View Full Version : MP is Great! (if they fix the lag)
Prince of the Poodles
11-15-2006, 04:21
Well i just installed my game and went to MP first!
I played a lagless 1v1 as the Venetians vs the French.
It was awesome!! So much like the first MTW.
We had an Xbow shootout... something im sure many vets arent too fond of, but it was so awesome to actually be in the middle of a pav shootout like old times.
He had like 2 xbows and 6 archer units, 4 adventuriers and 2 peasant[archers]. I had 3 Pavise Xbows.... They held their own against all of his missiles and I could tell it was pissing him off.
Then I notices some of his knights were in range, and that did it. (BTW, we both had 5 cav, and the rest swords and spears - very similar armies besides the archer differences)
He moved his adventuriers in to counter - shoot some of my infantry and I pushed forward...
This is where is gets good.
The game was Slow enough that I actually had time to manuever, flank, counter-flank, and squeeze into gaps in his line.
I simply outplayed him. There was no spam of one unit, no blobbing, no mass attack... it was amazingly similar to mtw.
If they can get the lag out of the bigger battles, i very much think there could be a resurgence of the TW community we knew in Shogun and MTW.
Its def not perfect, but so much betterthan rome or BI.
Great job CA, on at least getting the mechanics back to a similar level as the first two titles.
Sorry for the grammer and other writing mistakes, i want to get back to the game! Woo hoo.... !
He had like 2 xbows and 6 archer units, 4 adventuriers and 2 peasant[archers]. I had 3 Pavise Xbows.... They held their own against all of his missiles and I could tell it was pissing him off.
I'd be pissed off as well if 3 ranged units held against 8 ranged units. I'll bet your 3 pav xbows cost less than his 8 ranged units. I'm not an advocate of overly effective ranged units, but neither am I of overly weak ranged units.
Incongruous
11-15-2006, 05:25
Yeah I would be pissed off aswell, that does not sound to good to me.
Did you have some kind of huge hieght advantage?
Prince of the Poodles
11-15-2006, 05:29
The problem was, i believe, that he had only 2 xbows and the rest were unarmored archers.
He had them somewhat bunched in 2 rows, while my Pavs were lined way out like what was done in mtw.
It was like:
him:
____________________
____________________
Me:
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\_____________________/
Note also that the first line was 2 peasant archers and 2 xbows, the second were 4 adventiers. I did not kill many of the adventeriers until he got pissed off and moved them up.
I think if he had spread his archers out and not kept the two lines so close together he would have had 4 fresh archers.
Also the pavs were very costly if I remember correctly.
Prince of the Poodles
11-15-2006, 05:32
Ok well its not letting me space the "/ \"'s. I hope you get the idea.
I had one pav straight in front of his archers while the other two were angled inward so the direction of fire went into the middle.
He kept his adventeriers too close to his first line, so they suffered unneccessary casualties.
I'd be pissed off as well if 3 ranged units held against 8 ranged units. I'll bet your 3 pav xbows cost less than his 8 ranged units. I'm not an advocate of overly effective ranged units, but neither am I of overly weak ranged units.
Hey Puzz!
Interesting part you picked out of the original post there. Now please, quote this:
This is where is gets good.
The game was Slow enough that I actually had time to manuever, flank, counter-flank, and squeeze into gaps in his line.
I simply outplayed him. There was no spam of one unit, no blobbing, no mass attack... it was amazingly similar to mtw.
Can't wait to see what negatives you draw out of that :beam:
Interesting part you picked out of the original post there.
Three ranged units beating 8 ranged units suggests an imbalance issue. Pav xbows don't use their shield when aiming and firing, so you'd think they would be vulnerable to arrows during that time. The pav is on their back, and only protects them when reloading. Those 3 pav xbows beat the first line of 4 enemy ranged units, but then also beat the second line of enemy ranged units which hadn't taken many losses until they moved up. The guy got outplayed in the melee, but he had fewer melee units and it's possible his melee were no better than Prince of the Poodles' melee depending on how much he spent on those 8 ranged units. Even if his melee are somewhat better, he's not going to be able to counter Prince of the Poodles' flanking moves.
So what it sounds like to me is that if your opponent takes pav xbows you better take pav xbows, and then you're going to get into one of those long boring xbow shootouts. Well this is great if you liked MTW xbow shootouts. My standard of comparision is STW gameplay not MTW.
x-dANGEr
11-15-2006, 19:43
Hmm agreed to Puzz3D there.. Though, if it was caused by the bad formation/set-up, I think it would be good to have the formation/set-up affect the battle this much.
My standard of comparision is STW gameplay not MTW.
Atm I don't mind this at all, I just hope something will be done that lag is fixed..:sweatdrop:
Kenchi_Sulla
11-15-2006, 20:09
Well, you need some understanding of the units at hand and the ranges involved. Adventuriers are a hybrid unit (missile/melee). Peasant archers are not effective vs armoured units (pavise crossbows use armour as well). his 2 crossbows are effective against pavise, but take more losses because of their weaker armour. The time that pav xbows face the enemy fire is rather short. So we have 2 ineffective peasant archers (220 florins each), 2 good crossbows (330 florins each) and 4 hybrid (690 but also usable in melee - so maybe 220 can be used to calculate their missile value) vs 3 pavise (490 florins each)
Thats 1320 + 660 = 1980 florins for 480 men (on normal settings) vs 1470 florins for 180 men with better armour and overall better armour penetrating ability.
Then you have facing and spreading your troops. Double lines take more casualties. If you put your pavise in a single line (2 deep, 30 wide times 3) the crossbolts have a smaller chance to hit something then when you put them 6 deep 10 wide AND put another line of archers behind them.
Is this unfair? I don't htink so - it's using your troops the right way. Depth of formation matters, deployment matters, armour matters, understanding the role of your troops matters.
You could also decide to skip the whole skirmish face and just sacrifice your archers in the already famous - light infantry shootout. Kill the enemy's unarmoured troops and attack his position.
ps
played a 3 vs 3 yesterday. The other side used pavise, we used only archers and some xbows. We won anyway with skirmishing so no unbalance there.
Overall I'm pretty satisfied about the gamebalance and gameplay in multiplayer. Ofcourse there is the at times annoying lag but that isn't an issue in this discussion. Puzz, don't be so frustrated about it - the game really isn't that bad.
-------------------
It's not like RTW-multi (that one I won't even discuss, they did a piss poor job there)
Prince of the Poodles
11-15-2006, 21:40
Yes^
The same results could be expected when playing mtw.
For example, if a player took byz and had 2 xbows, 2 archers, and 4 trebs vs 3 pavs and did not space them correctly, he could expect to lose great numbers to the pavs.
What the guy could(should) have done was keep his Adventuriers back and then after my pavs were down to half strength(which the xbows and archers did) bring his adventuriers up and attack my infantry or cavalry, forcing an attack on his terms.
Instead he kept his adventuriers too close to his other shooters, so they took losses throughout the shootout, then he moved them up to engage my pavs - which at that point were about 1/4 strength. This caused them even more damage, thus when the main fight came, any melee value they had was gone.
PS. We had equal numbers of swords and cavalry. In fact, it was exacltly the same amount of cav. I had 2 more spears than he had. (4 to his 2) Therefore, if he had used his adventuriers correctly, he would have actually had 2 more melee units than me. (I did not bring a full 20 units)
RTKBarrett
11-21-2006, 19:23
Your just as negative as Orda, Puzz.... :P
Orda Khan
11-22-2006, 18:01
You mistake refusing to jump on a "This is the best TW game ever" for negativity.
Not that I need to explain myself to you, I am quite optimistic about M2TW.
I'm sorry if that disappoints.
I've posted my main concerns with MP
SSE2....You have no way of knowing what processor has joined the game.
Lag......I thought this would be much better considering six years of TW.
As for unit/faction balance, time will tell
.......Orda
Well, you need some understanding of the units at hand and the ranges involved. Adventuriers are a hybrid unit (missile/melee). Peasant archers are not effective vs armoured units (pavise crossbows use armour as well). his 2 crossbows are effective against pavise, but take more losses because of their weaker armour. The time that pav xbows face the enemy fire is rather short. So we have 2 ineffective peasant archers (220 florins each), 2 good crossbows (330 florins each) and 4 hybrid (690 but also usable in melee - so maybe 220 can be used to calculate their missile value) vs 3 pavise (490 florins each)
Thats 1320 + 660 = 1980 florins for 480 men (on normal settings) vs 1470 florins for 180 men with better armour and overall better armour penetrating ability.
It's actually 2760 + 660 = 3420 being used to counter 3 pav xbows costing 1470. So the guy was at a disadvantage monetarily in the melee when his 8 ranged units didn't beat the 3 pav xbows.
played a 3 vs 3 yesterday. The other side used pavise, we used only archers and some xbows. We won anyway with skirmishing so no unbalance there.
Are you saying an xbow + archer (330 + 220 = 550 florins) beats a pav xbow (490 florins) when the units are used properly?
Hmm Maybe you guys don't know Yuuki ?
He's into the math, and damm good it at it too.
He's done countless statistical/mathematical analyses over the years, all of which IMO were great.
Other than that, the battle description does'nt sound too bad.
Darkarbiter
11-24-2006, 10:08
A crossbow string doesnt need to be held the entire time to be shot so the actual amount of time you need to spend not behind the sheild is quite low. So i
dont see why pavises shouldnt be effective defense (although admittably the engine sees the crossbowmen as being just as weak when their in front of the sheild as behind). Maybe itll be fixed in a patch (although admittably having different defense for different times on a unit is probably a big thing).
Actually maybe not region specefic but at least a curtious and non curtious room for all the people who want to swear and call each other noobs.
Note also that the first line was 2 peasant archers and 2 xbows, the second were 4 adventiers. I did not kill many of the adventeriers until he got pissed off and moved them up.
.
Gasps at the mention of the mass :)
Poor peasants...
Anniep
Orda Khan
11-24-2006, 16:36
A crossbow string doesnt need to be held the entire time to be shot so the actual amount of time you need to spend not behind the sheild is quite low.
Sorry, I can't grasp what you mean here can you enlarge? A pavise type shield was used by the Huns. The men behind them were archers and I would be willing to bet they could release an arrow as fast as or faster than a man with a crossbow. Maybe I am missing the point
.......Orda
Kenchi_Sulla
11-24-2006, 16:49
It's actually 2760 + 660 = 3420 being used to counter 3 pav xbows costing 1470. So the guy was at a disadvantage monetarily in the melee when his 8 ranged units didn't beat the 3 pav xbows.
Puzz, if you reread the posts you would agree with me. Its not about total florin count, its about getting what you paid for.
he didn't use the hybrid in the initial shootout in the first place, just in the minut before melee to counter. Regular bows are NOT good vs armoured units. They are very effective vs LIGHT units (exception is longbows or units with similar "armour piercing" characteristics).
So if you look beyond the florin count you could conclude the following
- Crossbow units have superior range. If they are pavise they have superior range and better protection. In this fight it was actually 2 vs 3 pavise. I have run tests with missile units and we can conclude that peasant archers are not effective vs pavise crossbows. They weren't designed that way.
- regular bows are overall cheaper but have no real other advantages
- hybrid units are often armoured, do a good deal of damage in ranged and close combat, but are ofcourse pretty expensive. IMO they should be used as support units (on the flanks or behind the main line to counter horsearchers for example).
Now, there are more things to consider - unit specialism:
Crossbows are usefull vs any other unit in ranged combat. If you get pavise crossbow units you have well protected armour piercing units (but a bit sluggish).
Peasant archers are only usefull at shooting at light infantry/archers or at regular crossbow units. They are however very cheap.
Hybrid units are not ment to be used in the shootout. Their value is in peppering enemy infantry/cavalry/horsearchers after the main shootout. When the going gets tough, you can use them as infantry.
Something else to consider. Unit deployment. Crossbows fire in a rather flat trajectory. regular archers in a more curved way (something of a ballistic missile). If you deploy your units in a double line vs crossbows you WILL take more casualties. Deploy your units in a single line and you are less vulnerable.
I have played around 30 games online now, and overall the missile balance is ok IMO.
Are you saying an xbow + archer (330 + 220 = 550 florins) beats a pav xbow (490 florins) when the units are used properly?
Maybe, but only if the pavise crossbow user is a fool. Peasant archers are simply not effective vs armoured units. It's really that simple. But they are good cannonfodder. if the pavise user shoots the peasants and not the crossbows, he will loose in the end.
Kenchi_Sulla
11-24-2006, 16:54
Sorry, I can't grasp what you mean here can you enlarge? A pavise type shield was used by the Huns. The men behind them were archers and I would be willing to bet they could release an arrow as fast as or faster than a man with a crossbow. Maybe I am missing the point
.......Orda
Orda, in the animation the crossbowman has a shield on his back. He is only exposed to enemy fire if he is shooting his crossbow. He can load his weapon while turning his back to the enemy. Ofcourse it could be done with a bow as well but I can imagine it would be a bit harder to do.
Puzz, if you reread the posts you would agree with me. Its not about total florin count, its about getting what you paid for. he didn't use the hybrid in the initial shootout in the first place, just in the minut before melee to counter.
That's not what he said:
He had like 2 xbows and 6 archer units, 4 adventuriers and 2 peasant[archers]. I had 3 Pavise Xbows.... They held their own against all of his missiles and I could tell it was pissing him off.
Every adventurier he lost to ranged fire was costing him a percentage of the total cost of the unit. I see I made a mistake in the costs. It's even worse than I thought: 2 xbows (660) + 2 peasant archers (440) + 4 adventuriers (2760) for a total of 3860 vs 3 pav xbows (1470). The guy would have been better off taking 3 pav xbows since obviously 2 xbows and 2 peasant archers cannot survive long enough to deplete the pav xbow ammo.
Peasant archers are simply not effective vs armoured units. It's really that simple. But they are good cannonfodder. if the pavise user shoots the peasants and not the crossbows, he will loose in the end.
That seems reasonable, but Prince of the Poodles did shoot the peasants as well as the crossbows and still had enough ammo to counter the adventuriers and then shoot at a knight as well.
Prince of the Poodles
11-24-2006, 21:37
Ugh if Id known my post would be analyzed so thoroughly, I would have taken notes!
Anyway - just reporting in that ive played multiple 1v1 and 2v2's with little lag and they've all played very similar to mtw.
I havent noticed any serious overpowering of knights charges. If you're lucky enough to be able to - in the heat of battle - get started, gain momentum, and not have anything get in your way and manage to land in the back of some troops, then ya, the casualties are high. However, I have managed to flank many times and if they troops have not been worn down in melee enough, they still wont break!
I wont say anymore as im not smart enough to analize things properly, other than say to my naked eye it plays alot like mtw.
Kenchi_Sulla
11-25-2006, 00:00
Puzz, I see your point but your still counting all the cost for a hybrid!! archer unit. That is not fair, since archery is only a small part of what they are capable of and what your paying for...
Other then that, I stand behind my point. The archery fight is balanced - if you field 3 pavise crossbows in a 10k game you loose 15% of your florins. Thats a lot of cash. I would go for the 2 xbow (6.6%) 2 peasant (4.4%) + 4 hybrids any time...
Puzz, I see your point but your still counting all the cost for a hybrid!! archer unit. That is not fair, since archery is only a small part of what they are capable of and what your paying for...
When a man dies as a result of ranged shooting all of his value is lost; the part related to the ranged weapon and the part related to melee. The only way you can get the full value of the unit is by shooting units that can't shoot back.
Other then that, I stand behind my point. The archery fight is balanced - if you field 3 pavise crossbows in a 10k game you loose 15% of your florins. Thats a lot of cash. I would go for the 2 xbow (6.6%) 2 peasant (4.4%) + 4 hybrids any time...
Well, you'll loose the 2 xbows and 2 peasant archers, and the 3 enemy pav xbows will still be operational. If you maneuver the 4 combo archers to a flank, one pav xbow could be used to counter them. However, better would be 4 pav xbows costing 1960 vs 3860. Use 2 pav xbows to counter the 2 xbows and 2 peasant archers and the other 2 pav xbows to counter the 4 combo archer units. You'll have to attack, but if you use the combo archers in melee, you loose their ranged value. If the combo archer can match an equally priced melee unit, then it can work, but that would suggest an imbalance in the melee capability.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.