it just seemed that for stuff that they fixed, something else broke. The final patch 1.5 still had it's share of problems. I think Mr. x-Danger pointed out the "butt-spike bug" for phalanx formations that would cause cav charges to the read that would die en-masse just like frontal charges... That was/is utter crap, and still irritates me to this day. Would I say the overall experience was worse? Nah. Was it better? Nah. It was just different. One thing that I will laud RTW for is the (imo) *vastly* improved interface for controlling and viewing the battles. Gone were some sorely missed features, but added were some much needed new ones. The new grouping system was superior in my opinion. The camera system and controlling it was light-years better than STW and MTW... It's almost painful to play them now that I got used to RTW/M2TW style. It just felt much more solid to me. In some aspects it was inferior, such as the missing fatigue/moral indicators on the unit cards. Moving and controlling units was a mixed bag. The alt-turn function was great. Moving units with alt-click was great. Trying to get units to run? They didn't always want to do this... Though I want to say this was a problem in all the games. Don't honestly remember. Finally, in terms of the lobby and types of individuals that I'd run into looking for random games... Ugh. Unfortunately this has gone way downhill, and looking for a good, mature, respectful, friendly opponent is like looking for a needle in a haystack. /shrug The "normans" have definitely come back with a vengeance, and they love telling me "im in ur city killin ur d00ds".
M2TW: I haven't played multiplayer yet, and I got the game 3 days before I left for vacation. As such it'd be pointless for me to speak to this when I haven't played it. I *will* state that if some of the interface control bugs are identical in multiplayer, that they will no doubt vex me greatly and impact my opinion on the experience.
Some final thoughts. Interface in RTW was best in my opinion, in terms of controlling my armies. STW and MTW "felt" more tactical, and battles took longer (not that long battles is a good or bad thing). RTW battles were generally quicker affairs once actual combat began in earnest. They've all had their fair share of bugs, good points and bad. I've enjoyed every one.
Cheers!
Sitting at the airport of Kualalumpur (however you spell it) being boreeeed, thats why I read this thread. :dizzy2: Hopefully Ill give it a try this weekend and then find out about it, and give some feedback. Or not, if I am too busy playing it. Yeah bit useless post, but I am bored. ;)
UglyandHasty
11-22-2006, 16:49
Salut Tempiic :)
Well i manage 2 games last night, and i'm fairly impress. I think we might have something here. Some cav need speed tweaking for sure, as i had trouble catching archers with mounted sergaent. With 2 games i cant talk bout the balance. I'll try more games before commiting. But i actually had fun. Of course i had a host quiting on me, but i was expecting it:whip:
finally got my copy :yes:
First impression:
1. Lobby looks nice.. blue, with better font, make reading easy. The moving background is abit disturbing. Can't have private chatroom like STW, and worst only one room...
2. played 3 1v1 with clanmate AK. 2/3 GS disconnected. 1/3 ok. Our 1v1 has no lag. Both of us had video setting at lowest.
3. the sprites look terrible from the usual zoom-out view.. maybe its because i had settings at lowest? they look just aweful...
4. cannot distinguish my units.. they all look the same to me :dizzy2:
5. where is the ctrl+shift+num grouping?!?! :furious3: Would appreciate CA bring back this control.
6. game balance.. can't comment much.. cav is different.. hardly can use a fast cav to raid the shooters during the shooting battle like in MTW.
All-in-all, am happy to play TW again. Better than RTW for sure.
Hunter KIng George
11-25-2006, 17:54
Hiya Hasty :laugh4:
I also played my first games last night, was rather impressed. It was fun especially since I played with a couple of VI friends, made the experience more enjoyable. We played a couple of 3v3 games, I had minimal lag but on the 4v4 it was very laggy. It does give a slight feeling of VI with the better graphics of course. Nobody mentions the sound, I think the sounds are intense...hearing those arqs shoot is incredible. I expect the units will need some balancing...to early for me to tell what needs what.
BTW tootee
5. where is the ctrl+shift+num grouping?!?!
I think they mentioned this on page 54 of manual havent confirmed it works...and say hi to LeChevalier for me! :beam:
Hiya Hasty :laugh4:
I think they mentioned this on page 54 of manual havent confirmed it works...and say hi to LeChevalier for me! :beam:
what they mentioned is not the ctrl+shift+num grouping, or what we call soft-grouping? its not in the demo either.
Sure will forward your regards to Clar :yes: dont think he has got the game yet :laugh4:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.