View Full Version : Can you explain...Cavalry Vs Spearmen
SoxSexSax
11-27-2006, 21:01
Can you explain why it is possible for a unit of heavy cavalry to charge the front of a standard spearmen unit with guard position on, do significant (i.e. 15-20%) damage on the charge, IMMEDIATELY pull back out (losing, at most, 5 troops if the spear controller is lucky), then recharge and rout it?
I ask because standard spearmen appear practically useless in a competitive game right now.
Spearmen arn't phalanxes type units unless you're taling about pikeman, they stand just as much chance when being charged as any sword unit.
I've found you've got to try and get the cav units bogged down. Often in my battles "cavalry" wars start up at the side of where infantry is going h2h. Winner of this gets to flank with remaining cav. Throwing a spear unit in will help you beat all his cav. And if he tries to pull them back your cav can easily chase and bog them down again (and whilst he's moving them away he'll lose quite a few units)
However I too havn't found spears that useful. I usually only get them when playing certain factions like say hungary who only have one solid inf unit (men at arms) and they start to get rediculously expensive after you get over the 4 limit.
Sephriel
11-28-2006, 21:23
actually, imo its quite realistic. spearmen have no way to slow down the force of the kinetic energy of a cavalry charge. observing such a clash, you see that cavalry kills quite some percentage of the enemy spearman on first impact. cheap spearmen then rout, while better armoured ones or more experienced ones engage the cavalry then in hand to hand combat, slaughtering the horsemen if they dont immediately pull out. if you can bind a cavalry unit in meelee, they are as good as dead. a way of dealing with this is counterattacking a unit of charging cavalry with your own horsemen - there will be nearly no impact of the charge. while binding the enemy cavalry like this, move in with your spearmen. this is about the most effective method of dealing with charging cavalry without pike formations.
Edit: This post is referring to the total war engine. in reality its quite different (psycolochic aspects and so on), but in the end, the effect of a cavalry charge is imo the most realistic as you can get it with such an engine ;)
I start to believe, after somebody knowledgeable told me, that, actually, this story of the kinetic energy of the armored knight is just trash. No horse, unless utterly stupid, would charge against a wall made of bricks, as well as against a wall of spears.
The effectiveness of a cav charge lied almost entirely in what the enemy infantry FEARED would have happened at the impact.
In truth, what was happening was one of the 3 following possibilities:
1) the infantry broke and run, ending to be slain during the flight
2) the knights were realising that the enemy infantry would stand and they retreated to try a new charge
3) the horses slowed down and the knights were trying to use the last impulse to use their long lance to hit. This way the effect of the charge was very, very small
So, a wall of spear being demolished by the MOMENTUM of a cavalry charge is just TRASH, it is NOT historical, it is not AT ALL for a nice gameplay.
spear<sword<horse<spear is NECESSARY, please, give it back to us.
and I would add, think about Ghandy and the demonstrants "fighting" the british cavalry by just "lying" on the ground, fending off the attempt of the military to walk on them. This fact is more historical than the cavalry charge of the english cavalry in Braveheart.
(sorry for the english explanation, just I need some freshness to make good formulations)
Sephriel
11-29-2006, 01:51
erm... now, but think about the length of those spears those militia spearmen use... they are perhaps about 1.5 - 2 meters (roughly guessed), to be able to use it in battle you have to hold it at its barycentre. the peak of those spears will in the end be at about the level of the shield... this is no wall of pointy sticks. with such thrusting spears you have a good reach when stabbing, in the attack, but not when trying to withstand a cavalry charge. fighting with a shield and a one handed wielded spear, you cant use your spear to defend, you will only try to hold your spear in a way that it wont hinder your shield. so much for the wall of spears.
when speaking about a pike or halberd formation, i agree with you, there wont be horses charging in that.
but charging into those spearman, where the ones in the second line wont be able to fight at the same time as their foremen, thats an other story.
and youre right: the psycolochic effect is the biggest one: probably most of the soldiers will try to evade the charge (and especially the attacking knight with his lance! (which he will probably break at the first enemy (this much to repeating charges ;) ) ) ), try to run away in the last moment and the ones still standing in line (though not in a real formation anymore) will just get trampled down or pinned on a 3 meter lance. remember: we now speak of the short spears (1.5 - 2 meters) not the pikes (ca. 2.5-5 m) nor the halberts (about 2.5 - 3 m) ;)
Use archers behind spearmen to disrupt the cavalry formation as they are tightening up for their 'perfect charge', even if you kill nothing, some of them will lag behind and cause the entire unit to try to reform, then you can kill all those horses.
Jeff, the spears should alone be able to repel, stop or at least delay a cavalry unit ALONE.
Sephriel, sorry , but I think the point is another one: wall of pointy sticks or not, the horses are not stupid: they will NOT charge against a steady formation of men, spears, swords, or even demonstrants! As they wuold not charge against a wall of bricks!
A formation of trained, high morale infantry will stay steady against any charge. And it will take almost no casualty of it!!! The ensuing fight will then decide, but charge of the cavalry has NOTHING to do with the momentum of the horse.
PS: I was also of your opinion, Sephriel, than a forum mate in TotalwarItalia, Mitra76, clarified this point to me. I was, I must admit, schocked to see the difference between what I thought obvious and the actual reality.
RTKBarrett
11-29-2006, 16:50
Guys someone who weighs 11 stone cannot hold his ground with a small stick and shield against a medieval equivalent of a tank...
If u were hit by one, u like the spearman within the game would probably break the olympic world record for high and long jump in a single go.
can you read the post above?
a horse IS NOT WILLING TO CHARGE AND HIT AN INFANTRY MAN, in facts, it almost never happened. Is it so difficult to understand?
Guys someone who weighs 11 stone cannot hold his ground with a small stick and shield against a medieval equivalent of a tank.
It's not one spearman. It's a whole unit of spearmen. The spearmen are packed closer together than the horses. So, each horse is facing more than one spear.
SoxSexSax
11-29-2006, 17:25
In the original MTW, even normal spearmen could mincemeat cavalry. When I say mincemeat, I'm not saying EVERY frontal charge from a cav unit against spears failed, but you would ALWAYS take significant casualties on the charge.
I've literally just come from an online game where I took an infantry heavy army (including 4 pikes and 4 spears) and my opponent took almost all cavalry. I got destroyed. Do I (with hand firmly on heart) think anyone else could have done any better? No not really. What are you supposed to do when, right from the get go, he charges 18 cavalry at you, collides and does almost 20% damage to your army, then pulls out with only 10% losses to his cav, then immediately recharges and routs half my troops? Not a lot...
If spearmen ARE meant to be the way they are, this game is already pretty much finished for me. If it's a bug, or an acknowledged imbalance, then that's fine, get on with it and fix it please CA. If it's working as intended...yet another TW game takes a step back.
I, for one, really, REALLY hope the current cav/spear balance is not how CA intended...otherwise I've wasted £25.
RTKBarrett
11-29-2006, 17:25
Ok so if a horse in all history was never willing to charge an infantry man then what use were they massi?
Thats difficult to understand... And dont treat me like a fool as ive played the game long enough.
Orda Khan
11-29-2006, 17:29
The use of pikes in Late era I can understand, horse armour and armour in general was improved. In High era the spears should be adequately up to the job. A frontal charge into a formation of spears should not result in 20% loss of spears. Rear or flank, fair enough but definitely not frontal
.....Orda
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
11-29-2006, 17:30
I honestly can't care less about whether a horse can or can't charge into a wall of spears.
What I really care about is gameplay. That's all. If pike can't defeat cavalry, then there is a gameplay problem, the game is worse for it, and the historical reality that support or don't support that is not going to make the game better...
Back to gameplay: is anyone facing the same issue SoxSexSax have? Is the game turning into a cavalry festival? If it is the case, then CA got a gamebalance issue to work on...
Louis,
SoxSexSax
11-29-2006, 17:45
I honestly can't care less about whether a horse can or can't charge into a wall of spears.
What I really care about is gameplay. That's all. If pike can't defeat cavalry, then there is a gameplay problem, the game is worse for it, and the historical reality that support or don't support that is not going to make the game better...
Back to gameplay: is anyone facing the same issue SoxSexSax have? Is the game turning into a cavalry festival? If it is the case, then CA got a gamebalance issue to work on...
Louis,
I posted two replays of myself using an all cav army in another thread, and I'll link them here too. If you need more evidence than my word, watch them. The first, especially, is pretty dismal to watch if you like balance...the guy has literally no chance despite having what I would call a "balanced" army:
http://geocities.com/russdlamb/replays.zip
UglyandHasty
11-29-2006, 17:51
Well i still have to face an all horse army. I play at 10k so i dont think i'll saw that. All horse at 10k wont have 20 units. I face all horses at 10k, but the guy had less than 10 units.
I've seen one in a 3v3. But it was vs randoms and we where all on ts, the guy took his cav all the way around the back of us. So we where able to treble team him with our cav.
SoxSexSax
11-29-2006, 17:59
Well i still have to face an all horse army. I play at 10k so i dont think i'll saw that. All horse at 10k wont have 20 units. I face all horses at 10k, but the guy had less than 10 units.
With England, at 10k florins, I can create a 19 cav army. True, this is sans general and 5 of the cav are light, but I'd still wager big money on beating almost anybody with it who didn't have a similar imbalanced army.
What are you supposed to do when, right from the get go, he charges 18 cavalry at you
Stop playing 16k or higher ~;) in fact stop playing higher than 10k.
In High era the spears should be adequately up to the job. A frontal charge into a formation of spears should not result in 20% loss of spears. Rear or flank, fair enough but definitely not frontal
.....Orda
Actually the causulties are usually much higher, it is between 50% and 75% for a frontal charge vs standing spears. There is no spearmen unit which has a better chance (in any era). If your spear unit is moving when cavs hit (with a proper charge) then your spears die on the spot (in fact it holds for any other inf unit).
I honestly can't care less about whether a horse can or can't charge into a wall of spears.
What I really care about is gameplay. That's all. If pike can't defeat cavalry, then there is a gameplay problem,
Pikes can defat cavs (in fact spearmen can defeat pinned down cavs with ease, the trouble is the charge), and pikes can withstand the charge too.
Back to gameplay: is anyone facing the same issue SoxSexSax have? Is the game turning into a cavalry festival? If it is the case, then CA got a gamebalance issue to work on...
Louis,
SoxSexSax playing 16k or higher, and he knows very well that it allows for 20 heavy cav armies.
At 10k most factions can field only 12-14 cavs if you go for an all cav army. As Hasty said it is not a problem in general. Some factions might field more (like England with mailed knights -weakest feudal heavy cavs-, hobilars, etc) but then large part will be light, medium cavs. IMO more dangerous are those factions that can field around 14 cavs with good horse archers (like I assume the turkish army Massi was facing).
I posted two replays of myself using an all cav army in another thread, and I'll link them here too. If you need more evidence than my word, watch them. The first, especially, is pretty dismal to watch if you like balance...the guy has literally no chance despite having what I would call a "balanced" army:
http://geocities.com/russdlamb/replays.zip
You were playing 16k or higher, at 10k you can never have that army.
Your opponent in the first game had 8 sword units and no spears! I would hardly call it a balanced army.
Despite of this he was able to hold the center with swords and 1 heavy cav and rout your center cavs while still holding out the flank! That is not bad at all from a sword heavy army (it is true that the hill helped him, but terrain usually favours the defender if used properly).
Had he got 4 spears he could have won that (not sure of course) despite your 20 heavy cavs.
With England, at 10k florins, I can create a 19 cav army. True, this is sans general and 5 of the cav are light, but I'd still wager big money on beating almost anybody with it who didn't have a similar imbalanced army.
That is with England where you can do it because of the dirt cheap hobilars. With other factions you cannot have that many cavs. Also you can always play with less florins, like 9k if you think 10k is too much. ~;)
Just to avoid any misunderstanings: I too think that spearmen casulties are too high vs a head on cav charge (IMO it should be well below 50%, or at least there should be some elite spears which can hold a cav charge head on). Despite of this the game is reasonably well balanced at 10k and enjoyable.
Despite of this the game is reasonably well balanced at 10k and enjoyable.
Without an inexpensive and effective anti-cav infantry unit, the game is not something I would enjoy playing.
In Samurai Wars, a 60 man spear costing 400 beats a 60 man heavy cav costing 1200 frontally. It's not black and white since the spear does take casualties and it takes a certain amount of time, but the spear will emerge as the winner of that matchup. The heavy cav can pull out and charge again, but it still won't win. Even with that effective anti-cav infantry unit present in the game, we still have to limit the money to 9k otherwise too many elite units show up in the battles. If we remove the effective anti-cav infantry unit from the game, the gameplay becomes less interesting because one component of a 4 component system is lost. We saw this effect in MTW/VI, and after playing 5000 battles in that crippled system, I know it's not something I'm interested in playing. I want 4 working components to coordinate in the battles.
Without an inexpensive and effective anti-cav infantry unit, the game is not something I would enjoy playing.
...
I want 4 working components to coordinate in the battles.
I understand it (and as I said I would be more happy with spears that can resist the charge better) but unlike MTW you have all the 4 components because spears by far the most efficient units when it comes to kill cavs (i.e. in general it is better to have spears than not to have), just you have to be careful with the charge. ~;)
Ok so if a horse in all history was never willing to charge an infantry man then what use were they massi?
Thats difficult to understand... And dont treat me like a fool as ive played the game long enough.
it is not only about the game, it is about this supposed "justification" that cavalry should just run down everything because it is "historical". When this is NOT TRUE! Now, I am sure you can understand that at my third post stating the same thing I get somewhat irritated.
@Cheetah:
I have played only 10k my games this week, and I have met three times an all cavs army.
They got 12 to 14 cavalry units, they can tear in pieces any army balanced between spears, swords, shooters and cav. Any. And even if you play late and add pikes, you find yourself with a pretty slow army, I am not sure it is supposed to be this way.
I am pretty sure, in few days you will start to see games "max 6 cav", "max 7cav". At that point, will you think the game is "balanced and enjoyable" at 10k?
Thats not whining or CA bashing!!!!! The bases for a good game are there, this one is much more promising than anything arrived after medieval-1.
I just want people understand that the cavalry charge must be reduced in effect A LOT!!!
I have played only 10k my games this week, and I have met three times an all cavs army.
They got 12 to 14 cavalry units, they can tear in pieces any army balanced between spears, swords, shooters and cav. Any.
Massi, were these armies all melee cavs or melee/shooter combos?
combos, I can recall only a german army with some... don't remember the name, gunpowder mounted units
another one was a turkish army, but I am not sure if there were archers there
Jinnigan
11-30-2006, 05:37
methinks
the reason you think spears are terrible is because you are a terrible general
resonantblue
11-30-2006, 08:49
Nobody with any sense took spears in MTW 1 multiplayer (speaking for Western factions and in general) and I'd say the same applies to MTW 2 in what limited multiplay I've experienced so far.
Anyone sporting an all heavy cav army is going to get beat by an experienced player. You only need a couple of cav units to break a mass cav charge at which time you can engage them in melee with your infantry where they will get massacred. There is only so much frontage for them to charge at.
To pre-empt the ahistorical counter-argument about the lack of spears... spears were a cheap to produce, easy to use weapon. They were rarely used by choice. It's only real advantage over almost any other weapon (length) was actually a hinderance in any kind of close combat. So it makes sense that in multiplayer battles, there are no spearmen. Unelss you want to insist that in all multiplayer battles there have to be some peasants and militia units to make things more real.
I think CA can tweak it somewhat, but I don't think it's terribly far off right now.
Nobody with any sense took spears in MTW 1 multiplayer (speaking for Western factions and in general) and I'd say the same applies to MTW 2 in what limited multiplay I've experienced so far.
Anyone sporting an all heavy cav army is going to get beat by an experienced player. You only need a couple of cav units to break a mass cav charge at which time you can engage them in melee with your infantry where they will get massacred. There is only so much frontage for them to charge at.
so, are you an experienced player? I am just a terrible general, as the "poor of arguments" guy above you just stated. Then let meet on the foyer, I am not used to take an all cav army, but I can try to show to you what I am talking about. My name in foyer is Phoinix_Madmax (I have got to change my sig)
To pre-empt the ahistorical counter-argument about the lack of spears... spears were a cheap to produce, easy to use weapon. They were rarely used by choice. It's only real advantage over almost any other weapon (length) was actually a hinderance in any kind of close combat. So it makes sense that in multiplayer battles, there are no spearmen. Unelss you want to insist that in all multiplayer battles there have to be some peasants and militia units to make things more real.
I think CA can tweak it somewhat, but I don't think it's terribly far off right now.
so, once more, historically, or lets say technically, a trained formation of infantry will stand any charge of cavalry. And to the point of the game, does it make sense that there is a unit of spears costing more than 500 golds, which get slaughtered by the charge of a cavalry unit costing the same? these are NOT peasants, these are costing me 5% of all my budget, they are supposed to be TRAINED troops and are supposed to have a BONUS vs cavalry. It is WRITTEN in the unit's desription. Is not that a bug? is not that to be fixed?
and to your point about Medieval I, if you played that, you will recall that the king of the field was heavy sword infantry. A cavalry charge into infantry was FAR ineffective if compared with this Med II. Now you have cavalry that is FAST, has a terrifying CHARGE, and beats BOTH spears and infantry.
Which units do you need to win a multiplayer game?
just cavalry.
the point is , for a good game play, one must have
spears<swords<cavalry<spears
AND the cavalry must still be more expensive because it is FAST.
it's easy to counter a full cav army, you have just need some cav for absorb cav charge and spearmen/heavy infantery to kill the cavalery.
arbelester/gun+pikemen/halleberdmen make a wonderful combo.
stakes+longbowmen is also a very good combo.
the big mistake is to rely only on the spearmen/heavy infantery to absorb cav charge.
RTKBarrett
11-30-2006, 15:52
Reiters? i find it very hard to believe that u couldnt repel 12-14 units of cavalry...
why?
how many shooters do you have in a balanced army? I have at least 4
and 4 swords units
This makes 8 units very little useful against repeated charges. And IMHO fatigue plays also a minor role, you can run around a lot, using all the advantage of mobility without fearing you get your units tired.
Let see, lets play the game further.
Let see, lets play the game further.
It's easy enough to test. Using non-general units and no upgrades, take an infantry unit that's supposed to be good vs cavalry and attack it with a cavalry unit that's about 2x the cost. (To my mind it should win even against cav that's 3x the cost if the cav is 2x faster than the inf unit.) The infantry unit should be able to win. Even if you use all the mobility that the cavalry unit has to offer, the infantry unit should be able to rotate fast enough to maintain facing towards the cavalry unit.
On a bigger scale, take a whole line of those anti-cav infantry and make a frontal assault with an equal number of those cavalry units. The infantry line should hold even against repeated frontal charges. Keep the general's units way back so they don't influence the outcome.
Save the replays and send them to Palamedes.
Jinnigan
11-30-2006, 19:40
I don't understand why you insist that infantry units should be able to eat charges without penalty
the infantry should be able to beat cavalry in melee combat,yes, but not after eating a charge.
what you really need is a way to bog down the cavalry so it's difficult for them to get out, or perhaps archers in the front line to absorb the charge impact
I don't understand why you insist that infantry units should be able to eat charges without penalty
the infantry should be able to beat cavalry in melee combat,yes, but not after eating a charge.
what you really need is a way to bog down the cavalry so it's difficult for them to get out, or perhaps archers in the front line to absorb the charge impact
Horses won't charge into a wall of spears. If they are doing that in M2TW, it's just plain wrong.
The spear unit shouldn't escape without penalty. It should take losses (probably up to 50%), but the best spear should be able to stand against the best cav in the game. If it can't then cav will dominate because it has the initiative by virture of its higher mobility. The slower spear cannot force engagement. In a game where the spear beats the cav frontally, the cav is still a threat to beat the spear by flanking.
Having to using two units to stop one puts you at a disadvantage because there is an enemy unit unaccounted for which can maneuver unopposed. This unaccounted for unit doesn't have to be strong because it can maneuver to a position to threaten a rear attack. One of the two units that are being used to deter the enemy cav from charging is going to have to turn around, and when it does you're dead.
Don't forget, CA put battlefield upgrades back in the game, so every time a cav unit runs down an infantry unit, the cav gets stronger. Cav will get progressively stronger as the battle goes on. I know players who were masters at exploiting this in MTW until the battlefield upgrades were removed in MTW/VI. I remember the complaints about 3 man cav units beating 30+ man infantry units in MTW frontally.
NihilisticCow
12-01-2006, 00:59
Battlefield upgrades haven't been a problem in RTW as units don't gain that much experience in a battle and they are much less in MTW2 as they only get an extra melee attack/defensive skill point with every 3 valour.
Spears should be able to withstand a cavalry charge, doesn't mean they shouldn't take losses but that they shouldn't just get wiped out by it.
Battlefield upgrades haven't been a problem in RTW as units don't gain that much experience in a battle and they are much less in MTW2 as they only get an extra melee attack/defensive skill point with every 3 valour.
Don't believe the numerical info the game is giving on upgraded units. It's wrong in RTW, and probably still wrong in M2TW.
NihilisticCow
12-01-2006, 10:52
I'm speaking from experience not from the numerical data. I've played RTW/BI online more than almost anyone else against the top players at the highest level. Have you actually played MTW2 yet?
I suppose one problem is that some cav is cheap to get, but in campaign mode they would be too expensive to maintain. So if the MP price is the same as SP price, the cav is better in MP as you do not care about the upkeep differences.
Maybe the MP price should be different from the SP price?
R'as al Ghul
12-01-2006, 13:10
Maybe the MP price should be different from the SP price?
Not only that. In my opinion the only reasonable thing to do is to completely seperate the stats and costs from SP. We've done that for Samurai Warlords and it works very nice. Upkeep costs and armour upgrades should be campaign specific because they change the unit matchups over time in the campaign. In the campaign the upgrades work fine, considering there're also the generals stars and traits that influence the performance of your troops. You'll seldom have a clean matchup (no upgrades or boni of any kind) of units in a campaign battle.
In MP there shouldn't be any upgrades allowed, neither valour/ honour nor armour or weapon upgrades. Keep the units "clean" and gameplay and army setup become more intuitive and balancing easier. I consider counting valour flags or zooming in to spot hidden armour upgrades as counterproductive for the gameplay.
R'as
Don't believe the numerical info the game is giving on upgraded units. It's wrong in RTW, and probably still wrong in M2TW.
How is the numerical data wrong in RTW exactly? from what i've seen it's perfectly fine as it is M2TW, which i know from experience as i've played about the same as Cow against the top players in RTW.
As for cav vs spearmen, spearmen were ppl who were too poor to afford good weapons/armour and the spear is a cheap but effective weapon. They are not designed to fight cavalry, but are better equipped to do so due to the extra reach of their weapons compared to swords. They didn't make a spearwall as the spears weren't long enough for that unlike pikes which were designed to fight cavalry in a spearwall formation.
In medieval times 1 mounted knight was worth 10 infantry of an average standard and a cav charge often head on decided most battles with a 2nd wave of infantry supporting them.
There were 2 decisive ways of beating cavalry, them being pikemen and archers, not peasants with spears.
I'm speaking from experience not from the numerical data. I've played RTW/BI online more than almost anyone else against the top players at the highest level. Have you actually played MTW2 yet?
Then you don't know that a unit gets "an extra melee attack/defensive skill point with every 3 valour".
I played the M2TW demo. I'm not going to buy the game in its present state.
How is the numerical data wrong in RTW exactly? from what i've seen it's perfectly fine as it is M2TW, which i know from experience as i've played about the same as Cow against the top players in RTW.
The weapon and armor upgrades give double the combat boost than is indicated. Playing against top players is immaterial. You have to do controlled tests to identify the problem.
Then you don't know that a unit gets "an extra melee attack/defensive skill point with every 3 valour".
Cow already stated in an earlier post that he is aware of this fact.
Battlefield upgrades haven't been a problem in RTW as units don't gain that much experience in a battle and they are much less in MTW2 as they only get an extra melee attack/defensive skill point with every 3 valour.
I played the M2TW demo. I'm not going to buy the game in its present state.
Then u don't own the game in it's completed state as it is very different to the demo.
The weapon and armor upgrades give double the combat boost than is indicated. Playing against top players is immaterial. You have to do controlled tests to identify the problem.
There is no problem, it's merely a difference in how defensive skill and armour acts during the game which they changed in a patch for RTW for the SP campaign so the blacksmiths etc actually did something worthwhile and have carried that over to M2TW. Also if u played M2TW then u'd know that u can't upgrade to gold/gold att/def like in rtw but there's a different system to stop exploiting like that.
NihilisticCow
12-01-2006, 15:37
Then you don't know that a unit gets "an extra melee attack/defensive skill point with every 3 valour".
I played the M2TW demo. I'm not going to buy the game in its present state.
The weapon and armor upgrades give double the combat boost than is indicated. Playing against top players is immaterial. You have to do controlled tests to identify the problem.
No I don't "know", but do you really think that you're the only person to run controlled tests with other people to better understand the mechanics? This is something I have done alot with other clan members.
The tests I have ran for example with Valour 3 Dismounted Feudal Knights against Valour 1 Dismounted Feudal Knights have shown no observable difference in combat ability, which leads me to think that what is displayed throughout the game for their stats are correct. What evidence do you have that this is not so? Especially since you do not have the full game.
I respect and understand your decision to not buy the game at present, but this doesn't give you the right to make false assumptions about others.
No I don't "know", but do you really think that you're the only person to run controlled tests with other people to better understand the mechanics? This is something I have done alot with other clan members.
It seemed the reason you gave is that you've played a lot of top players not that you ran tests.
The tests I have ran for example with Valour 3 Dismounted Feudal Knights against Valour 1 Dismounted Feudal Knights have shown no observable difference in combat ability, which leads me to think that what is displayed throughout the game for their stats are correct. What evidence do you have that this is not so? Especially since you do not have the full game.
I said that the numerical stats displayed in RTW are wrong, and are still probably wrong in M2TW. CA acknowledged the mistake, but declined to fix it in RTW. Their position is that, although this is of interest to hardcore players, the game isn't intended for hardcore players. I wouldn't assume that any ingame numerical info was correct. We got burned by this before back in STW. MTW was the best for displaying accurate, ingame, numerical combat stats.
The test you ran showed no observable difference in combat ability between valor 3 dismounted feudal knight and valor 1 dismounted feudal knight. I don't see how you conclude from those results that a unit gets an extra melee attack/defensive skill point with every 3 valour. I do agree that the attack/defense skill points don't seem to make much difference anymore. So, you're probably right that battlefield upgrades don't do anything in M2TW if they only increase the skill points. It's apparent that other factors besides the traditional combat stats are having a great affact on the outcome of the combat.
I respect and understand your decision to not buy the game at present, but this doesn't give you the right to make false assumptions about others.
Test results would be interesting to see. I always posted my test results back in STW and MTW. However, it's quite tedious to run controlled tests. I don't think the game warrants the effort anymore beyond figuring out what beats what.
RTKBarrett
12-01-2006, 17:24
Puzz dont get in an argument over stats with cow as the guy is the textbook of total war * the lil geek that he is * :D jks mate....
Orda Khan
12-01-2006, 17:33
In MP there shouldn't be any upgrades allowed, neither valour/ honour nor armour or weapon upgrades. Keep the units "clean" and gameplay and army setup become more intuitive and balancing easier. I consider counting valour flags or zooming in to spot hidden armour upgrades as counterproductive for the gameplay.
Spot on
......Orda
It's easy enough to test. Using non-general units and no upgrades, take an infantry unit that's supposed to be good vs cavalry and attack it with a cavalry unit that's about 2x the cost. (To my mind it should win even against cav that's 3x the cost if the cav is 2x faster than the inf unit.) The infantry unit should be able to win. Even if you use all the mobility that the cavalry unit has to offer, the infantry unit should be able to rotate fast enough to maintain facing towards the cavalry unit.
On a bigger scale, take a whole line of those anti-cav infantry and make a frontal assault with an equal number of those cavalry units. The infantry line should hold even against repeated frontal charges. Keep the general's units way back so they don't influence the outcome.
Save the replays and send them to Palamedes.
The best cav will defeated the best spearmen, we already know this. The spears suffer 50-75% casulties on the first charge, and the second or third charge will kill them.
However, your line of argument relies on the assumption that spears were some kind of special anti-cavalry unit at the early medieval times, which, as far as I know, and pointed out by others, they were not. Spears were cheap weapons available for everyone and thus spearmen in general were not the equivalent of specialy trained anti-cav troops like the Oda ashigaru in Japan. As far as I know there were no anti-cav troops until the reinvetion of pike formations, and pikes in MTW2 do their job very well (perhaps a bit too well ...).
To me it seems that CA tries to reproduce this situation by making spears vulnerable to cav charges. I am not saying that I am happy with the casulty ratio of the charge, as it is too high in my oppinion, but I see no problem with eraly/high era spears not being the perfect anti-cav units that you would demand.
Horses won't charge into a wall of spears. If they are doing that in M2TW, it's just plain wrong.
Well, they did it in STW, they did it MTW ...
The spear unit shouldn't escape without penalty. It should take losses (probably up to 50%), but the best spear should be able to stand against the best cav in the game.
Why should they? See my above argument.
If it can't then cav will dominate because it has the initiative by virture of its higher mobility.
Cav heavy or all cav armies dominated for a few hundred (if not thousand years) on flat terrain. Mongols were practically undefeatable in their time. I assume there was a good reason behind it. Why is it a problem if you get the same outcome in the game? Before you counter that it makes a boring game, two points worth to be noted: first, terrain and terrain features favours the more "balanced" army types and no one is forced to play on flat grassland. Second, with the arrival of pikes and musketeers it is possible to beat back all cav armies with more easily, and to me this seems to be quite reasonable balance.
I remember the complaints about 3 man cav units beating 30+ man infantry units in MTW frontally.
These routs were always late in the game and were due to fatigue and moral effects mostly (i.e. dead tired, depleated infantrymen got charged by cavs, and all the morale penalties combined together -fatigue, depleted, army lost, general died, being charged - added up and routed the infantry. Thinking about it it might not even be that unreasonable ...).
Though you can always test it in MTW2 if you want. ~;)
However, your line of argument relies on the assumption that spears were some kind of special anti-cavalry unit at the early medieval times, which, as far as I know, and pointed out by others, they were not. Spears were cheap weapons available for everyone and thus spearmen in general were not the equivalent of specialy trained anti-cav troops like the Oda ashigaru in Japan. As far as I know there were no anti-cav troops until the reinvetion of pike formations, and pikes in MTW2 do their job very well (perhaps a bit too well ...).
ok, I have to agree with this, this is history. The poor trained infantry was running before a cavalry charge was reaching them , leading to the destruction of the spear unit. In MTW2 is somewhat more scenic, but the same concept. So, it is kind of historical. But the well trained spears like armored sergeants? I mean, you say:
To me it seems that CA tries to reproduce this situation by making spears vulnerable to cav charges. I am not saying that I am happy with the casulty ratio of the charge, as it is too high in my oppinion, but I see no problem with eraly/high era spears not being the perfect anti-cav units that you would demand.
then you must see that in early and high there is a game-balance issue, with cavalry having no counterpart. And it is a pitty, cause I like these eras without effective gunpowder units.
I also have a different opinion about pikes. I think they are not only an anticav unit, they were in fact effective also against some heavy infantry and they are in the game as well (too much, I agree). I see pikes as a special unit , very effective in melee but extremely slow and, therefore, delicate. Also very difficult to balance ...
Well, they did it in STW, they did it MTW ...
They did not. Cavalry charge bonus is cancelled by a spear unit in STW and MTW.
Why should they? See my above argument.
Ok so don't make the anti-cav infantry unit a spear. Use some other unit. If you don't want any anti-cav infantry unit in the game, then you got what you wanted in M2TW. I don't want to play that game.
Cav heavy or all cav armies dominated for a few hundred (if not thousand years) on flat terrain. Mongols were practically undefeatable in their time. I assume there was a good reason behind it. Why is it a problem if you get the same outcome in the game?
I'm not interested in playing a cav dominated game.
These routs were always late in the game and were due to fatigue and moral effects mostly (i.e. dead tired, depleated infantrymen got charged by cavs, and all the morale penalties combined together -fatigue, depleted, army lost, general died, being charged - added up and routed the infantry. Thinking about it it might not even be that unreasonable ...).
Yes 3 man cav routing 30+ man infantry. The cavalry didn't have low morale because of the battlefield upgrades they got over the course of the battle. LongJohn removed the battlefield upgrades in MTW/VI, and the game plays better without them.
Though you can always test it in MTW2 if you want. ~;)
I don't have to test it. Battlefield upgrades in multiplayer are a bad idea. They affect different versions of TW to different extents, and they had the most pronounced effect in MTW.
RTKBarrett
12-01-2006, 19:43
Fountain of all knowlege obviously...
SoxSexSax
12-01-2006, 20:25
Stop playing 16k or higher ~;) in fact stop playing higher than 10k.
Let me get this straight, the game only needs to be balanced at 10000k florins? At all other florin levels, imbalances are irrelevant?????
What an utterly ludicrous thing to say.
You like 10000k battles? Fine enjoy them. I prefer larger florin amounts. I should be penalised for that with massive imbalances should I?
Seriously, that is a really indefensible point of view IMO.
As for you saying the guy in the replay could have beaten me had he swapped four more of his swords for spears...LOOOOOL!!!! I'll be online tonight (you know my online name, having watched the replay), PM me for a game and we'll see how YOU do against my all cav, shall we? ;) (Assuming you dont take all cav too, I will win. Be in no doubt about it.)
RTKBarrett
12-01-2006, 20:30
His point is cav are expensive, if u dont want to see cav spam dnt play with a florin level that will allow it, simple.
SoxSexSax
12-01-2006, 20:44
His point is cav are expensive, if u dont want to see cav spam dnt play with a florin level that will allow it, simple.
As I have already posted, you can create a 19 cav army at 10K that will crush any "balanced" 10K army. So that point is moot. I will play him at 10K if he likes, go all cav and, if he takes an army most would say is "balanced", I'd still win.
Nothing to do with my skill mind. I ain't bragging. With a "balanced" army, I'm average (win one, lose one). It's just that an all cav army makes even the mediocre among us like myself deadly. And that shouldn't be the case.
As I have already posted, you can create a 19 cav army at 10K that will crush any "balanced" 10K army.
That in itself is ok. The so called "balanced" army which incorporates more or less equally all of the unit categories (swords, spears, ranged and cav) isn't supposed to beat all other army configurations. However, there is supposed to exist a counterarmy to every army type. If someone takes all cav, there should be an army other than the exact same army that beats it. If there isn't, the gameplay will eventually degenerate into everyone using the most effective army. In MTW/VI, were saw that happen with cav/sword armies dominating. If you included spears in your army, you took the field at a disadvantage. Skill comes into play, so you really need players who are similar in skill to see if these counterarmies do exist.
The TW system has alway exhibited the most balanced gameplay at a particular money level. CA doesn't restrict the money eventhough they supposedly design the game for a particular money level. In the older STW and MTW games, money had a dramatic effect on the unit balance. In M2TW, upgrades apparently don't do much to affect the combat results so the playbalance may be more tolerant of money level.
Despite all the arguments, last night I had 11 mailed knights up against a few hundred crossbows and dismounted knights.
My knights killed 144 crossbows just by charging, withdrawing and charging again. Last charge was performed by one knight, still men were thrown into the air of a unit of at least 40. That is a bit over doing it, aint it?
Cav as it is now will be THE exploit sooner than later, another is the push through/click behind.
Yeah and I bet the person you were fighting wasn't too good at the game, i've only ever faced 1 cav army and had no problems with it in m2tw and even did some pretty noobish htings because i could like chase them around with inf etc lol Still had over half my army left and that was against the Mongols at 12.5k with 8 cav 4 or 5 good ha and 4 spearmen. Whereas I had what you would call a balanced army.
As for counterarmies I haven't seen a single army in m2tw that doesn't have an effective counter just like in rtw where a few of the best armies/most exploitative armies with the exception of horse archer spam which is fairly hard to counter can be beat quite easily with a slightly unbalanced army.
An example of this is Egypt with a balanced army can be very powerful however i've never lost to egypt while going macedon or greece and the same armies can be used to beat most popular armies from almost all factions with the exception of a few like rome and carthage which require different stratergies to beat.
Let me get this straight, the game only needs to be balanced at 10000k florins? At all other florin levels, imbalances are irrelevant?????
What an utterly ludicrous thing to say.
You like 10000k battles? Fine enjoy them. I prefer larger florin amounts. I should be penalised for that with massive imbalances should I?
Seriously, that is a really indefensible point of view IMO.
CA has been (seemingly) trying to have a balanced stat since STW. They cannot do it even for the default level of florins.
If the game is finally perfectly balanced at a florin level, it is an life-time achievement.
And when the game is finally perfectly balanced at a florin level, the concept of playing a balanced game at other florin levels become irrelevant.. because you won't need to play at other florin level, as everyone will be enjoying playing at the perfectly balanced level.
But a perfectly balanced game for all itself is a contradict.
In M2TW, upgrades apparently don't do much to affect the combat results so the playbalance may be more tolerant of money level.
Well I would say its the opposite. If it has been balanced for a certain florin level, and upgrades dont do much, we are looking at something similar to MTW mods like my own community mod, Dux or Samurai Wars.
In MTW/VI 15K was really just 10K but with higher morale as most melee units had an extra valor. The units basically had the same relative combat power, and although the extra 2 morale certainly changed the way the game felt and what one could do with outnumbered units, it did not change the basic army choices much.
If you cant boost units much with upgrades, you are very much dependent on what elite units you can buy. Some factions would be out of luck with the max 4 penalty as they might not have many elite units.
And if heavy cavalry is one of the best units then more florins means cavalry will be used even more. It would be impossible to counter all that cavalry as there simply isnt any infantry to counter it and no upgrades to boost the infantry.
SoxSexSax asked:
Let me get this straight, the game only needs to be balanced at 10000k florins? At all other florin levels, imbalances are irrelevant?????
The short answer is yes. It is very difficult if not impossible to balance the game for 10K and 16K+. If one wants balance then one has to focus on a specific money level.
But the way spears work now it appears they are very limited in their use if not completely useless. Just buy more cavalry and perhaps some peasants as they seem to kill lower quality spears fine :thumbsdown:
CBR
resonantblue
12-03-2006, 06:05
Ok so don't make the anti-cav infantry unit a spear. Use some other unit. If you don't want any anti-cav infantry unit in the game, then you got what you wanted in M2TW. I don't want to play that game.
I'm not interested in playing a cav dominated game.
Then why the hell are you playing a game based on the Medieval Era? Don't you know what the era is most known for?
MTW multiplayer is not very different from MTW 2 multiplayer. If you played MTW multiplayer, then you would know that no decent player using a Christian faction took spears so I don't see why you're all up in arms over their lack of effectiveness in MTW 2. In every Total War game I have played (and I have played them all), flanking is the key to success in multiplayer - as it was in real life. The vast majority of crushing victories in history (with respect to pre-gunpowder eras) were the result of flanking manouvers. Cavalry are the best unit for flanking thanks to their mobility.
MTW multiplayer is not very different from MTW 2 multiplayer. If you played MTW multiplayer, then you would know that no decent player using a Christian faction took spears so I don't see why you're all up in arms over their lack of effectiveness in MTW 2.
And MTW gameplay was limited because spears were weak and now it seems spears are even weaker in M2TW. Can you blame people for wanting an improved gameplay?
CBR
Then why the hell are you playing a game based on the Medieval Era?
I played MTW because Creative Assembly claimed the gameplay was RPS. Why the hell can't Creative Assembly get the game to play as they claim it plays?
RTKBarrett
12-03-2006, 16:05
Quit whining, they are obviously trying to help solve the issues otherwise pala wouldnt be interested in what we have to say...
resonantblue
12-04-2006, 00:01
And MTW gameplay was limited because spears were weak and now it seems spears are even weaker in M2TW. Can you blame people for wanting an improved gameplay?
CBR
Excuse me, but if you want a strict paper rock scissors game without variant, there are plenty of other ones games you can go play.
And can I blame people for wanting changes? No. Can I blame Puzz3D for having a completely childish and incredibly transparent axe to grind? Yes. He needs to piss off and find a new game if he hates CA and this one so much.
Rhyfelwyr
12-04-2006, 00:55
Though cavalry are very overpowered in RTW games, a charge would still do significant damage against standard spearmen (not of course phalanx/pikemen). In the Medieval era, the cavalry charge would often be the deciding factor in a battle. And OK, the horses would not be stupid enough to charge into a wall of spears, but would the infantry be stupid enough to actually turn and rout and take the charge in the back?
I love TW games, thats why I'm here, I just think they are a little cavalry orientated. Nothing a little basic modding can't solve though...
kvbrock82
12-04-2006, 15:37
if you start a custom battle with 1 hvy cavalry vs 2 levy spears with the advisor activated, he will tell you that if you stand your ground you will slaughter the cavalry as long as you take the impact head on. :2thumbsup:
this is not at all the case and results in your spearmen being routed on the first charge even if they are in a 10 rank formation. :furious3:
this is obviously a mistake on CAs part as they wouldnt program the advisor to get you to lose if you follow his advise. :idea2:
Orda Khan
12-04-2006, 17:21
If you played MTW multiplayer, then you would know that no decent player using a Christian faction took spears so I don't see why you're all up in arms over their lack of effectiveness in MTW 2.
Maybe you should cast your memory back to MTW v1.0 (since you claim you played them all) I seem to remember it was thanks to claims that they were too strong that spears became a non entity. The patches that followed screwed the game and the resultant cav/sword armies you talk about is what transpired and wasn't that fun.
He needs to piss off and find a new game if he hates CA and this one so much.
And maybe you should go and calm down, or at least re-read your post before you hit enter
.......Orda
Maybe you should cast your memory back to MTW v1.0 (since you claim you played them all) I seem to remember it was thanks to claims that they were too strong that spears became a non entity. The patches that followed screwed the game and the resultant cav/sword armies you talk about is what transpired and wasn't that fun.
Yeah, MTW v1.0 gameplay was really great. Now, there is absolutely no reason to pick higher quality spears since almost all spear units get +8 bonus, and spears get obliterated when taking a frontal charge. The only use of spears now is to support your cavalry, running in from behind after your own cavalry units have engaged theirs. Spearmen are doubly penalised since they have an attack disadvantage against other infantry as well. I don't think its wrong to be requesting for an entire unit type to have some use other than being eye candy.
To Caledonian Rhyfelwyr, imagine if you were a poor farmer with almost nothing to eat, malnourished and hungry, and you just got forced levied into fighting, given just a cheap shield, and a cheaper spear that is almost breaking, surrounded by men in a similarly poor state like yourself. Now, you glance across the fields, and you see a solid line of horses, with their barding, and atop them are men who seem to have no faces, covered in metal, and with their lances lowered, galloping towards you. I ask you now; would you not have ran? Even if you didn't, there would be plenty others more who would have ran anyway, which would have severely weakened the line. Granted that trained, hardened, and properly equipped infantry with good morale are capable of holding the line, these were rather hard to come by in the real medieval era. However, in the game, you can build plenty of sergeant spearmen and armoured sergeants, who should be expected to hold the line, with heavy casualties obviously, but not getting steamrolled in a single charge like it is in the game now.
I know that many historians claim that a horse will not charge a wall of
spears. Now, I don't know that much about history, but I know a bit about
horses. I am a quarter Tartar, my father was born in a village that rebelled
against the communists when they tried to kill off horses, and got to keep
them, my grandfather did not let me sleep in his house until I stayed on a
horse (I first visited when I was four) Back in the army, my unit was used
as extras in a historical movie (Flight of the Javelin), and because I knew
about horses, I got to work with the stuntmen... many of which were my
inferiors as riders.
A good horse will do anything you train it to. No, you cannot take a horse
that has never charged a wall, and expect him not to shy off it. You
sure as hell can train a horse to run next to a target that you knock down,
then train him to run at multiple targets (we used military cardboard targets)
then train him to run into a row of targets that he knows will fall. It took us
less than two weeks to make the horses expect that a human wall will break
up to let us through. Not warhorses, mind you. Stunt horses of venerable
age and Bulgarian breeding stock to make up the numbers. Of the four
horses I was in charge of, two ended up happily charging even with
other riders, one needed me to ride her, and one would shy off. I am sure
that given more time, I'd have managed to get her to do what I wanted.
It is true that the soldiers were making gaps for the horses, and fell as we
pretended to cut them down (we had swords, even the commies did not want
to risk spears in the mass shots) but when you train the horses, you can
make the 'stooges' do whatever you want the horses to learn to expect.
When anyone tells me that medieval knights, who had no other duty but
prepare for war, and were, as a class, formed for the purpose to show up
in armour on a horse, and who had plentiful, free 'extras' could not train their
horses to do anything they wanted, I call bullshit. Once the horse learns that
the human wall will break, he will happily charge it. And break it will, whether
it is trainers who are ordered to break, whether it is peasants who are scared
out of their minds, or whether it is soldiers who know that their puny two
meter spear will not help against a three meter lance.
Yes, I am speculating. I have never charged a line of spearmen. But I know
that any horse of mine will charge and knock down a man if I steer it into
him. When you have a front of twenty heavy horses charging into a front
of twenty spearmen, it makes it easier for the horses, not harder. Turning
in a mass of horses is extremely hard. People who complain it is too hard
in Medieval II do not know what they are talking about. I applaud CA for
making it so hard to pull of a charge on the fly. But with proper preparation,
the charge should be devastating.
Now, pikes are a different matter. I bet that you could still make the horses
charge into them... once. When the pikeman believes that he will survive,
when the pike is properly set to recieve a charge, the formation will not break,
and you will get horse kebab. But spearmen as the ones pictured on the unit
description screen will not withstand the charge. Hell, if anything, I think
that 20% casualties from the charge is too low. I cannot possibly understand
how the anyone from the front rank can survive, and how anyone with half
a brain would not run unless he knew that his side will be around after the
battle to hang him on the nearest tree. And even then...
Historically, the counter to heavy horse was... heavy horse. Numbers,
tactics, and proper use of the supporting infantry may have been what
won the victory, but without knights, stopping knights would have required
a lot of luck. And yeah, I heard about the times when mud, spikes, and yew
have come together to utterly trounce the flower of knighthood. But we
remember these battles because they were out of the ordinary... after all,
hundreds of years later, knights still charged, and with some success. It
took gunpowder and pikes to remove them from the battlefield. If spearmen
could have done it, they would have.
I can't believe I wrote so much crap on a quick post. Sorry for the spelling,
English not native language, me not speek so good, yada, yada. :dizzy2:
Historically, the counter to heavy horse was... heavy horse. Numbers,
tactics, and proper use of the supporting infantry may have been what
won the victory, but without knights, stopping knights would have required
a lot of luck. And yeah, I heard about the times when mud, spikes, and yew
have come together to utterly trounce the flower of knighthood. But we
remember these battles because they were out of the ordinary... after all,
hundreds of years later, knights still charged, and with some success. It
took gunpowder and pikes to remove them from the battlefield. If spearmen
could have done it, they would have.
I can't believe I wrote so much crap on a quick post. Sorry for the spelling,
English not native language, me not speek so good, yada, yada. :dizzy2:
Your English is excellent Tuidjy. :bow:
Also I compeltely agree with your points. There was a reason why empires in contact with horse people adopted cavalry heavy armies (like estern rome), why the pike formation was reinvented, and why heavy cavalry started to disappear only with the advance of gunpowder units.
I think that early, high, late eras are fairly realistic in this respect.
The problem is that it is a game and some think that the only way to balance it (whatever it means) is to force a strick shooters<cav<spear<sword<shooters RPS (rock-paper-scissor) system on it.
Most of the disagreement on this forum comes from the fact that some people are not happy with anything else as opposed to those who are willing to learn and to adopt to new systems.
For the first type of people weak spears mean that the game is "not balanaced", the "ideal RPS" system is broken so that is why they keep complaining, i.e. it has little to do with historical accuracy (of course historical examples are happily used if it fits their argument, but this holds for anyone I guess).
The point is that it is a matter of principle. Some people want a perfect "linear" RPS, some people do not.
CA decided to make a game that departs from the "ideal" RPS system and I guess we have to live with it. In fact I am happy to live with it as long as the game is enjoyable. ~:)
I don't mind spears being weak, especially in High era, but when armoured sergeants get utterly trounced by mailed knights, something looks very wrong. Yes, I can imagine the fear caused by seeing a line of heavy cavalry charging towards you, as I stated in my post above, but armoured sergeants losing so utterly badly against cavalry? What then, is the point of having armoured sergeants at all? 1 on 1, mailed knights should win of course, but the fact is, the armoured sergeants aren't killing enough to justify their cost. Even on huge unit size, 3 units of armoured sergeants set 6 rows deep suffer tremendous casualties from a single unit of mailed knights set 2 rows deep. Casualties that makes spears far from cost-effective.
Even worse, spears are penalised against other infantry too, so much so that a unit of peasant, which does not get the spear attribute, can beat sergeant spearmen, barely lose against armoured sergeants, and totally thrash town militia and spear militia. Spears now seem to be even worse than in the cavalry/sword spam era of MTW. If non-spear infantry do so tremendously well against spears, why don't spears do tremendously well against cavalry as well? If there isn't RPS balance in this game, why on earth do spears get so utterly penalised against other infantry? Its like spears<swords<cavalry<general's bodyguard in the game now. I agree that the game need not use a RPS system, but it cannot have a RPS system for infantry and a 'logic' system for cavalry.
Even worse, spears are penalised against other infantry too, so much so that a unit of peasant, which does not get the spear attribute, can beat sergeant spearmen, barely lose against armoured sergeants, and totally thrash town militia and spear militia. Spears now seem to be even worse than in the cavalry/sword spam era of MTW.
Now, this situation is plain wrong. A spear is not such a bad weapon, especially
not when it is sticking between two shields. I agree that it makes no sense for
peasants to be as effective as they are now. And you are probably right that
the way spears are modeled needs to be looked into. Once that is done, then
maybe it will be worth having the discussion about charges again. But as far
as I am concerned, probably not.
Personally, I would like the game to be as close to a simulation as possible.
I cringed at the headchucklers and flaming pigs, I dislike the Robin Hood
clone armies, and I hate the supersized elephants even when they do not have
cannon on their backs. I'd blame the "Lord of the Rings" movie for that one,
but I am afraid CA may have done it anyway. Some people are so cool that
even an African elephant cannot impress them unless it it is made the size
of a whale. :inquisitive:
SoxSexSax
12-17-2006, 04:18
FOLLOW ON SINCE PATCH:
After some testing with my step brother, it would appear this issue has largely been resolved in the 1.1 patch. The main issue was how easily cavalry could pull out after charging. Now, pulling cavalry out who are involved in melee A) results in higher casualties for the cav and B) frequently (and I mean frequently) causes them to rout.
Nice one CA. It felt a vast improvement when I played yesterday. Vast. I'm so glad it wasn't right before, now it feels so much more believable.
Great job once more! :2thumbsup:
FOLLOW ON SINCE PATCH:
After some testing with my step brother, it would appear this issue has largely been resolved in the 1.1 patch. The main issue was how easily cavalry could pull out after charging. Now, pulling cavalry out who are involved in melee A) results in higher casualties for the cav and B) frequently (and I mean frequently) causes them to rout.
Nice one CA. It felt a vast improvement when I played yesterday. Vast. I'm so glad it wasn't right before, now it feels so much more believable.
Great job once more! :2thumbsup:
They're still planning to tweak cav even furhter in 1.2 so lets hope they don't bugger it up again:juggle2:
-Silent-Someguy
12-18-2006, 10:51
Look at the loading screen with the crusader cav charging the muslim spearmen... and you can tell right there that the cav would mow them down. Regular spears just arent long enough. Spearmen are good for killing cavalry... as long as they are not charged head on by them. If you send spearmen into cav that are already engaged they will slaughter the cav. Otherwise, the only spear units other than pikes that can survive a charge head on by Chiv or Noble Knights are Papal Guard that I have seen. It says some spear units have a "bonus fighting cavalry" not extra defence against the.
What about the fact that spear infantry is more tightly packed than cavalry? The cavalryman might have the longer spear, but there is more than one infantry spear countering him. The spearmen should take losses stopping a frontal charge, but so should the cavalry. The cavalry should probably loose almost their whole front row on contact.
Patriarch of Constantinople
12-19-2006, 06:06
Massi, IT IS A GAME! Don't make a big scene over it. If horses were never willing to run into an army, then what about the huge list of battles that HAD CAVALRY RUNNING INTO ARMIES. Oh those must be lies.
Books are fun :book:
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
12-19-2006, 07:34
Is anyone thinking about gameplay? Anyone?
When the game will have converged to nearly all cavalry, that balance will be utterly screwed up, wil we be happy campers? Will the game be enjoyable?
Louis,
Keith_the_Great
12-19-2006, 14:40
after reading this post, i tried testing heavy bill militia (upgraded) vs cav, the AI cav just charge right into the front of the billmen, billmen had near 50% loses on being impacted by AI cav, the unit was wiped out with-in 10 secs :dizzy2:
i remember with the first MTW game, billmen and upgraded milita sergeant were excellent anti cav units.
FearSimbol
12-19-2006, 16:05
OK so i will to know, what is the best anti cav unit in MTW2 right now?
Perhaps this games is FearAmp Dream! lol he love to play 16 cavs Units
Anyway, have some one try Cavs Vs Cavs?
Keith_the_Great did you put your billmens on HOLD position? that helped a lot on MTW I, must be some unit to kill cavs.. What about Archers? i used to kill cavs fast shoting at cavs..
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
12-19-2006, 21:37
Billmen are bugged, so it does not make for a valid test, pick a pike or armoured seargent unit...
Louis,
Keith_the_Great
12-20-2006, 01:02
cheers FearSimbol, i always put billmen and upgraded milita sergeant on "hold" in Mtw\VI "as that work an treat " :yes:
thxs for info Louis, i didn't know the heavy bill militia unit was bugged "before or after patch" but my test did remind me of the Mtw 1.1 single line of cav bug.
if what i've been reading here is true about cav vs spear, and CA aren't likely to change this with any future patch, i can only think of two possible ways forward (thats if you agree there is a problem)
(1) max cav rule
(2) less florins
I do remember playing some 5k games in the first Mtw :2thumbsup: have to admit they were fun, as you had no idea "wot" sort of units you would be facing.
Is anyone thinking about gameplay?
Yes.
Anyone?
Yes, including CA guys and Palamedes.
When the game will have converged to nearly all cavalry, that balance will be utterly screwed up, wil we be happy campers? Will the game be enjoyable?
Louis,
The game is enjoyable as it is. Have you tried it Louis? Ask Elmo or Hasty if you dont believe me. Admittedly it has bugs and balance issues but still enjoyable, and I hope that most of these issues will be solved with the 2nd patch.
ps. ask Elmo which one is his favourite faction and how much cav he has in his favourite army ...
OK so i will to know, what is the best anti cav unit in MTW2 right now?
If you mean infantry that can withstand a charge and kill cavs then late era pikemen.
ps. hello Simbol! Nice to see you back. ~:wave:
if what i've been reading here is true about cav vs spear, and CA aren't likely to change this with any future patch,
CA is aware of the problem.
The game is enjoyable as it is.
The game is not enjoyable as it is. When CA and Palamedes deliver what they promised, I'll buy the game.
R'as al Ghul
12-20-2006, 14:14
Personally I enjoy parts of the game. Right now I'm having fun with the campaign map. That's 50% of the game, the campaign part.
The other 50% part is the battle engine and I don't enjoy that very much. The game is out for a good 4 weeks now and the community is still busy with figuring out how to play and what units actually do what. Excuse me, but this is so ridiculous that it would be funny if it wasn't so sad at the same time.
In this thread alone are assembled some very good long time players who should be able to get a grip of the game in a few hours. After all, it's just Medieval 2. We've all played MTW 1 and should be able to understand what's going on by playing alone. It's the same units all over and the same basic principles of army combat.
Yet, there's much confusion on topics like "Spearman vs. Peasants", "Cav vs. Spears" and "Is there even an anti-unit for Cav at all".
I don't understand the unit matchups at all and neither do I understand what happens in combat. Yes they fight but not all of the men are fighting. Yes, a unit can beat another unit but why are peasants stronger than Armoured Sergeants. Yes, sometimes ArmSergeants even beat Cav but under what circumstances I can't reproduce. Two handed weapons are bugged and it was even rumored that units fighting uphill have an advantage because the animations of the downhillers can't hit low.
It seems all is the same and yet completely different.
What do I have to do to understand the unit matchups and the combat model? Do those that have played many hours of MP have a better understanding of these essential principles? I doubt it.
I really would like this game to be good for several reasons but as it is now it's a game of chance, not of tactics.
I haven't played M2TW MP and until I understand the game I don't intend to do so.
R'as
Keith_the_Great
12-20-2006, 14:59
I've spent many hours last night trying most spear\milita\sword unit types in all modes ie guard\schiltrom formation, 5,4,3 rows etc nothing works vs frontal attack by cav (except late era pikemen)
my feels are similar to what R'as al Ghul wrote:
I really would like this game to be good for several reasons but as it is now it's a game of chance, not of tactics.
Cheetah Quote:
CA is aware of the problem.
I really hope so
Right now I'm having fun with the campaign map. That's 50% of the game, the campaign part. The other 50% part is the battle engine....
Well, CA markets the MP game without a campaign. If you are a dedicated multiplayer, MP is 100% of the game. All there is for an MP'er is the battle engine. Their 3D engine is nowhere near ready to simulate combat. I play Fighting Steel which uses probability tables to simulate surface combat between ships. These tables have been refined over several years by the Fighting Steel Project to better refect historical results, and the gameplay is great. CA could have done this as well, but instead they tied combat results to simplistic animations, and on top of that men stand around waiting for the two men who are fighting to resolve their combat.
What do I have to do to understand the unit matchups and the combat model?
You don't get it R'as. You aren't supposed to understand what you are doing. The game is now aimed at 12 year olds. Just have fun moving stuff around and seeing what happens. In chess, we call players like that wood pushers.
Orda Khan
12-20-2006, 18:31
Yes.
Yes, including CA guys and Palamedes.
The game is enjoyable as it is. Have you tried it Louis? Ask Elmo or Hasty if you dont believe me. Admittedly it has bugs and balance issues but still enjoyable, and I hope that most of these issues will be solved with the 2nd patch.
ps. ask Elmo which one is his favourite faction and how much cav he has in his favourite army ...
Cheetah,
Why do you ask a question like this? You seem to be doing a heck of a lot of PR about this game, I could be synical here but I will avoid that. I am sure Louis is concerned about gameplay and doubts the current gameplay will suffice. I share his thoughts and I am sure there are many others.
btw Palamedes also told us the AI on VH would be a challenge....Is it?
.......Orda
btw Palamedes also told us the AI on VH would be a challenge....Is it?
It is, unless your like all those kids:
Oh I'm soooooooooooooooooooo good, I pwn the AI on VH and want everyone to know
R'as al Ghul
12-20-2006, 19:06
Well, CA markets the MP game without a campaign. If you are a dedicated multiplayer, MP is 100% of the game. All there is for an MP'er is the battle engine. Their 3D engine is nowhere near ready to simulate combat. I play Fighting Steel which uses probability tables to simulate surface combat between ships. These tables have been refined over several years by the Fighting Steel Project to better refect historical results, and the gameplay is great. CA could have done this as well, but instead they tied combat results to simplistic animations, and on top of that men stand around waiting for the two men who are fighting to resolve their combat.
Well to be fair, CA doesn't market the game as MP only. MP is one feature. What's interesting is that the battles are the main marketing factor (plus they're pretty proud of it), so it seems that they see this part as larger as 50% of the whole package.
However as it is now the MP or SP battle part of the game doesn't work as expected. I'd like to hear an official response to all the charges against the battle system. Doesn't matter where you look, in the Citadel or here, you'll find many reports and research/ tests that clearly show that, pre- and post-patch, the units aren't working like supposed, explained by the advisor or described on the unit cards. They just don't.
Nevertheless and this sounds absurd as I write this, it's playable and enjoyable. It's just that after the initial joy a dedicated player would like to get more into depth and get more into the real gameplay. I'd imagine that the more competitive MP players among us, those that buy the game for MP only, should be pretty frustrated right now. That is, of course, only if they experience the same confusion about unit behaviour like me.
I've no idea yet of what the new system is capable of. It's clear that a unit's combat stats are not determined alone by their numerical stats but also on their given animations. I don't see the point in splitting the data and given that CA claims the game is more moddable at the same time it's even more of a mystery to me. The standing around, not fighting while engaged is really annoying. I constantly find myself trying to activate them by clicking. I guess that's what we got when we asked CA to slow down the gameplay. I've found out that the units eventually sort it out after a long while and one of them routs but don't ask me why. I'm a total noob again. :wall:
You don't get it R'as. You aren't supposed to understand what you are doing. The game is now aimed at 12 year olds. Just have fun moving stuff around and seeing what happens. In chess, we call players like that wood pushers.
:laugh4: :smash: :scastle: :charge:
See you on Sunday in Samurai wars. :bow:
I feel quite comfortable speaking here, it's much more straightforward, should we say.
There is 100% a spear vs cavalry (vs anything) issue.
1. All cavalry have heavy charge. You don't need Chivalric Knights to do it, just use Hobilars (as pointed out by Kraxis in The Citadel).
2. This is the one I personally find more of a problem: The spears can't hold up to a damm thing, not a single unit. They can't beat a single unit in the game 1 vs 1. If you use spears in conjunction with your own cav, or the enemy cav does'nt get a charge off you can kill enemy cav with them. If the enemy cav get a charge off, they are dead. They can even rout on first impact.
3. The anti-cavalry units don't work i.e Billmen, Halberds etc. Their animations are not working after the charge. So we have no spears and no anti cav...
About the game itself, never could log on for more than 5 minutes, never bothered to try very much coz you know why waste the time.
The following is my opinion after playing every day for 3 weeks now. I'm not blowing anyone's trumpet, least of all CA's. I believe they need to fix this game up but I'm not very sure they will. It remains to be seen.
As with most of you here, who have been here a few years, I believe it when I see it.
I really enjoyed the SP campaign so far as the Turks. It's a lot of fun, it's no battle simulator and it's totally not serious. It's a hell of a laugh, specially playing the Turks I was laughing my butt off. If you read some of the AARs you'll catch the idea very quickly, they are a laugh. It's a very light and simple game, unlike MTW and STW, which were MUCH more serious, and took themselves much more seriously.
This game could be really GREAT. It needs to be:
1. Completed. (it has obviously not been completed)
2. All major bugs (spears, 2Hs etc) fixed.
3. Enhanced (Expansion, rebalancing etc)
Now these 3 steps can either be taken by the developers or by the community. For the community to do it requires a monumental effort.
I have an example of the kind of monumental effort I am talking about. There is a submarine simulator called Silent Hunter 3, puts you as captain of a Uboot in World War 2. The game was launched exceptionally flawed, with so much potential. One of many groups of people galvanised to finish the game. They recently released their latest expansion to the game, COMPLETELY radically improving the game. Here is the manual included in the FREE expansion (which fixes a huge amount of unfinished items and resolves many bugs). Please have a quick click and scan through for a minute or two:
http://www.users.on.net/~jscones/GWX/GWX_MANUAL_EN.pdf
That is a far better manual than with the original game. And the game is now just the best !&^%##! submarine simulator I ever seen, ever. It WILL drive drive you nuts, that's how great it is now.
I'm not holding my breath but I think the game fundamentals are fantastic and this game really has potential. It could be a LOT more than what it is now, but right now it isn't. It could be an incredible battle simulator.
You know it's like with women, you take her on what she is now, not what she can be in 5 years.
FearSimbol
12-21-2006, 14:27
Well i am sure we can find a way to beat Cavs charges.. is a Strategy problem.. just like in real life.. what was the most feared enemy in batle field? a super cav charge and a super cav flank charge.
A tip, put misile units warding your infantery, dont allow they to fire until cavs are close to finish the charge, then make then all fire at same time. cavs will lose 20% - 30 % of his unit.. :laugh4:
there is no way to beat a cav charge if you havent pikes.
I have written that many times a long time ago. The patch is out but we have still the same prob. I assume they do not listen to us. Palamedes asked to open a topic "can you explain..." for what? To gain time? Not an answer about this important issue yet.
there is no way to beat a cav charge if you havent pikes.
I have written that many times a long time ago. The patch is out but we have still the same prob. I assume they do not listen to us. Palamedes asked to open a topic "can you explain..." for what? To gain time? Not an answer about this important issue yet.
I think Palamedes did answer this when he said the strong cav charge mechanic was left in for the players who want men to go flying when they are hit by cav, and the weak charge mechanic is there for the players who want less powerful cav. So, the tactical problem to be solved for players who don't want overpowering cav is to find ways of preventing the strong charge from ever taking place or else use a faction that has pikes. I'm not saying Palamedes wants overpowered cav, but somebody at Creative Assembly wants it, and I think it's somebody in a powerful position.
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
12-21-2006, 17:38
I think Palamedes did answer this when he said the strong cav charge mechanic was left in for the players who want men to go flying when they are hit by cav, and the weak charge mechanic is there for the players who want less powerful cav. So, the tactical problem to be solved for players who don't want overpowering cav is to find ways of preventing the strong charge from ever taking place or else use a faction that has pikes. I'm not saying Palamedes wants overpowered cav, but somebody at Creative Assembly wants it, and I think it's somebody in a powerful position.
Rules for games in the future: No Art, No Ele, No Cav, No Musketiers, No Vets :wall: :laugh4:
Rules for games in the future: No Art, No Ele, No Cav, No Musketiers, No Vets :wall: :laugh4:
nah, peasants only
in BFME (battle for the middle earth) men "fly" when they are hitted by a cav charge but then they stand up and fight.
CeltiberoMordred
12-21-2006, 19:36
I can accept cavalry charges causing disruption, disorganization and men thrown to the ground that recover in a while.
But not total anihilation in 2 seconds.
It makes no sense. I often see men of the fourth/fifth rank dying even before horses or lances reach them. Amazing, isn't it? Like swipe, but easier: just click-click.
Cavalry kills always the whole infantry unit, no matters which infantry or which cavalry we are talking about. Gendarmes Vs Town Militia or Hobilars vs Chivalric Knights. Only halberds and pikes in "phalanx" formation can stand.
Surprisingly, cavalry Vs Cavalry charges are very "soft". Few casualties before melee begins. I don't find this according with the actual cav vs inf charges.
Another irritating issue: cavalry against pikes: if you click behind it instead of charging them, your horses won't receive a single casualty when you hit the pikes.
We are aware of all this stuff, but when I read the forums, I get dissapointed and don't expect anything from this game. Let's take a look what TW fans posted at .com when they read what Palamedes wrote at the blog:
As a teaser for Update 2, we’re currently playing with some of the fixes and tweaks and have to say, you will absolutely love the more aggressive Scotland and Mongol campaign AI, more naval assaults, an even more consistent less powerful cavalry charge, less devastating gunpowder units and last but not least, stronger 2-handed axe men and billmen.
Comments:
A cavalry charge could, and should, be a battle winner if handled correctly, let's not go back to the Medieval: Total War days where cavalry simply offered a height advantage.
I'm going to be *excited* about unrealistically weak cavalry and gunpowder?" Having weak cavalry in the era when cavalry ruled the battlefield is a huge error...
Definitly do not weaken the cav. units, they work fine
...And so on for several pages.
And regarding gunpowder:
They shouldnt nerf the gunpowder, they should double gunpowder damage
I like firing a few volleys and seeing men drop, it's what gunpowder does.
etc.
I didn't see a single poster enjoying with Palamedes' statement. Unfortunelly, the thread was removed so you can't check the quotes. It was http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm55.showMessage?topicID=11572.topic
I found similar comments at The Citadel too. Let's take our own conclusions.
Regards
The game is not enjoyable as it is.
How do you know?
When CA and Palamedes deliver what they promised, I'll buy the game.
Please tell me what did they promise?
Cheetah,
Why do you ask a question like this?
With due respect Orda, but I dont understand you. what is the problem with my question?
You seem to be doing a heck of a lot of PR about this game,
Please explain. Also why would I do that?
I could be synical here but I will avoid that.
No, please go ahead. I am sure everyone can decide whether your cynism (sp?) is well placed or not. Besides, I have a thick skin (EDIT: I just checked and it seems that I dont have a thick skin but I can run fast ~:joker: ~;p ).
I am sure Louis is concerned about gameplay
Who said that he is not concerned?
and doubts the current gameplay will suffice.
What do you mean: will suffice? If you mean perfect then of course I doubt it too. And you would be surprised to know but Palamedes doubts it too. However if you mean reasonably well balanced to be enjoyable then it will suffice atm.
I share his thoughts and I am sure there are many others.
That is fine with me and you may or may not be surprised but I share some of your thoughts as well. What I do not share however, is the enthusiams to criticise a game that you never played.
btw Palamedes also told us the AI on VH would be a challenge....Is it?
.......Orda
I dont know ... have you tried it? ~:confused: ~;)
I didn't see a single poster enjoying with Palamedes' statement. Unfortunelly, the thread was removed so you can't check the quotes. It was http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm55.showMessage?topicID=11572.topic
Perhaps that is the reason why the thread was removed? ~:rolleyes: ~;)
I found similar comments at The Citadel too. Let's take our own conclusions.
Regards
That is fine with me. I have my conclusions. ~;)
Leave Puzz and Orda, they are just trolling (light version), because the game is not to their satisfaction.
And that thread isn't removed, it fell of the page 20 of doom (at .com only the thread on the first 20 pages are visible, everything after that gets destroyed)
Orda Khan
12-22-2006, 09:53
Have you tried it Louis?
What I do not share however, is the enthusiams to criticise a game that you never played.
have you tried it? ~:confused: ~;)
You seem to assume those who criticise or have doubts about the game do so out of hearsay and with no experience of even playing it
.....Orda
Please tell me what did they promise?
I'll tell you that Cheetah: that in MTW2 there will be no exploits. Maybe you lost that promise, it is not your fault anyway, but it is what Palamedes promised.
I'll tell you that Cheetah: that in MTW2 there will be no exploits. Maybe you lost that promise, it is not your fault anyway, but it is what Palamedes promised.
For me they promised that, I see no major exploid ... as in RTW
If you don't like the game, just don't play it ... remember that it's CA's game, not yours
As far as I payed for it mr Stig, the game is mine, at least my copy, and I am trying to help CA to make it better. I have written many exploits long time ago, the patch is released but we have still the same problems. Palamedes wrote that they know about these probs, but they didnt resolved them. I am ready to help them if they need it, and I am sure many other players wanna help CA to make a better patch.
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
12-22-2006, 10:46
For me they promised that, I see no major exploid ... as in RTW
If you don't like the game, just don't play it ... remember that it's CA's game, not yours
Grrrrrrr yes that's true, but there is not a comparable multiplayer game and they killed it. :viking: :viking: :viking:
I should be warned after the "demos". And the many pictures before the release. There wasn't never clearly spoken about the features on the battlefield. Only that there are 10k soldiers possible ( with a framerate of 2pics/s i guess :laugh4:) Only how nice the animations are if you zoom in. Better they had shown me the zoomed out desease.
EDIT: And we should stop to speak about Palamedes. He is a part of CA. He cannot decide alone. An employee has to speak positive about the products. The employer pays the salary. But in the future no marketing department can blind me.
Grrrrrrr yes that's true, but there is not a comparable multiplayer game and they killed it.
Not entirely true, they didn't kill it, MTW2 already has more persons in the lobby then RTW had, and that had more then MTW afaik, so the game is only growing ... it's just that about 100 self-proclaimed veterans don't like it
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
12-22-2006, 14:41
Not entirely true, they didn't kill it, MTW2 already has more persons in the lobby then RTW had, and that had more then MTW afaik, so the game is only growing ... it's just that about 100 self-proclaimed veterans don't like it
I was not talking about the lobby. There can be 1000 people in the lobby. But they killed the gameplay. It isn't MTW anymore. It is any action game. And I don't proclaim anything. But after estimated 4000 battles (in MTW Vi) I think, I am be able to compare MTW Vi and MTW2.
Agravain of Orkney
12-22-2006, 16:00
hmm.... I see some that like the new game and some that do not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have found that when discussions start reaching the level of some people trying to convince other people about whose opinions are right and whose opinions are wrong, that everyone at that point becomes blinded to new ideas.
*kicks soap box out from under feet*
:hanged: ~;) :bow:
Orda Khan
12-22-2006, 16:39
Leave Puzz and Orda, they are just trolling (light version), because the game is not to their satisfaction.
Well you can shove that statement where the sun doesn't shine.
the game is only growing ... it's just that about 100 self-proclaimed veterans don't like it
"Self proclaimed veterans?" News to me.
And so the game is still growing .. sounds like a description of its kindergarten fan base these days. Have a great time playing Mediaeval Total Creche
......Orda
UglyandHasty
12-22-2006, 16:58
LOL Orda, medieval Total Creche !!
How bout the self proclaimed noobies ??? No one ever think bout us noobi :no:
How do you know?
Because unbalance, loss of battle engine features and poorer visualization (all of which are substantially degraded from what Total War once was) ruin it for me. I don't have to spend $50 usd to know this. I played the demo, read the forums, read what CA says and talk to people who have the game.
Just because you're having fun with M2TW doesn't mean it has good gameplay. I can see by what you post that you don't know what constitues balanced gameplay, and you're not really interested in balance. It seems that you'd still be having fun with M2TW even if everyone used all cav which may very well be what multiplayer eventually evolves into by the sound of things.
Please tell me what did they promise?
Palamades promised a "tactical extravaganza", and Bob Smith said the gameplay was going to appeal to people who liked the MTW gameplay (which actually wasn't very well balanced either, but at least the engine and visualization were good). As is stands right now M2TW doesn't satify either of these promised things.
Did anyone really think MTW2 wouldn't have imbalances, we have always had them.
MTW....Overpowered spears and cav, remember all the Order foot and Italian spearmen armies.
VI.......Seriously underpowered spears compared to swords
RTW....Well the less said the better.
CA won't fix anything as far as gameplay is concerned. Patches will only fix tech issues.
We either find a way to play it as is (like 10k armies in VI), or you sack it off and go play something else. Not very helpful I know but there it is.
__________
KenchiNem
Keith_the_Great
12-24-2006, 18:52
the imbalances in pervious games were easy to work around, once the imbalances were identifed, either unit type or faction.
setting lower florins level would normal do the trick (10k VI) BUT the unit cost in mtw2 has imbalanced this formula,
the only way to defeat cav in mtw2 is the 2 - 1 ratio (2 inf vs 1 cav) for this formula to work in mtw2, the average inf unit has to cost no more the 50% of the weakest cav unit BUT this isn't the case, as the unit costs are also imbalanced
example of what kind of unit cost balance i'd like to see in any future patch (if possible)
(1) militia spear 300 florins, alans 600
(2) dismounted knights 500 florins, mounted knights 1000 florins
but the cav bug would still require a CA patch, as 600k alans would still defeat 500k dismounted knights :oops:
TexRoadkill
12-25-2006, 10:37
They could fix a lot of the problems by adjusting the prices when you go over the limit. The 4 units of any type limit doesn't make any sense. If they had it cost 50% more for ANY cav after your 4th unit it would help keep their numbers down.
It's ridiculous to have a penalty for militia and other cheap infantry units. They should be unlimited.
In the meantime I just limit all my battles to max 4 cav and stay at 10k. It makes the battles a lot more interesting.
pike master
12-26-2006, 05:05
pikes cavalry charges. i would rather have it historical with the perfected pike phalanxes and schiltroms and long lance cavalry doing their thing. if you want the cav stopped then hopefully ca will fix the pikemen issues.
no game will ever be perfectly balanced i would rather it be historical and a little unbalanced then have it look like a fairy tale and be more balanced.
total war is an experiment in trying to simulate warfare as accurately and historically as it can.
You seem to assume those who criticise or have doubts about the game do so out of hearsay and with no experience of even playing it
.....Orda
I never generalised to everyone "who criticise or have doubts about the game".
The first question was obviously addressed to Louis, the second and the third to you.
Because unbalance, loss of battle engine features and poorer visualization (all of which are substantially degraded from what Total War once was) ruin it for me. I don't have to spend $50 usd to know this. I played the demo, read the forums, read what CA says and talk to people who have the game.
This is fair enough. I respect your decision, but do you really have to post it in every single thread about impressions/balance issues?
Just because you're having fun with M2TW doesn't mean it has good gameplay.
This is a correct observation. The coin however, has an other side: just because you are not having fun it doesn't mean it has a bad gameplay.
I can see by what you post that you don't know what constitues balanced gameplay, and you're not really interested in balance.
There is really no need for this. What do you want to gain, or what do you think you gain with such comments?
It seems that you'd still be having fun with M2TW even if everyone used all cav
You are too eager in jumping to your conclusions.
which may very well be what multiplayer eventually evolves into by the sound of things.
Or not. How do you know? The fact is that it have not evolved into an all cav rush as yet. These are the armies me and my ally faced today (from random opponents):
1 BG
3 heavy cavs
13 inf melee (!!)
3 archers
3 light cavs
4 HA
10 melee (!)
3 archers
Hardly the all cav rush armies one would expect based on your posts.
Also the pacth will improve things.
Furthermore, lots of tourneies are being organised, rules discussed. Do you think that any tourney organiser in his right mind would start a tourney if all cav rush armies would dominate the field?
Palamades promised a "tactical extravaganza",
Pala promised "tactical extravaganza" on huge setting. Have you tried it or you again just assuming things?
and Bob Smith said the gameplay was going to appeal to people who liked the MTW gameplay (which actually wasn't very well balanced either, but at least the engine and visualization were good). As is stands right now M2TW doesn't satify either of these promised things.
Just count the number of old clans that returned. Just count the posts here at the ORG.
Merry Christmas MizuYuuki Sanada. :bow: ~:santa:
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
12-26-2006, 19:05
Cheetah, don't you see the changes between mtw2 and mtw vi? We lost so many features. We didn't get back any new usefull feature.
Okay, maybe an all cav army doesn't work. But there is an extreme imbalance, maybe wanted by CA. Many player want to see the men fly through the air.:laugh4: It seems to be that the old clans can life with it. But it is a fact, that the changes are a step back. There is nothing positive in mtw2 if you compare it with mtw vi. Nothing.
The maps, the balance, the units, where is the color selection, where is the weather selection, stupid difficult selection lol, shitty graphics (the sprites are from hell), endless number of bugs, the performance, the faction selection .........................................................
Merry Christmas
Di3Hard
Orda Khan
12-26-2006, 20:10
I never generalised to everyone "who criticise or have doubts about the game".
The first question was obviously addressed to Louis, the second and the third to you.
Well, not quite but do I really care?
.......Orda
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
12-26-2006, 23:35
The game is enjoyable as it is. Have you tried it Louis? Ask Elmo or Hasty if you dont believe me. Admittedly it has bugs and balance issues but still enjoyable, and I hope that most of these issues will be solved with the 2nd patch.
ps. ask Elmo which one is his favourite faction and how much cav he has in his favourite army ...
Yes, I have the game, nearly finished a Turkish campaign VH/VH. I find SP much better and way more enjoyable than in MTW or RTW, although still way too easy and a bit too repititive.
I have played a few MP games, although not many. I also played many custom games and some test games.
I don't think this game is going to be enjoyable for long in MP, there are way too many imbalances and bug, and they really spoil the game... At least AI do not take advantage of bugs balances issues and exploits (unfortunately, rather the opposite...). Right now, it's kindof fun because it's kindof fresh.
To try to limit myself only to spear/ pike vs cavalry, there are bugs, and then is there is some failry obvious balance issues.
*Bugs*
- if a cavalry unit is running through a pike (double click behind), it takes no loss on contact
- AI bug: after the initial charge, and probably because of wrap up, pike unit try to advance to reform: while doing that, it takes even more loss and eventually rout. AI would be better off holding ground where it is
*imbalances*
- even when clicking on the pike (and not behind it), a cavalry unit, despite some initial loss, will win versus a pike or spear unit 1v1 that has half its cost or even just +50% more cost. Actually, even Hobilars wins versus pretty much whatever you throw at them. Versus infantry, I am not reallu sure that cavalry quality matters all that much, as long as they charge.
- many factions have no pikes whatsoever or only in Late.
Eventually, the game will converge, and right now, I see less and less reason to bring spears, and not much reason to bring pikes to a battlefield. In MTW/ VI, at least swords were able to hold and defeat cavalry when fresh and full strenght. It was far from being good balance, (rather the opposite), but it does sound better than just cavalry army.
That won't be enjoyable. At least for me.
And as far as Elmo is concerned: well, anyone can bring silly army. Being suboptimal is Elmo main caracteristic, so I would not be surprised if he bring some Aztec army of doom... So what?
Louis,
The Simurgh rides again... as well.
I think the main thing is that a huge number of VI players are back, and that itself is encouraging. I'm glad to see some of you guys from back then. I'm sticking to mainly SP anyway, I think that the campaign is the main deal with M2. I will have to try to logon again one of these days to give MP a try again.
STW made standards for many around here as it seems. I see that MTW 2 is heavily criticised when judged from the view of STW player. Is there any other
game which is better or comparable to STW if we put MTW aside? Any at all?
So what?
So he brings it.
pike master
12-27-2006, 02:56
im thankful we have moved beyond mtw 1. why? there were imbalances in the game such as how upgraded arquebusiers could defeat any unit in the game. etc.
this game is fun although it needs to get ironed out quite a bit. lots of unbalances i know. ill admit that, but we have seen them before in the other games too.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
12-27-2006, 10:49
The Simurgh rides again... as well.
Fly again, Sinan, simurghs fly!
I think the main thing is that a huge number of VI players are back, and that itself is encouraging. I'm glad to see some of you guys from back then. I'm sticking to mainly SP anyway, I think that the campaign is the main deal with M2. I will have to try to logon again one of these days to give MP a try again.
Well, pretty much everybody from MTW/ VI bought RTW too, and then shelved it. I logged yesterday, I don't think I recognized more than 5 names... But ok, I guess some play undercover :juggle2:
If the game stays as it is, the huge number of players back from VI is unlikely to stay "huge". When I read answers made to post from Paolai or CeltiMordred, both great players with clear and articulate points, I have a very bad vibe :embarassed: .
We'll see. I'll probably play SP until patch 2. SP is decent, although a bit too easy, at least with the Turks and their horse archer armies from hell! If Patch 2 does not improve the situation, I don't think I'll have patience left for patch 3... If there is one...
Louis,
RTKMercurius
12-29-2006, 02:36
I have always thought it crazy how hard it is for people to cope with a new version of TW... it's the same with every new release... it's not x or y or z... compared to some ideal in the imagination it will always fail.
I don't think anything in the MTWII is so out of balance as to compel anything aproximating hostility.. and considering the number of factions and variety of build options, the game is surprisingly well balanced. When BI came out it was clear that HA plus archers could not be beaten by balanced builds (remember that Paoli? lol...)... so they got max rules for the tournaments and that settled the balance issues, but we lost the use of skirmish builds and factions for...
There is no current problem with the balance of MTWII that is remotely as problematic as that issue.....
Formed charges, for example, sound like a nightmare when you guys complain about them, but in a live, moving battle, it is rare to see a formed charge... the conditions have to be too exacting, and when you're charging a moving target with other moving objects flying around, the charge is bound to be disrupted, especially if your opponent wants to disrupt your charge... putting anything in its way, or forcing the cav to turn to meet the target, or bump into another unit, or, etc. etc. all will kill the charge bonus easily enough....
If someone gets off a proper formed charge that isnt too late to matter... great work by them.
Still, CA promises to fix some bugs and balance issues in the next patch, and we all hope they do....
Should the power of the formed charge be reduced? sure... especially as it regards lightly armored cav, etc.
Other cav balancing would be fine, although I think people are complaining about cav-heavy builds beating balanced builds, which seems appropriate to me... heavy infantry builds are hard to beat with lots of cav. Byzantines, Franks, Scots, and the italians (in High era) are all able to field infantry-heavy builds that are hard to beat with cav... Once the two hand bug is fixed, I'm sure there will be other factions to use for infantry builds.... In any case, some adjustments to cav prices or stats would seem fine 2 me, but the problem isn't criminal....
Gunpowder units are too powerful... yes, sure.
Pikes are too strong and too cheap... yes, sure.
Spear units seem inneffective... sure, somewhat.
Archers are too weak... agreed. Not enough reason for rush artists to learn anything else...
Lag is the main problem... if they just fix the lag, i'll be happy.... the rest is manageable.
The glory days were never as good as you remember them...
:hide:
pike master
12-29-2006, 03:50
i dont know maybe the pikemen are too strong. i dont think so myself i just wish they at least looked like they were using their pikes half the time.
ElmarkOFear
12-29-2006, 03:52
Nem has the right of it: If we can't find a way to make the MP game work for us, then it won't happen. CA will not make changes great enough to make a difference in balance/cost issues.
I still have fun playing the game, even with its imbalances, but I can vouch that it is not a purely tactical, by-the-numbers type of game similar to STW/MTW1. There is a lot of uncertainty, and it cannot be overcome by studying stats, but by practical experience. I, like Puzz3D, think the engine has been simplified to a point where success is more determined by unit selection, than by battlefield tactics (such as terrain usage, fatigue conservation, gaining the height advantage, and using the Rock/Paper/Scissors to determine unit vs. unit success). Unit success now depends much more on who charges first, then whether units have bonuses vs. other units or have a terrain/height advantage.
From my short experience playing MP and custom battles, it appears that success on the battlefield is more action-oriented than tactical. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not what the TW series was founded on. I still like STW/MTW1 MP gameplay better, but I AM having fun with M2TW MP: warts and all.
x-dANGEr
12-29-2006, 09:51
Fellas, I haven't played M2: TW yet (At least, not would I call "play"), but from my experience in RTW, the engine was so deep. You just need to experience it to learn it. You can't say that unit has "16" Attack ratio so it should just win! And believe me, "who charges first" isn't a determent in outcome. It usually was who can get less of the charge, and the more out of his.. In RTW, with it's deep engine (IMO), you could easily beat a Sacred Band Infantry unit that's upgraded to gold weapon/defence using a Peasant unit, along with any supporting one (Archers, Skirmishing Warband, Axemen, anything..). You just need to know how. No, it is not an exploit, it is just being deep. When you learn how, you'll try and make sure no one succeeds in doing it for you.. Etc.. I hope you get the point.
P.S. That is out of experience in RTW, as M2: TW is based on it, I believe it will be the same.
RTKMercurius
12-29-2006, 11:09
). Unit success now depends much more on who charges first, then whether units have bonuses vs. other units or have a terrain/height advantage.
From my short experience playing MP and custom battles, it appears that success on the battlefield is more action-oriented than tactical. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not what the TW series was founded on.
I'm not sure what you mean by action oriented vrs tactical... it does take action to achieve tactical advantages, and you have to do so on an ever-changing battlefield... which is why the formed charge effect is able to be eliminated with good tactical maneuvering....
As for the battle being determined by unit stats, I don't see that from my experience... There is far more unit parity in MTWII than we've seen in a long time... and that parity makes it far more valuable to make good moves rather than the first move. I'd say that whoever is forced to make the first move, tends to be at the disadvantage, since it is easier to counter.....
The morale dynamics are deep, in MTWII, although there are different values placed on different factors than you had in MTW/VI. It's complicated enough to make the outcome nearly always a question of winning the best positions, no matter what units you have available. If you earn the flanks before your blocking units rout, you win, unless you are woefully outnumbered or your opponent finds a counter.
You can block 6 good units with 3 good units with enough time to send a 4th around a flank, resulting in a rout win... if the opp doesn't do a good job of countering. Or you can target a weak point in their line and trigger a chain rout... all efforts taking tactical accomplishment to fullfill, and all consistent with historical variables....
Unfortunately, rush builds are too powerful at this time, imo... there is too little motivation for people to learn the archer/skirmish game, given the current dynamics and the lag. So you see a lot of charge-first types who haven't learned the game yet....
but that will change.... hopefully, anyhoo....
I don't think anyone can claim to "know" the game yet... and the fact that it takes more than a few hours for a vet to learn the game is an indication of the game's depth, not its superficiality.... In BI, a lot of people gave up early on and missed out on a worthy game....
CA is going to make balancing changes in the upcoming patch, and if they don't, they lose support from many of their games fans....
Agravain of Orkney
12-29-2006, 15:50
There is a lot of uncertainty, and it cannot be overcome by studying stats, but by practical experience.
Sounds a lot like real war to me. Perhaps having a bit more uncertainty in the unit vs unit matchups is a good thing? Although I agree that having the outcome of the battle depend too much on chance would not be good.
Orda Khan
12-29-2006, 16:13
The fact still remains that there are a lot of MP problems and it would seem that the only way to enjoy a 4v4 would be that all eight players need to be on super high end machines. This IMO is the biggest problem and I don't see any patch addressing that
.......Orda
The fact still remains that there are a lot of MP problems and it would seem that the only way to enjoy a 4v4 would be that all eight players need to be on super high end machines. This IMO is the biggest problem and I don't see any patch addressing that
.......Orda
I think this is the prob that needs addressing the most and unfortunately I don't think it will be addressed either
KenchiNem
x-dANGEr
12-29-2006, 20:06
About the lag.. I believe it will be fixed.
In RTW, once patch 1.3 came out, most people had major lag, and they fixed it with 1.5. So I can't see a reason why won't this be happening here as well.
(I'm talking about the case when the participating PCs are able to handle the battle laggless in SP)
RTKMercurius
12-29-2006, 20:46
Yeah, Nem and Orda.... I do hope for that to come to pass....
I'm not so optimistic, I must say.... haven't heard any rep of CA even acknowledge the lag, or suggest it is something they intend to fix.... Have any of you? would be nice to hear..:yes:
I wonder if the calculation of the healing of the wounded on the battlefield is something that might be causing an issue..... there's too much of something going on....:laugh4:
If the lag is being caused by underspec comps then I don't see how it can be fixed. I'm not very clued up on the tech side so I may well be wrong:dizzy2:
:idea2: HOLD ON:idea2:
I've just come up with the solution.......We execute anyone with a crusty computer. Yes, yes I know it sounds a bit drastic but if a few good people have to be sacrificed for the good of our online enjoyment, then I think it's well worth it.
Can anyone who does not have a,
Dual Core processor (6000 min)
2 Gb Ram
Top range graphics card
Please post below so we can finally sort this lag problem.
For those who are about to be eradicated, the MP community salute you :2thumbsup:
Hey Elmo just been to your clan site:help:
I've lost 2 brothers to WoW and it wasn't pretty, get out while you still can.
Run Forest Run
pike master
12-30-2006, 06:21
gee thats kinda slow computer if i was you i wouldnt list those specs.
ElmarkOFear
12-30-2006, 15:58
hehe Nem. :) Olds and Soul have been lost for a bit, but I think now that both have a few characters at level 60 and have played for so long, the interest is beginning to wain for them.
Myself, I just cannot bring myself to play any of those Pay-to-play MMORPGs. I can have just as much fun playing a regular LAN game of Neverwinter Nights or Neverwinter Nights 2, or one of the other RPG games out, than playing WoW.
I just got the latest DoW expansion, but have yet had time to go online to play.
I have had to go to the dentist this week for a total of 12 fillings and 4 crowns. Needless to say, I haven't felt much like doing anything for awhile. hehe So I played with the kids, went to a few family and neighborhood get-togethers and worked a couple of days this week. I'm still wondering when I will find time to sleep, but who needs it? It's a bad habit. :)
If you want to join us Nem, just let me know and I will get you registered. Remember, we are not a clan, but a group of guys who sometimes like to get away from the clan, or competitive thing for awhile. So you will always be a Kenchi as long as you want, but can enjoy playing with your ugliname when you just want to have fun and not be representing the clan.
I will try to get online in M2TW a bit more, once things get back to normal. I have never had such a busy holiday before! It was fun, but very tiring (and painful: Darned dental work!) :smash:
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
12-30-2006, 19:12
*deleted*
x-dANGEr
12-31-2006, 08:37
If the lag is being caused by underspec comps then I don't see how it can be fixed. I'm not very clued up on the tech side so I may well be wrong:dizzy2:
:idea2: HOLD ON:idea2:
I've just come up with the solution.......We execute anyone with a crusty computer. Yes, yes I know it sounds a bit drastic but if a few good people have to be sacrificed for the good of our online enjoyment, then I think it's well worth it.
Can anyone who does not have a,
Dual Core processor (6000 min)
2 Gb Ram
Top range graphics card
Please post below so we can finally sort this lag problem.
For those who are about to be eradicated, the MP community salute you :2thumbsup:
OR.. People with slow PCs would get bored of playing because they always lag. So, the community will start turning into a "lagless" computers base, and hopefully by 6 months and the introduction of DX10 cards that will push DX9 cards DOWN in price, we will be able to play even less laggier games.
Some things can only be solved by time ~;)
P.S. That is, if the problem is out of the computers' abilities. To test that, you must get a 4 v 4 with only *super computers, and try that then.
* = Computers that are able to run 4 v 4 in SP lagless and smoothly.
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
12-31-2006, 11:53
OR.. People with slow PCs would get bored of playing because they always lag. So, the community will start turning into a "lagless" computers base, and hopefully by 6 months and the introduction of DX10 cards that will push DX9 cards DOWN in price, we will be able to play even less laggier games.
Some things can only be solved by time ~;)
P.S. That is, if the problem is out of the computers' abilities. To test that, you must get a 4 v 4 with only *super computers, and try that then.
* = Computers that are able to run 4 v 4 in SP lagless and smoothly.
I cannot stop to write to you: Play MTW VI. There isn't lag in a 4vs4.
The problem is, how was the software programmed. MTW 2 should be able to run smoothly on a 2 or 3 years old computer. Lag isn't a primary problem of the video card. It is a problem of the cpu. The graphics can lag on the computer with the old video card, but it shouldn't lag on all other clients. Otherwise it was programmed wrong.
x-dANGEr
12-31-2006, 12:18
It lags because those with good video cards need to wait till those with old video cards can catch up with them.. (Not just that, same goes for people with new CPUs and people with older ones. Basically, the "quality" of the system, in terms of it's specifications.)
I think "playing" MTW VI is irrelevant to the lag issue which I am discussing, though.
It seems you want another MTW, without added graphics or anything, just the "stats" you want. I believe you can do that with the copy of MTW you have right now, can't you?
Video cards are not the problem. "Lag" caused by video cards is a local problem. If one player drags down all other other players its because the CPU is stressed so much it cant handle the basic calculations in 1:1 time. But even before that happens a player can experience severe input lag and jerky camera controls and the other players wont feel a thing.
CBR
x-dANGEr
01-01-2007, 15:35
But even before that happens a player can experience severe input lag and jerky camera controls and the other players wont feel a thing.
But even before what? Lag is lag. What do you mean by "input lag". Camera Controls..? If you feel Camera Controls are "jerky" because of lag, then it is lag as well.. ?!
ElmarkOFear
01-01-2007, 17:43
I think CBR was distinguising between lag that affects everyone in the MP game and lag specific to your PC only. The first is probably do to programming or connection troubles, whereas the second is more than likely a hardware problem specific to a player's PC.
x-dANGEr
01-01-2007, 20:45
Lag affects both of them. Though, when the units movements, etc.. is lagging, someone is holding the game back. When even the camera is lagging, your PC isn't able to handle the number of men in the field.
Lag is used by some as a generic term for any type of slowdown on their pc although it has nothing to do with the original meaning of the word (data packets).
Input lag is AFAIK a term for the delay some LCD monitors have between input (eg: moving mouse) and the result on the monitor. But it certainly can be seen in Total War games too if you have too many soldiers in a battle:
-It becomes increasingly difficult to move the camera as it doesnt stop when you want it to.
-Same with the mouse cursor so you have difficulties selecting a unit on the battlefield
-key commands might not work at all so for example a player has to hit run key several times before the game responds. And one might have to wait a second or so just to see if a keystroke or mouse click actually got registered by the game.
In BI you could be playing at 15 fps and everything worked as it should. At around IIRC 10 you could feel a slight input lag but nothing serious and below 5 the game simply became unplayable.
I remember in early RTW days Krypta and I had a game with a couple of RTK's. At first everything was fine but I started to experience lower and lower fps (most likely caused by the memory leak bug) Although I was the host the other players reported no problems when I told them about it.
The "lag" just got worse for me and the game turned into a slideshow with 1/2 to 1/3 fps but it started to effect the other players and we all had to endure that slideshow until the game ended.
Even without memory leaks to explain what happened I have had games where either I, or other players with even weaker machines (my 2400+ was never really good for big battles with the new battle engine) experienced severe problems without effecting the other players.
So yes one player can drag down everyone else if he has a low end machine but a player can still experience horrible "lag" and the other players wont notice a thing.
Video cards has nothing to with this though. That only effects the local machine.
But why doesnt someone create a thread and then all of you report how many men your machine can handle in custom battles and pc specs? Download fraps if you want a specific fps. Just have your camera zoomed out at max and see how the controls feels like.
If you cant have a 4v4 although all machines should be able to handle it then its some kind of netcode problem that CA might be able to fix.
CBR
x-dANGEr
01-01-2007, 21:20
You can experience "horrible" lag when other people aren't. And that is because your PC is not able to handle the visuals, but yet able to do the calculations, and so still sends back info to other PCs in time.
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
01-01-2007, 22:35
You can experience "horrible" lag when other people aren't. And that is because your PC is not able to handle the visuals, but yet able to do the calculations, and so still sends back info to other PCs in time.
Sry danger, but I am afraid you have too less background knowledge. I program only business applications. But I know, that the network could be MUCH better.
CA hasn't had enough time or interest to do it right.
But I sell my MTW2 soon. :)
pike master
01-02-2007, 08:33
this is my two cents i figure for mp you cant really go by the minimum requirments but if your computer is matching the recommended requirments and you have a broadband connection sega and gamespy are responsible for the rest.
you shouldnt have to have a quad pro processor and 4 gigs of ram and a 600mhz clock speed video card to pull it on mp.
something else that a lot of people dont understand is that most game servers are supposed to have an equalizing system that gives abundant packages per time to the faster computers and connections and only the necessary packets needed to play the game for the slower computer connection.
one good example is halo which goes through gamespy. you can have dial up and play with guys on broadband and there is not a significant amount of difference. a matter of fact in the multiplayer options menu on halo you can set your connection speed so the game or server will know whether to be generous with sending a lot of packets or just whats needed to know where your allies and opponents are etc etc.
The TW system has alway exhibited the most balanced gameplay at a particular money level. CA doesn't restrict the money eventhough they supposedly design the game for a particular money level. In the older STW and MTW games, money had a dramatic effect on the unit balance. In M2TW, upgrades apparently don't do much to affect the combat results so the playbalance may be more tolerant of money level.
While i agree on almost all ur points, i cant really agree on this one.
Let me explain...
In MTW i made very good experience with the 100 men Spears, mostly i played at the 12-15k and took me 2 or at least 1 spear.
there was 2 ways to use em.
1. I used it as 2 line unit to protect a flank, it worked very well 0on hold vs any cav, u was able to block 2-4 cavs easy at least for a good time, since most people are also not able to controll whole army properly, they forgot about the cavs and just let em "fight" vs this spear...
2. Fatique, in my longterm tests i ended with a 2 line spear which i moved in the front of my swords, center... Mostly i forced the enemy to attack me, voz iwon the missle or made him impatient.
the spear rout sooner or later, but the enemy units (lets say up to 4 swords) lost at least 1 bar...mostly more.
What i try to say is, that there are more than the pure unit vs unit battle, there is a huge fatique problem (at least at a certain point) and also u should think about which units can keep more than 1/2 units bussy for some time.
Edit: There was some mad anticav units, like the swisshelberts, sadly they had slow movement, but they could easy kill 3-4 cavs....
Now to the rest, from readin this long post, i see some people who claim to run "tests", but till now i didnt saw some real input from u! Where are the pics, the stats? How many similiar tests u run and what are the numbers?
As long u dont come along with such info u should just shut it and stop wasting our time with some questionable ingame experiences!
well, what me really worry me is the fact that CA should have some standart computer themself or not?! ;)
this said, i dont get it why they didnt notice the huge lag before the game went into the shop.
Same goes for the spears vs other units... Hell, ofc u do some 1v1 unit tests, to get a feeling for ur own game or not?
I mean, while bring a spear unit which cant kill something on their own?
The gold/power ratio is terrible for many units, we will notice some heavy exploiting in the next weeks, as we are down to basic learning by doin, we hardly see some stats and just decide by our feeling ( which isnt that bad).
I myself played by a friend online and got some first impressions, all in all i have to agree with some people, its fun for the first moment.
There happens sometimes weird things, which i dont understand. Archer are simply useless, no need to even take em, guns are quite hot :D
But for sure, i cant see a longterm fun in this game, it will be okay for some days, but the lag makes it terrible and all this weird stuff is making the game less enjoy able for me. I see that the tactical gameplay is once again dumbed down and that people has to worry more about move some units somewhere, the hills, wood, weather, fatique seems to be less important.
And ofc defence with a smaller army vs a bigger one is also no option.
This is anotehr problem, the game seems to be only offensiv, u gain a lot of advances if u push it, defence seems to have no advance at all...
this ofc limits the teamgame tactics, ur doomed to attack else u have a problem....
x-dANGEr
01-02-2007, 11:50
Sry danger, but I am afraid you have too less background knowledge.
Well, I believe experience and trial are the best sources one can have in life.
I program only business applications.
Good.
But I know, that the network could be MUCH better.
Did I say it can't?
CA hasn't had enough time or interest to do it right.
Maybe, but I think they've done the best they could. Maybe you could help them and tell them where exactly is the problem, since you do "program only buisness applications" ~;)
But I sell my MTW2 soon. :)
I suggest the contrary. The game will only get better after all. But it's your choice.
And to clarify my point again, if ALL PCs in the game can run the battle perfectly laggless in SP, they will be able to do so in MP. That is, it is computers' performance that's lagging, not the network. (Though, errors connected to dropping are - as obvious - network-related ~;) )
ElmarkOFear
01-02-2007, 13:31
There is always the case where someone joins a game (who has a PC which runs the game in SP as well as any other players) with a ping of 500 to the game and causes much lag. This kind of lag, applies to every player in the game and is not related to the PC in question. Though, as you stated it isn't a case of network coding, but a case of connection speed and joining a game which one should not (given the ping to the host).
One thing which I have noticed, with a few players, is it takes them awhile to sync with the other players in the game after it is launched, but once the game begins everything is fine. This would seem to be indicative of a slower connection, rather than a slower PC causing this type of lag, but there may be other factors involved of which I am not aware.
I remember in early RTW days Krypta and I had a game with a couple of RTK's. At first everything was fine but I started to experience lower and lower fps (most likely caused by the memory leak bug) Although I was the host the other players reported no problems when I told them about it.
The "lag" just got worse for me and the game turned into a slideshow with 1/2 to 1/3 fps but it started to effect the other players and we all had to endure that slideshow until the game ended.
I remember that actually.
I also remember back in MTW, someone might take quite a while to actually connect to the game, but once they were there the gameplay was relatively lag-free. And by that I mean their slower connection didn't affect gameplay as much as it does now. That part I don't like.
Anyone who's played with Gawain can attest to that. He would take forever to connect, but was fine from that point. True, he moved slower in the game, but that wasn't due to lag. ~;) Moreso old age. Which actually helped sometimes I think.
Orda Khan
01-02-2007, 18:31
I myself played by a friend online and got some first impressions, all in all i have to agree with some people, its fun for the first moment.
And that has always been the case, hasn't it? When a month or two of exploit searching reveals the flaws, the game goes downhill as it did in VI.
I would not even begin to try to explain exactly what causes lag so why are we all going on about it? There are too many things to consider so none of us should claim to be expert in this field
......Orda
I would not even begin to try to explain exactly what causes lag so why are we all going on about it?
Because Creative Assembly hasn't acknowledged it as a problem. I think the concern is that they may not work on a solution unless the players prove that it's being caused by the game. It's not a concern for me because I didn't buy the game. What's going on now with M2TW is just what I expected from my previous experience working with Creative Assembly. I already wasted $70 usd and a lot of time on RTW/BI, and I have no intention of repeating that experience.
The Samurai Wars is there for players interested in a balanced RPS gameplay. You can play lagless 4v4 battles using average hardware, but I'm sorry you don't get men flying through the air, finishing moves, men incinerating in 5 seconds or anti-personnel seige artillery. You do get a robust statistical combat model, the largest maps and good visualization of the units from a distance. You don't get left click to select and right click to attack which is unfortunate.
RTKBarrett
01-02-2007, 21:27
Because Creative Assembly hasn't acknowledged it as a problem. I think the concern is that they may not work on a solution unless the players prove that it's being caused by the game. It's not a concern for me because I didn't buy the game. What's going on now with M2TW is just what I expected from my previous experience working with Creative Assembly. I already wasted $70 usd and a lot of time on RTW/BI, and I have no intention of repeating that experience.
The Samurai Wars is there for players interested in a balanced RPS gameplay. You can play lagless 4v4 battles using average hardware, but I'm sorry you don't get men flying through the air, finishing moves, men incinerating in 5 seconds or anti-personnel seige artillery. You do get a robust statistical combat model, the largest maps and good visualization of the units from a distance. You don't get left click to select and right click to attack which is unfortunate.
Nice advertising :dizzy2:
But I sell my MTW2 soon.
It is quit parculiar. I know (for a fact) that there is quit few people who enjoy MTW 2, despite they have been hard core STW players befor. If you have been waiting for that long, you won't die if you wait 2 months more for the patch and then decide. Beside STW or MTW, there is no other game which could replace MTW 2 atm. IMO
As said befor I don't deny all the problems - bugs, lag and especially network issues which can drive you crazy sometimes, but overall gameplay is not bad. Spam armies in team matches doesn't work as good as few of you here are convinced they do. And was there not one exploit with monks in STW? What about red corner and many others? Somehow people continued to play STW. If there would be no game like STW befor, I doubt that you wold have any comments on MTW 2 regarding it's gameplay and overall balancing, except network issues.
Di3Hard from MTW I remember you as a player who likes to use a lot of cavalry units. Infact most of the people there played with 6 or 8 cav minimum. In this aspect MTW is similar to MTW 2. Not too much has change.
Probably I like MTW/VI engine a bit more, but MTW 2 is more fluid and in game controls are better. They are simplified and are much more friendly to user. If we transport the MTW/VI control system to the chess board then you will need additional stick to move one chess figure. In what sense this is better instead of moving your piece with your hand?
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
01-02-2007, 23:28
Now to the rest, from readin this long post, i see some people who claim to run "tests", but till now i didnt saw some real input from u! Where are the pics, the stats? How many similiar tests u run and what are the numbers?
As long u dont come along with such info u should just shut it and stop wasting our time with some questionable ingame experiences!
I have mentionned playing some test game, altough I've never posted results or picture.
As I have also mentionned, those test were SP custom game test, pure 1v1 which IMO are not completly valid, and also makes for very long and boring testing procedure.
1/ as mentionned, AI pike is trying to move throught ennemy unit if surrounded, losing cohesion, and very possibly routing faster because of this.
2/ it's 1v1: odd things happen, general dying on charge before fight get really started... Also, 1v1 dramatically increase wrap up effect on a unit: if you have 6 pikes side by side, only one or two will have flank exposed, and they might have a easier time rotating than in 1v1. 1 pike vs 1 cavalry is different from 6 pikes vs 6 cavalry.
3/ it's... very long.
I'd much rather run 1 MP game with 20 units vs 20 units (as in 20 knights vs 20 pikes), and try all kind of pike formation, click behind, click on, etc... MP test goes much MUCH faster!
Unfortunately, I don't see many MP players actually interested in that.
So Koc, if you really are interested, pm me, or see me in game, and if you really want it, we'll test stuff :book: Otherwise, just shut it and stop wasting my posting time with your questionable forum experience :clown:
What i try to say is, that there are more than the pure unit vs unit battle, there is a huge fatique problem (at least at a certain point) and also u should think about which units can keep more than 1/2 units bussy for some time.
Yes, it's more than just unit vs unit. As I mentionned above when talking about wrap up effect: yes pikes do not like wrap up, however, in a full battle, that might matter less than 1v1 might imply. In a good formation, they(ll be less wrap up effect.
That being said, having pikes losing to any kind of cheap cav is troublesome. And running through pike is completly buggy.
Louis,
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
01-02-2007, 23:39
It is quit parculiar. I know (for a fact) that there is quit few people who enjoy MTW 2, despite they have been hard core STW players befor. If you have been waiting for that long, you won't die if you wait 2 months more for the patch and then decide. Beside STW or MTW, there is no other game which could replace MTW 2 atm. IMO
There are too many issues for me. I dislike the gameplay of MTW2 multiplayer. I dislike the maps, no faction color selection, the horrible unit sprites and all other strange changes. It isn't MTW anymore. Too less tactics, too many strange senseless changes. No new useful features. Poor performance. Take a look in the bug list. It is horrible. We tested and discussed in the clan and we think the same about the game.
but overall gameplay is not bad.
It is better than RTW, but that is no art :laugh4:
Nether the less I don't think, that CA will patch anything in the multiplayer mode. They don't care for us. No comments, nothing. They have our money and that is all, what counts these days.
If there would be no game like STW befor, I doubt that you wold have any comments on MTW 2 regarding it's gameplay and overall balancing, except network issues.
But STW and MTW Vi exists. CA has programmed milestones. If they change the character of the TW series, it is okay, but they should give us a multiplayer demo before we have to buy the game.
Di3Hard from MTW I remember you as a player who likes to use a lot of cavalry units. Infact most of the people there played with 6 or 8 cav minimum. In this aspect MTW is similar to MTW 2. Not too much has change.
Yes, but only because the one big advantage: the speed. Fast team support and flanks in the back of the enemy. Not because it is an "uber" unit
Probably I like MTW/VI engine a bit more, but MTW 2 is more fluid and in game controls are better. They are simplified and are much more friendly to user. If we transport the MTW/VI control system to the chess board then you will need additional stick to move one chess figure. In what sense this is better instead of moving your piece with your hand?
The controls are okay in MTW2. But if I cannot recognize the sprites, I don't need any controls.
There will come other games, that maybe continue, where MTW Vi has finished.
ElmarkOFear
01-02-2007, 23:42
So Koc, if you really are interested, pm me, or see me in game, and if you really want it, we'll test stuff Otherwise, just shut it and stop wasting my posting time with your questionable forum experience
LOL You still make me chuckle Louis. :laugh4:
There will come other games, that maybe continue, where MTW Vi has finished.
I agree with you here. Good news is that I know only for one such game which seems promising. The bad news is that it should be already released a month ago meaning that it is a very high chanse this is not going to happen.
Not because it is an "uber" unit
Cavalry can be addressed as ''uber'' unit only in few occasions but for sure not against pike units. We can always test this in lobby just to be sure - if GS won't make us problems. haha
I dislike the gameplay of MTW2 multiplayer.
It is not that badly made as many are convinced that it is.
the horrible unit sprites
You are right with this. Can't deny it.
Too less tactics
I don't recall that MTW/VI had more of them. Ah yes, the upgreads.
No new useful features.
I'm interested in this. For example I would like to see the option that you could change the side of your allies as once possible. Besides what you had in mind? I'm interested.
p.s.I know I'm not an admin here, but what ever anyone personal issue there are, no need to stress them on this forums.:book:
gee thats kinda slow computer if i was you i wouldnt list those specs.
If I go any higher i'll be on the list myself Mad Cat.:sweatdrop:
But seriously lads, lets not give up on the eradication idea I really think it's got potential. At the very least it'll pass the time until the new patch turns up to fix the crucial bugs like grass colour .
Another plus is that we might get rid of some of the excruciating whoppers who annoy me more than any spear imbalance ever will.:wall:
Thx for the offer Elmo, I'll PM you m8
Thx Louis,
*Bugs*
- if a cavalry unit is running through a pike (double click behind), it takes no loss on contact
Neither the pike. Also they bothstop if you just click once. So they kind of bump inot eachother and stand there. Hardly an exploit IMO, you gain nothing, you lose nothing.
Of course if you want to push through and click more than once behind you can, but then you will start taking acualties, so do the pikes. In custom vs Ai I usually lose 1/3 to 1/2 with CK vs noble pikes when the pikes are deployed 3 ranks deep. I found that if the pikes are in 5 ranks deep then it is nearly impossible to push through.
If you do it with light cavs (e.g. mounted srgt) then you will take more casualties and kill less. It still might work vs pikes in 3 ranks you will fail vs 5 rank deep pikes.
Here are the results: 3 CK vs 3 NP (clicked behind once, then once stopped clicked behind more, when they got through I reformed waited for the pikes to reform and clicked behind again):
killed/lost
35/41
25/36
59/39
3 MSrgt vs 3 NP:
killed/lost
38/37
9/36
13/33
So while push through is possible it is waste of good cavs and suicidal with light cavs, not mention that in MP any good player will "plug" your pushthrough. To this date I have not seen anyone even attempting it.
- AI bug: after the initial charge, and probably because of wrap up, pike unit try to advance to reform: while doing that, it takes even more loss and eventually rout. AI would be better off holding ground where it is
While this is true and I agree with you, it hardly affects MP.
*imbalances*
- even when clicking on the pike (and not behind it), a cavalry unit, despite some initial loss, will win versus a pike or spear unit 1v1 that has half its cost or even just +50% more cost.
Well, it is true vs spears as they suffer horrendous loses on the charge but I doubt it for pikes. If I charge a pike with a cav head on I lose roughly 1/2 of my cav unit. After that in custom the AI starts marching around so the rest is not reliable but I doubt that with 20 some cavs you will beat some 60 pikemen. At least I have not seen it in MP. I assume if it would be that easy then people would do it.
If anything people observe the opposite, i.e. even the cheapest pikes hold out very well head on.
Actually, even Hobilars wins versus pretty much whatever you throw at them.
Lancers, gothic knights? ~;p
- many factions have no pikes whatsoever or only in Late.
I dont see a problem with this. If you want pikes play late.
Eventually, the game will converge, and right now, I see less and less reason to bring spears, and not much reason to bring pikes to a battlefield.
You should really try it. Ask a good player to bring a pike/musket/cav army and try to beat it with your choice of army.
In MTW/ VI, at least swords were able to hold and defeat cavalry when fresh and full strenght. It was far from being good balance, (rather the opposite), but it does sound better than just cavalry army.
That won't be enjoyable. At least for me.
I have played a couple of games, 2v2s and 3v3s and I have not seen an all cav army as yet.
And as far as Elmo is concerned: well, anyone can bring silly army. Being suboptimal is Elmo main caracteristic, so I would not be surprised if he bring some Aztec army of doom... So what?
Louis, you should know very well by now that with Elmo it is never the army which is silly!!! ~:joker: ~;)
In fact Elmo always brings good armies of the given kind, the Aztec inf rush is one of the strongest rush in early/high.
The gold/power ratio is terrible for many units,
Hi Koc, can you give some examples?
And ofc defence with a smaller army vs a bigger one is also no option.
IMHO depends on the era, late era it should be possible.
This is anotehr problem, the game seems to be only offensiv, u gain a lot of advances if u push it, defence seems to have no advance at all...
this ofc limits the teamgame tactics, ur doomed to attack else u have a problem....
This is because of the cav charge but I belive that it will change with the patch.
I'd much rather run 1 MP game with 20 units vs 20 units (as in 20 knights vs 20 pikes), and try all kind of pike formation, click behind, click on, etc... MP test goes much MUCH faster!
Unfortunately, I don't see many MP players actually interested in that.
Hello Louis!!! ~:wave: ~;p
Do you have xfire? Would make it much easier. You can find mine in my profile.
That being said, having pikes losing to any kind of cheap cav is troublesome. And running through pike is completly buggy.
Louis,
In good formation you wont be losing vs cheap cavs. Also vs pikes in good formation pushthrough is a waste of good cavs/ suicide depending on your cavs.
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
01-03-2007, 11:12
On Topic:
Cavalry can be addressed as ''uber'' unit only in few occasions but for sure not against pike units. We can always test this in lobby just to be sure - if GS won't make us problems. haha
We tested cav vs spears and swords. All lost very fast. A formed cav charge kills a full unit in one second. That is stupid and destroy any tactics. Only the piks was better after the patch. With one cav it is possible to kill at least 2 full single spear units. We used the standard difficult. But I don't think it is an other result with very hard difficult.
Off Topic:
I'm interested in this. For example I would like to see the option that you could change the side of your allies as once possible. Besides what you had in mind? I'm interested.
New features would be nice: e.g. new formations for units/armies. Whould be nice to form the units by pressing a button to e.g. a semicircle.
Other new nice feature would be to transform the ground while the battle is started. Ditches or barriers, chop down the trees, bridge building... The stakes of the archers are a good idea, but useless, if you can build them only in the deploy phase.
Or new game modes: Capture the flag or King of the hill. Or mini campains on a map.
And I think there would be many more new features possible.
And again lost features regarding tactics/strategy:
the deployment spots are now all in one line and a rectangle. These round ones was much better. They was also not in one line.
With changing of the faction colors, you could choose your position. This feature was also removed.
2 teams cannot take the same faction. One team can take the strongest faction and their counter faction and the other team has a problem.
Exhaustion bars: I have to inspect every single unit to get an overview about the exhaustion. Very annoying
The F1 key was very useful. I could see, who is staying in front of me. And I could see the stats/values of my units (att/def/ morale!) on one page! Now I have to click on all units. And I don't get all informations.
Choosing a difficult level. They should remove that "feature" and make the fatigue right.
No 4Vs4 because the performance. Or small units as option. Hmm
There are many more points, why it is now more an arcade game. (Elephants haha)
In good formation you wont be losing vs cheap cavs. Also vs pikes in good formation pushthrough is a waste of good cavs/ suicide depending on your cavs.
it is just you dont know how to attack pikes with cavs. Do not charge them, just click behind with your cavs unit and cavs win also if pike are in formation. Again Cheetah, try to listen people who learned the game before and faster than you. Cavs are overpowered and already killed the multyplayer. I have played a campaign just using cavs and this is silly (on VH VH). CA needs very good beta testers and fast learners for the next patch. People like you or Palamedes needs much more time to understand what it is needed for a good balance. I'd like to read AMP's opinion about that. I am sure he already discovered all the imbalances.
x-dANGEr
01-03-2007, 13:12
it is just you dont know how to attack pikes with cavs. Do not charge them, just click behind with your cavs unit and cavs win also if pike are in formation. Again Cheetah, try to listen people who learned the game before and faster than you. Cavs are overpowered and already killed the multyplayer. I have played a campaign just using cavs and this is silly (on VH VH). CA needs very good beta testers and fast learners for the next patch. People like you or Palamedes needs much more time to understand what it is needed for a good balance. I'd like to read AMP's opinion about that. I am sure he already discovered all the imbalances.Ah.. You must be right, because all those who disagree are slow learners.. :juggle2:
Wonder why they'd listen to "people like him and Palamedes" rather than you? Just read your last post.
With changing of the faction colors, you could choose your position. This feature was also removed.
You can still do it. The last player in Team A faces the first player in Team B. That is, depending on their position in the list. Where you choose your faction. At least, that's how it was in RTW.
I am sorry if you have taken my post as an offence, it is my terrible english fault. I mean, if "you" dont know that to beat a pike with cavs you have just to click behind the pike unit and not directly (pikes win if charged ), it is just because you didnt learn it YET. Try by yourself if I am saying the true or not. I wonder why also Palamedes doesnt know it YET. I hope you catch my point now.
Orda Khan
01-03-2007, 18:37
I'd like to read AMP's opinion about that. I am sure he already discovered all the imbalances.
My thoughts exactly
.......Orda
it is just you dont know how to attack pikes with cavs. Do not charge them, just click behind with your cavs unit and cavs win also if pike are in formation.
Please read my post in which I posted some results. I explicitly wrote:
"Here are the results: 3 CK vs 3 NP (clicked behind once, then once stopped clicked behind more, when they got through I reformed waited for the pikes to reform and clicked behind again)"
Again Cheetah, try to listen people who learned the game before and faster than you.
I am all ears. And no, this is not a sarcastic comment. I am indeed interested in every comment regarding balance issues.
Cavs are overpowered and already killed the multyplayer.
Lets make it clear neither me nor Palamedes are happy with the current state of the cav charge. What I disagree with however is the kind of "doomsday scenario" according to MP is already dead, all cav rush armies rampaging the battlefields etc. I have played MP almost each day this week and as far as I can tell it is well and alive. Also, I might be playing with the wrong people but I have not seen a single all cav rush army as yet (though admittedly I am not playing 1v1s).
I have played a campaign just using cavs and this is silly (on VH VH).
Yes indeed, SP is silly ~;p that is why I never finshed a single SP campaign ...
I'd like to read AMP's opinion about that.
Yeah, me too! AMP! AMP! AMP! :cheerleader: ~D
I am sure he already discovered all the imbalances.
I would be very much interested in his list.
Tiberius maximus
01-03-2007, 19:34
since you all were on the calvary thing mind informing about the most useful cav unit is?:idea2:
since i have yet to recieve the game im dieing to know details:yes:
I am sorry if you have taken my post as an offence, it is my terrible english fault. I mean, if "you" dont know that to beat a pike with cavs you have just to click behind the pike unit and not directly (pikes win if charged ), it is just because you didnt learn it YET. Try by yourself if I am saying the true or not. I wonder why also Palamedes doesnt know it YET. I hope you catch my point now.
No offence taken. ~:)
This is my letter I wrote to Pala a month ago, on 2th December. Have a good read.
Hi Jason,
Thanks for your quick response, I had no time during the week to write
up this response and unfortunately there are a good number of issues.
Some bugs or bug like issues and some balancing issues. First about
the bug suspects (you may be aware of them):
(1) Armour piercing weapons vs. cavs: well for most people this comes
down as the "two handed weapons vs. cav" issues but it is not correct
as halberds are I fine vs. cavs. Anyway, I am sure you are well aware
of the fact that most armour piercing unit type is useless vs. cavs, such
as dismounted English knights, axe men in general, and billmen. People
think it is bug, I thought initially that it might not be a bug exactly
because if this systematic nature. Even if it is not a bug it is highly
counterintuitive that billmen and dismounted English knights, units
regarded as anti-cav units, are so useless vs. cavs. Also axe men are
not as strong as they are in BI, so IMO there is no need to make them
utterly useless vs. cavs. Anyway if it is not a bug I can live with it (as
both billmen and axes have their use) just in either case someone
should clarify this issue in public. So, you or some of the other CA guys
should come up and either say that "yes, it is a bug we are working on
it", or state it clearly that it is part of the new balance system (but then
be prepared that some people will go mad :p).
(2) Some unit cost/stat seems to be incorrect. For example Mongolian
dismounted heavy archers cost more than Mongolian inf yet they have
inferior stats. I did some custom testing and to my surprise dismounted
archers indeed did better, so price reflects performance but then the
stats are very strange, either there is some hidden mechanism or the
stats are mixed up. In fact there is at least one more similar pair of
units: Lithuanian archers and an other polish unit. Had no time to test
them but the problem seems similar.
(3) Musketeers reforming. I am sure that you are aware of the fact that
it takes ages for musketeers to reform. Also it seems that occasionally
(to me it seems that especially when they are under fire) they might
stuck at this stage. Very annoying, though a simple trick helps: hit
backspace. The only problem is that this trick opens up an exploit. You
might remember that it was a not very well know exploit in MTW to hit
backspace after pavs fired to start the firing cycle afresh instead of
waiting out the long reload cycle. To be honest I have never seen the
effect of it on the battlefield but I am sure that it is a much more potent
exploit with musketeers simply because of the fire power of the
muskets. Perhaps one solution could be to keep track whether the
muskets are loaded or not. Definitely something has to be done.
(4) Push through. Well it works and it is a very bad news. I attach a
replay of chiv knights defeating pikes head on with push through
(pushthrough_1). Even if there is a reserve spear cavs can push
thorugh (pushthorugh_2). It could utterly ruin the game. In BI there
are high morale spears (gothic) that could hold up a push though or at
least kill most of the cavs. In early and high there are no such units at
all and even late era pikes are vulnerable. IMHO it should not be
possible to push through cavs head on vs. braced pikes. It seems that
perhaps not many people realised this, though there are post at the
ORG mentioning push through. IMO this is a key issue, if people start
using this in large numbers it will ruin the game. Possible solutions: (a)
somehow make spear and pike formations tighter or "stickier"; (b)
make non-fighting (i.e. pushing cavs) more vulnerable so that they die
faster; (c) give shield wall.
The following balance issues need to be addressed IMO as soon as it is
possible. If not then all cav rush armies will dominate soon.
(5) Cav charge ;-) Well, casualties from head on charge are just too
high. They are in the range of 50-75% which is IMO unacceptable as it
means that you have practically lost a unit on the charge. I think that a
25-50% range would be more reasonable. It would be still very high
damage (for example in MTW killing 10 men out 60, roughly 16% was a
good charge).
Another solution (perhaps both implemented) would be to give a
special formation to units in which they have a better chance to
withstand the charge. The advantage of this solution is that it gives
options to the defender (!) thus would make the game more tactical. An
obvious formation is the shield wall, which fits the purpose and on the
top of it is historically accurate as well. So all inf units with shield would
give this special ability (i.e. swords, spears, axes too, I would drop
schiltron for spears that have shields and use schiltron only for two
handed pikes). Non-elite units in shield wall would suffer casualties
around 10-25% from a frontal proper charge and elite units (armoured
sergeants, elite swordsmen, etc) would suffer casualties in the range
of 5-10 %. This would greatly enhance the defender's options to resist
a cav charge, and there are historical examples too (see Hastings, IIRC
it is even mentioned in the demo!). Of course units in shield wall could
move very, very slowly if at all. Also it shall not give too much protection
vs. archers (for obvious reasons, though it should give some). So cav
still would be strong if you can force your opponents out of shield wall
(i.e. by winning the archer duel) but defenders with "balanced armies"
would get a tactical tool to protect themselves vs. head on cav rushes.
IMO it would be welcome news and would greatly enhance the tactical
game.
(6) Morale is too high. Units fight too long and rally too easily. Unit with
1 or 2 men keep fighting and units with 7 or 8 men rally too easily.
Needles to say this favours the cav army. Even if you rout the cavs in
the first melee they just rally and come back. Practically you will find
yourself in a death-trap surrounded by cavs on all sides. Problem is
that even light cavs rally easily.
(7) Light cavs are too cheap and over powered. It follows that even at
10k it is possible to get and army with 17-19 cavs. Combined with the
charge, the push through and with high morale it makes all cav rush
armies almost unbeatable.
It is possible to beat dismounted knights with hobilars (charging in and
you don't even need repeated charges, see replay: "hobrush_1";
compare it to sea raiders charging chosen swords, "raidrush_1",
raiders though kill a lot on the charge, they rout on contact with full
strength units).
There are low cost light cavs in BI too but those cavs are utterly
useless in the melee (see above). Medium cavs start costlier than the
standard sword unit, so IMHO it would be a good rule of thumb for
MTW2 too. So either make hobilars, merchant cavs, etc useless in
melee (by lowering morale both in general and in particular) and/or
increase their price slightly above the cost of the cheapest sword units
(which is around 490 florins).
All in all, the cav charge, push through, the high morale of troops,
cheap/overpowered light cavs all favour cav rush armies. IMO, at least
two or three of these issues should be fixed ASAP. Morale and light cav
price could be the most easy to change.
Morale is too high anyway lowering it with 2 points won't hurt anyone.
Light cav price should be definitely adjusted, IMO it should start around
490 florins. Perhaps hobilars could be a bit cheaper (around 450)
assuming that the morale issue is fixed.
Cav charge is a difficult balance issue but IMO it is inevitable to
decrease its efficiency. Shield wall would be a good tactical solution.
Push though perhaps is the most difficult issue, I guess that increasing
the "stickiness" of units could help, and making cavs in the push (those
that are not fighting) more vulnerable. Shield wall again could offer at
least a partial solution.
RTKBarrett
01-04-2007, 05:41
Nice points lional, u put them forward to him very well... I take it no response as of yet? :-(
I too am extremely annoyed with how easy it is for units to rally at the drop of a hat. Units like peasants should pretty much be gone for gd as soon as they start running...
Keith_the_Great
01-04-2007, 08:59
excellent letter Cheetah :2thumbsup: i think it cover all the points :yes:
(6) Morale is too high. Units fight too long and rally too easily. Unit with
1 or 2 men keep fighting and units with 7 or 8 men rally too easily.
Needles to say this favours the cav army. Even if you rout the cavs in
the first melee they just rally and come back. Practically you will find
yourself in a death-trap surrounded by cavs on all sides. Problem is
that even light cavs rally easily.
very good point, as its bloody pain, having to chase down 7 or 8 men units.
think i wont be playing any "late" era mp games now.
as it wasn't really a problem until your post pointed it out! hehe
Keith_the_Great
01-04-2007, 09:01
:oops:
Keith_the_Great
01-04-2007, 09:01
:oops:
I miss some points then:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
In good formation you wont be losing vs cheap cavs. Also vs pikes in good formation pushthrough is a waste of good cavs/ suicide depending on your cavs.
but then seems you know how the only anti cav unit (pike) can be beaten by a cav if you click behind.
Btw nice points Cheetah, I wonder if they answered you after at least 1 month :inquisitive: . Did they?
No offence taken. ~:)
Morale is too high. Units fight too long and rally too easily. Unit with
1 or 2 men keep fighting and units with 7 or 8 men rally too easily.
Needles to say this favours the cav army. Even if you rout the cavs in
the first melee they just rally and come back. Practically you will find
yourself in a death-trap surrounded by cavs on all sides. Problem is
that even light cavs rally easily.
Lets say they lower morale. I presume generals rally ability would become less important, and this is bad since that is only good thing about them, (besides initiating a chainrout when they die).
Cavalry would gain even more against foot. Now you need couple of charges to get rid of better foot units, if they have lower morale one good charge, would be enough to make them rout.
Cav already have better morale so lowering it would not be that high problem for them, plus they are unit that gains valour through combat most easy from all, so lowered morale in close battles is not so much a problem for them, when they gain couple of valour points, they would have a huge advantage.
I think lowered cav power against foot and eliminating gaining valour through battle should be enough for that problem, since rallied foot units aren't much of a threat.
Gah sorry, first paragraph should be a quote...
Nice points lional, u put them forward to him very well... I take it no response as of yet? :-(
Thx. Pala responded almost immediately, though it was a brief one. He said that they are aware of the hobilar problem. Also I know that they are well aware of the 2H axe bug and the cav charge problem.
I miss some points then:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
In good formation you wont be losing vs cheap cavs. Also vs pikes in good formation pushthrough is a waste of good cavs/ suicide depending on your cavs.
but then seems you know how the only anti cav unit (pike) can be beaten by a cav if you click behind.
Btw nice points Cheetah, I wonder if they answered you after at least 1 month :inquisitive: . Did they?
Yes, Pala did as I wrote it above.
About the pushthrough. Yes there is some discrepancy between the letter and between my recent forum commments. The reason is very simple: I wrote that letter mostly based on experince from custom tests, I had the game only for a week or two. Obviously when I saw the results of those custom battles I was disappointed just as anyone else. Now I am a bit more optimistic simple because I dont see these things in MP. As I said I have not seen a simple cav rush as yet; and have not seen anyone trying to pushthough cavs at all, not to mention vs pikes.
It could be because I am always playing with the "wrong" kind of people but I doubt it. For example in RTW the pushthrough was a standard manouvre, first because it worked, second because it had no other counter. As far as I can tell the pushthrough in MTW2 is not as efficient as in RTW (you will lose a lots of cavs), and what is more important IMO is that it can be countered with other means. Reserve inf will suffice and it need not be a pike. It is much easier to plug the potential pushthorugh because blobbing does not work.
All in all I think that if it would work that well then people would use it more frequently.
Lets say they lower morale. I presume generals rally ability would become less important, and this is bad since that is only good thing about them, (besides initiating a chainrout when they die).
Cavalry would gain even more against foot. Now you need couple of charges to get rid of better foot units, if they have lower morale one good charge, would be enough to make them rout.
Cav already have better morale so lowering it would not be that high problem for them, plus they are unit that gains valour through combat most easy from all, so lowered morale in close battles is not so much a problem for them, when they gain couple of valour points, they would have a huge advantage.
I think lowered cav power against foot and eliminating gaining valour through battle should be enough for that problem, since rallied foot units aren't much of a threat.
Well, first of all the general's rally ability would be more important. I am sure everyone who played MTW remembers which one was the most frequently used button during combat.
Second the idea is that units should have a moral so that engaged properly they fight well and fight long. However mistakes should be punished, unproperly commited troops should be easy to rout as well as unproperly commited armies. As the moral stands right now it is not possible. Moral is so high that it is impossible to chainrout a fresh army even if it is commited to the battle unproperly. Basicaly as long as the units are fresh you have to rout each unit one by one. This is encouraging sloopy gameplay and makes tactical moves less important (since your units will fight anyway or rally anyway and come back).
Also units with the current morale fight to the last man if there is no additional morale penalty. Even dirt cheap militia ones. Milita pike which costs 150 florins will fight to the last man! Now, I have no problems with some elite units like varangian guards or swiss guards fighting to the last man but the cheapest militia units? Casualty were already very high in MTW compared to real life, but in MTW2 it is even higher. In a battle of equal players it is in the range of 90-100%. first of all it is clearly unrealistic (even if know that it is only a game) but this again disfavours tactical gameplay.
How would generals rally become more important? With (considerably) lowered morale you'd have units running all over the field and you can't press rally sixty times in a minute no more.
Quote: ''Second the idea is that units should have a moral so that engaged properly they fight well and fight long. However mistakes should be punished, unproperly commited troops should be easy to rout as well as unproperly commited armies. As the moral stands right now it is not possible. Moral is so high that it is impossible to chainrout a fresh army even if it is commited to the battle unproperly. Basicaly as long as the units are fresh you have to rout each unit one by one. This is encouraging sloopy gameplay and makes tactical moves less important (since your units will fight anyway or rally anyway and come back).''
Shure, if they mange to make it like that It would be great, but simple lowering of morale would bring nothing. For morale to be effective, they would need to rewrite half of battle engine. Or better, just bring back penalty for stacked units.
x-dANGEr
01-05-2007, 18:37
By lowering the morale of all units, those who rout with 5 men won't just rally 20 metres away. But a rally will get them back. (Maybe 10 men not 5 ~:) )
Talking for 1v1 here. If your opponent is a skilled player and he picks 4 untis of heavy infantry (or 4 pike units + 4 archers (depends on player) and the rest of his army is cavalry (12 units) the other player with comperable skill but with balanced (it depends what balanced army means to you) army (up to 8 or 10 cavalry units), has only 30% - 40% to win the match.
pike master
01-05-2007, 20:56
there is a way to trounce the run beyond cav technique against pikemen. if pikemen are in guard mode tell them to attack the advancing cav instead of brace and whether the cav is directly attacking you attempting the mechanics exploit it will still slaughter them it seems pikes really dont have to brace against cavalry.
i wonder if a meeting attack by spearmen or halberdiers might throw off the timing of a cavalry charge but i havnt tried that yet. of course im talking about early era halberdiers from hungary i think and armored seargeants.
braced halberdiers if deployed only two deep seem to not do too bad against a cav charge but like pikemen they must not be wrapped or their d e a d.
Second the idea is that units should have a moral so that engaged properly they fight well and fight long. However mistakes should be punished, unproperly commited troops should be easy to rout as well as unproperly commited armies.
There are a lot of steps involved getting to that kind of gameplay. The battle mechanics have to be working well before you can figure out the optimal morale level for each unit, and the gameplay, at least in the old engine, is very sensitive to morale level. I suppose something might be accomplished with the one or two steps (patches) that CA will take from here.
In a typical, closely fought Samurai Wars 3v3 MP battle for MTW/VI the total losses (which are apparently lower than losses in typical M2TW battles) for each player were:
Winners: 68%, 67%, 84%
Losers: 86%, 88%, 81%
That's still high, but setting the morale level depends upon the size of the situational combat bonuses. For instance, we adjusted the morale in Samiurai Wars so that two YS abreast costing 400 each can beat one WM costing 1000 if one YS engages the WM from the front while the other YS moves and and engages the WM from the rear. This is as it was in original STW as recalled by ShingenMitch. ShingenKrypta and I ran online tests using original STW to verify it. This is a mismatch and if both YS were to engage the WM from the front they would loose, but it's not a mistake that's going to be punished in this case because there is a maneuver tactic that overcomes the attritional disadvantage. That first YS engaging from the front has to hold long enough for the second YS to carry out the flanking maneuver and engage, and it had best use hold formation to do that. A 60 man WM, which is the highest morale unit in the game, doesn't fight to the last man, but it will fight down to about 10 men when not flanked. In the above scenario sandwitched between two YS, the WM will rout at around 25 men. At the same time, I've seen a 60 man WM rout without even engaging because it was outnumbered, flanked and in the vicinity of routing friendlies. That's good because it means there are enough situational morale penalties of a purely positional nature in the game to rout the highest morale unit. So if someone plays poorly, they can be routed without inflicting many casualties on the enemy and end up with as few as 150 kills where the standard army has 960 men. More typically, players who get caught in a bad situation on the battlelfield come out with around 300 kills because they can make at least a few good matchups. Due to fatigue and the large size of the maps, units which rout and rally later are usually ineffective, but the large maps and routing in all directions also makes it harder for one player to rout multiple armies. This isn't due to morale level because we are essentially playing at the same morale level as an original STW 5k game.
The YS has a morale of 6, and the WM a morale of 10. This doesn't seem like a big difference when you consider the rout point is -18, but in practice it makes a big difference in the routing characteristics of those two units. When a 60 man YS is engages a WM, it's seriously thinking about routing at 40 men. For melee units, we had to restrict the morale range to 4 at the lowest and 10 at the highest otherwise we had units like YA at morale 2 that would run away without engaging or WM at morale 12 that would fight to the last man, and this is in a game that isn't affected by battlefield upgrades because LongJohn removed them from MTW/VI v2.01 multiplayer at our request. He agreed with us that battlefield upgrades upset the balance, and are really intended for the SP campaign.
In original STW, the YS had a morale of 2, but they were always upgraded usually to honor 4 which raised them to morale 6. That's interesting because morale 6 is where we found they had to be to work well in Samurai Wars. However, unlike the upgraded YS of original STW we don't have the degraded RPS caused by the purchased upgrades and the battlefield upgrades.
The approach we used in developing Samurai Wars was to start with the units at a relatively low morale level, and then gradually raise the morale on the individual units until they could perform their intended task. That way we preserved as much of the chain routing as possible given the situational combat factors while retaining a balance between attrition and maneuver which I think is more important because it provides more interesting gameplay and is what makes it possible to defeat an enemy who is on higher ground without reducing the morale to the point where a simple 2 on 1 routs him by virtue of the outnumbering morale penalty alone.
Something we discovered back in MTW/VI and which LongJohn agreed with is that the optimal morale level changes depending upon the number of armies in the battle. For Samurai Wars, we optimized for 3v3 and 4v4 type battles so that large scale hammer and anvil tactics could work if the hammer dropped relatively quickly. It can work if the hammer starts moving immediately and isn't too far away when the enemy makes contact with the anvil depending upon the defensive skill of the anvil player and appropriate army types being used for the hammer and anvil. This is where having effective spears vs cav is important because the team trying to achieve a quick 2 on 1 most often uses a lot of high mobility cavalry.
That's what we did in developing Samurai Wars, and I know CA is not willing to go to that extent for playbalance.
R'as al Ghul
01-15-2007, 14:21
There's something happening concerning spear vs. cav and unit balance in general:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=77217
The bottom line is that the shield value actually has a negative influence on the unit's defensive abilities. Take away the shield value and you get spears working like they should: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1387120&postcount=193
Problem: They'll take more hits from missiles.
CA's Jerome just posted to tell us that CA's aware of it. :2thumbsup:
R'as
Palamedes and me have been discussing unit balance as well, he's going to try out some of my suggestions(mainly involving balancing cav and spears), see if he likes them.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
01-15-2007, 18:34
Not to rain on anyone parad, but it's useless to talk about unit balancing as long as we have gamebreaking bugs.
We have no real idea how cavalry will behave facing properly shielded spears, or billmen that can actually swing.
In the current state of the game, bug fixing is more important than balance. Balance discussion are science fiction talks...
Louis,
x-dANGEr
01-15-2007, 23:03
Not to rain on anyone parad, but it's useless to talk about unit balancing as long as we have gamebreaking bugs.
We have no real idea how cavalry will behave facing properly shielded spears, or billmen that can actually swing.
In the current state of the game, bug fixing is more important than balance. Balance discussion are science fiction talks...
Louis,
I actually believe the game might be (much more) balanced if all the bugs are fixed. There might be a couple of bugs with Musks as well.. Go check 'em ~;)
pike master
01-22-2007, 19:20
im beginning to think myself that a tight compact mass of men should be able to stop cavalry although this is different than what iv stated before. the reason is the battle of hastings where a compact phalanx, shield wall blah blah blah was able to stop repeated charges and inflicted good casualties on the heavy horse.and that was after he defeated a viking force larger than his own only days before and made a rapid march down near most of the length of england that would have made julius ceaser or stonewall jackson proud.
his elite troops tired and thinned out from one battle and although many reinforcements joined his ranks while he marched south they were not the best trained. we dont even know if harolds army even had many spears at least i havnt read that they did, although i know the huscarles had two handed axes.i mean from my understanding it took a combination of archer fire and repeated charges to finally break an already tired and worn out army.
so yeah maybe dense formations of spearmen should be able to stop heavy cavalry but how many should it take 75 in normal or should it take more? maybe a doubled up formation although that would cost as much as mailed knights but be cheaper than high end knights.
im sure harolds phalanx had numerous infantry within it and outnumbered the europeans by quite a margin.
can you read the post above?
a horse IS NOT WILLING TO CHARGE AND HIT AN INFANTRY MAN, in facts, it almost never happened. Is it so difficult to understand?
Sorry but horses were used very efficiently already at the time of Alexander the Great up to the modern times and they became obsolet only because of the modern tanks. The strategical usefulness of horses was still extremely important in the napoleonic battles (just have a look to the paintings). A horse unit demands a heavy logistics, so if an army cares about including such units they have their utility.
I agree that against a compact wall of pikes like you can see in "Braveheart" the horses don't charge easily and actually don't stand a chance. But once the opposite units has started to fight or to move, the unity is broken and the horses can charge in the gaps. The efficiency of the charge is thus completely dependent on the formation, which was pretty well rendered in MTW and seems not so accurate in MTW2 (although I cannot say it personally).
I agree that being able to turn a pikemen unit with the cavalry to charge from the back with maximum efficiency is not the best for gameplay, but it is actually pretty accurate, because pikemen units are big units and it takes some time for the whole unit to reform after a movement.
Stephane
ElmarkOFear
01-22-2007, 23:37
I must agree, that currently attrition accounts for more wins, than tactical flanking to rout the enemy army off the field. I think the major problem lies not in the morale level of the units themselves but in the running speed of routing units. When even the heaviest, slowest units rout, they go into turbo speed and outrun even the fastest cav units. Once they get a short distance from enemy units, they then recover, so the problem not only is with the morale level of units, but also with their speed when routing. Plus, I have noticed when you are chasing routed units, your chaser unit will stop to fight at contact and you must constantly click on it to get it to continue the chase. And even then, your unit must first reform before charging after the enemy unit again.
I believe that is why the games play so hectic and may also be another reason why cav units are overpowered. You can cav charge into a big group of units, knowing you will get many kills and then either push through them, or rout, recover and have a cav unit that now has increased valor and is even MORE powerful than before! This isn't very apparent unless you have an army which doesn't have cav, such as the Aztec faction. I have played against players and routed their cav units (At a major cost in men) and have seen those cav units recover and come back for more, even when they have been killed down to 6 units or less.
I wonder why, given the problems with during-battle honor (Valor) increases from previous games, CA decided to bring that feature back once again? It seems, things which have been tried, found problematic, and corrected in a patch, keep finding their way back into the next game in the series.
I must agree, that currently attrition accounts for more wins, than tactical flanking to rout the enemy army off the field. I think the major problem lies not in the morale level of the units themselves but in the running speed of routing units. When even the heaviest, slowest units rout, they go into turbo speed and outrun even the fastest cav units.
It's another indication that CA doesn't understand the impact on gameplay of these things. I noticed in the M2TW demo that charge speeds were not reduced from RTW values. From what you say, it looks like routing speeds are not either. I certainly heard a lot about how speeds were reduced in M2TW prior to release, and how this would appeal to Total War veterans only to find now that some speeds were not reduced. Movement speeds were all very well worked out in the games prior to RTW, and there was no need to change them. In addition, the reload of archers has been increased presumably because the running speeds were reduced, but again this relationship had already been worked out in STW and MTW and was fine. We looked closely at various movement speeds and rates of fire for the Samurai Wars mod, and found no reason to change most of those values. Even changing the reload of muskets by 3 seconds either way had a significant impact on gameplay, so we left it at the original 21 seconds which is 7 seconds for 3 rank rotating volleys. The archers are 4 second reload (15 volleys/minute). The infantry running speeds range from 2.24 m/s to 3.36 m/s (3.92 m/s for ninja), and the cav from 5.6 m/s to 6.72 m/s. Charge speed is 20% higher than running speed for infantry and 10% higher than running speed for cav. As I recall in M2TW, infantry charge speed is 33% higher than running speed. I don't remember what teh increase is for cav.
According to what Palamedes said, the high charge is there to satisfy the players who want to see men go flying upon the impact. Now I don't know how you are going to argue for changes based on playbalance considerations when what the developer is striving to satisfy is a visceral urge in what they perceive to be the majority of the game's player base. Remember, they have stated very clearly that Total War is no longer intended for hardcore players, and certain aspects of the gameplay appear to be off limits to Palamedes.
I hope you're having fun exploiting the shield bug in multiplayer.
I wonder why, given the problems with during-battle honor (Valor) increases from previous games, CA decided to bring that feature back once again? It seems, things which have been tried, found problematic, and corrected in a patch, keep finding their way back into the next game in the series.
That feature had to be removed by LongJohn, and I believe he did that in the v2.01 patch to MTW/VI. It required a well reasoned argument to convince him to do that. I think the reason it's back is because the multiplayer game just falls out of the single player game, so unless you are able to contact the programmer currently in charge of making changes and convince him all over again, you're stuck with this feature. In theory, battlefield upgrades should have less effect in M2TW than they did in MTW because each upgrade represents a smaller increase in performance than it did in MTW.
It's another indication that CA doesn't understand the impact on gameplay of these things.
Oh yes you do, because that Samurai Wars is such a huge success
I noticed in the M2TW demo
demo yes, how about buying the game if you want to have an opinion about it
I hope you're having fun exploiting the shield bug in multiplayer.
I have it, so has my opponent
There actually people that can enjoy a game, because they don't need every detail ... and certainly no mod for MTW
:inquisitive:
RTKBarrett
01-23-2007, 15:35
Oh yes you do, because that Samurai Wars is such a huge success
demo yes, how about buying the game if you want to have an opinion about it
I have it, so has my opponent
There actually people that can enjoy a game, because they don't need every detail ... and certainly no mod for MTW
:inquisitive:
:laugh4: Agreed
There actually people that can enjoy a game, because they don't need every detail ... and certainly no mod for MTW.
Those people have low standards. I post for people who have higher standards than that, and who don't want to buy a game that has significant flaws. M2TW has significant flaws, and a plethora of minor flaws which do add up. It's obvious now that CA is unable to match the standard of gameplay they had in the original game. They haven't been able to balance a simple thing like spears since the original game. It's unbelievable that here we are 7 years after the original release still talking about cavalry/spearmen imbalance.
Those people have low standards. I post for people who have higher standards than that, and who don't want to buy a game that has significant flaws. M2TW has significant flaws, and a plethora of minor flaws which do add up. It's obvious now that CA is unable to match the standard of gameplay they had in the original game. They haven't been able to balance a simple thing like spears since the original game. It's unbelievable that here we are 7 years after the original release still talking about cavalry/spearmen imbalance.
agreed.
If you don't like it, then just don't mention it. You come up with all sorts of flaws and things, but you haven't even played it.
Me calls that trolling ~D
but you haven't even played it.
How you assume that I have not played the game Sir Stig?
FYI I am the multyplayer mod for the Italian community, and as far as I know I played about 300 MTW2 games. Plz next time you wanna write somethings, try to be sure you are saying somethings near the truth.
you have your opinions, I have mine. Respect them as I am trying to respect yours.
Thx in advance Sir Stig.
How you assume that I have not played the game Sir Stig?
I don't care who you are, I'm talking to Puzz
Now you know who I am then, and FYI Puzz is right. You shoud learn somethings from him, and read with more attention his posts, they are surely much more intresting than yours.
I call your posts "trolling". If you are not agreed with him, explain why, or do not ansewr at his posts at all.
If you don't like it, then just don't mention it. You come up with all sorts of flaws and things, but you haven't even played it.
Since when can you only post if you like something? The flaws are there, and they should be prominently posted so that people don't buy the game by mistake because CA isn't going to mention them. Not everyone is as unaffected by game flaws as you, and I'm going to continue bringing attention to flaws and things that represent degraded gameplay. It's not all subjective. Some things are actually better or worse than other things. CA is no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the faith that the problems will be fixed. They have demonstrated with RTW that they are willing to end of life a game with significant bugs still present. They set unrealistic deadlines for what they are trying to produce. Not only do their games now have a plethora of problems upon release, but they can't even fix them all given the patching schedule.
I'm well aware of the M2TW engine because it's essentially the same one used in RTW/BI which I have played, and I was on the RTW v1.2 beta team. I could see back in November when Lusted posted some M2TW battle results that the attrition is too high, and now other players are saying the same thing. I don't have to own the game to know that. I can see the "wait your turn" fighting by the men in the M2TW demo and videos, and I'm appalled that they incorporated such a battle mechanic when what they had before was much better. It doesn't represent an improvement to the game, and I don't have to buy the game to see that it isn't.
BTW, getting details right is good engineering. Reverse a detail like a + sign and you get the shield bug which is a significant problem. That it affects all players doesn't make it less significant because it's having an adverse affect on the gameplay.
ElmarkOFear
01-23-2007, 21:53
I can understand why both Stig and Puzz have been posting the way they have lately.
Puzz has every right to be totally and irreversibly angry/disappointed at CA since he has given more time and effort (than anybody I know) into pointing out what changes need to be made to the TW engines and then testing/re-testing to make sure possible solutions didn't have adverse effects on other aspects of the game . . . . . . . and then having CA go ahead and do something counter to the patch team's suggestions and totally screwing everything up in the process. This happened not once, not twice, not even three times . . . if my tally is correct Puzz gave CA the benefit of the doubt over 6 times before reaching the point where he appears to be bitter about the current TW engine and TWs future in general. I too feel that the aspects which the veterans held so dear, will never make another appearance in a future TW game. Luckily, I had less patience than Puzz and left before CA could irrevocably piss me off. :laugh4: Puzz and I really don't agree on many things concerning gameplay and balance issues, but I have always respected him and his opinions, even if he now sometimes comes across as a TW curmudgeon.
Stig also has a reason for his antagonism towards Puzz's criticisms of the current game and his negative attitude towards the new TW engine. I have known Stig for quite awhile and he is a very nice person (sorry Stig, I know I promised I wouldn't tell anyone you were an "ok" guy! :laugh4: ), but he has been a regular patron over at the .com forum and has had to read through all the continual nonsensical criticisms found there. He has tired of such things and he came here thinking it a place where more non-critical discussions would take place. He sees Puzz, with nothing good to say about the current state of M2TW, then hears Puzz doesn't hasn't bought the game, and not knowing Puzz (or his past involvement with patch-testing the current engine and his intimate knowledge of the mechanics behind the game) and assumes that here is another .com-like whacko who doesn't know what he is talking about.
So now I have explained things a bit, I hope both of you can understand each other's past behavior a bit better and realize there is no reason to continue antagonizing each other. You are both friends of mine, whom I respect and whom I know both want to improve the M2TW experience.
Now I had a question to ask, which I have temporarily forgotten . . . . .
Oh I remember: Puzz: You said you tested RTW and are familiar with the game's engine. I never played RTW except for one week before selling it back, so I have little knowledge of it. My question is: Did RTWs engine attach other battle stats to the animation besides just running speed? I know M2TWs engine has running speed, attacking speed, special abilities, and enemy acquirement attached to each individual man in a unit. Did RTW do this as well or is this what CA has added to the engine? I believe the underlying problems are more to do with the things tied in with the animations than with the stats or cost factors.
I think CA got in over its head, when it tried to make the game more life-like or "Real". This probably explains why they attached so much to the individual animations themself instead of the stats file: So it would look more fluid and life-like. As I have always stated, the move to 3D creates more problems than a 2D game, and makes it even more time-consuming and difficult to correct and test. Pretty graphics take a toll on gameplay and balance, not necessarily in a direct sense, but in many small ways which, when put together lead to much bigger and sometimes unsolvable ways. Even if it is within CA's capability to make changes, I can see where these changes are more time-consuming to where CA isn't willing to put the resources into correcting them.
explain why
I did, Puzz doesn't have the game ... how can he know what's wrong if he doesn't know what's wrong?
Others tell him? Well why believe them, why not look with your own eyes first?
I know Puzz is experienced and such, and I respect him for that. I however don't respect them for critising something he doesn't know anything about.
and not knowing Puzz (or his past involvement with patch-testing the current engine and his intimate knowledge of the mechanics behind the game)
Oh I knew that alright, but still does it matter?
pike master
01-24-2007, 04:58
this might have a lot to do with infantry being wrapped but according to frog the roman front and sides of a unit were all part of a curved facing and the rear was the other facing so a unit could be wrapped and even charged from the flank without a devestating morale penalty and would deploy troops to cover the flank.
now it seems that i have noticed that units now have very vulnerable flanks. this has a lot to do with a deep spear formations ability to withstand a cav charge. if the ranks are too thin to contain a wrap then most of the formation will be gone when charged. if its deep and narrow the flanks are wrapped so they get defeated too.
i could be wrong but it does seem that you are dealing with a different mechanics in unit facing if im wrong correct me i wont be offended.
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
01-24-2007, 09:35
Those people have low standards. I post for people who have higher standards than that, and who don't want to buy a game that has significant flaws. M2TW has significant flaws, and a plethora of minor flaws which do add up. It's obvious now that CA is unable to match the standard of gameplay they had in the original game. They haven't been able to balance a simple thing like spears since the original game. It's unbelievable that here we are 7 years after the original release still talking about cavalry/spearmen imbalance.
Very true. But we should recognize, that we are not the CA's target group anymore. I have sold M2TW and look for other games and companies.
I think, you cannot convince someone, which likes the low gameplay with full of bugs and strange CA balance decisions. We are the minority and have to accept that.
I did, Puzz doesn't have the game ... how can he know what's wrong if he doesn't know what's wrong?
If you think Puzz is wrong, tell me which infantry unit can beat a cav unit. Waiting for an answer.
If you think Puzz is wrong, tell me which infantry unit can beat a cav unit. Waiting for an answer.
Let's see, I've beaten them with:
all kinds of spearmen
dismounted knights
dismounted arab cav does a wonderfull job
pikemen ofcourse
No I've beaten enough cav with infantry. There are cav spammers about, but that doesn't mean my main infantry army loses to them oh no.
Let's see, I've beaten them with:
all kinds of spearmen
dismounted knights
dismounted arab cav does a wonderfull job
pikemen ofcourse
No I've beaten enough cav with infantry. There are cav spammers about, but that doesn't mean my main infantry army loses to them oh no.
that's what I mean: you know nothing about the game. You can beat also pikes with cavs, just click behind the pikes and cavs win. SPears cannot beat cavs, cause if you know how to charge with cavs they die 90% at the first cavs contact.
Again listen to Puzz, seems he knows much more about this game than you. If you need some replays about what I am saying, PM me.
that's what I mean: you know nothing about the game.
That I take as an insult
give your men a small armour upgrade next time you play ~D
R'as al Ghul
01-24-2007, 10:03
Again listen to Puzz
No, just concentrate on the fact that Yuuki doesn't own the game....all the bugs will simply go away. :2thumbsup: (There's no spoon)
If you need some replays about what I am saying, PM me.
Same here, I'm sure I have more then 1 replay in which you can see what I mean.
That I take as an insult
give your men a small armour upgrade next time you play ~D
sorry if you have taken that as an insult, but thats the true. From what you are saying I assume you know nothing about this game.
Again, armour do nothing againt the cav charge, try by yourself if you do not beleive me, or just PM me if you need some replays.
No, just concentrate on the fact that Yuuki doesn't own the game....all the bugs will simply go away
But I have it, and Puzz is right. When all the bugs will go away, we will talk about how fantastic is the game, but atm the game has a crap balance. Sad but true.
Same here, I'm sure I have more then 1 replay in which you can see what I mean.
Seems that you do not know how to beat a pike with cavs. I surely do not need you replay cause seems you do not know all the bugs and imbalances that this game has.
I don't need to know how to beat pikes with cav. I hardly use cav, max 4 an army. My armies tend to be infantry heavy, and I win with them (sometimes).
And I know about the bugs in the game, but then my opponent has them too
R'as al Ghul
01-24-2007, 11:51
But I have it, and Puzz is right. When all the bugs will go away, we will talk about how fantastic is the game, but atm the game has a crap balance. Sad but true.
Yes, of course Yuuki is right. I was trying to be ironic. :embarassed:
The bugs are there and saying that the opponent has them too or repeating the fact that Puzz doesn't own the full game changes nothing about it. Also, a lot of what is wrong in the full game is already wrong in the demo.
Orda Khan
01-24-2007, 12:02
Rather than open new sub-forums perhaps it would be a better idea to shut down the whole MP forum
.......Orda
Yes, of course Yuuki is right. I was trying to be ironic. :embarassed:
oopppps sorry :embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed:
Also, a lot of what is wrong in the full game is already wrong in the demo.
I know but:
-demo doesn't give one an AI
-demo doesn't give one a campaign
-demo doesn't give one MP options
x-dANGEr
01-24-2007, 23:07
Paoli, sounds from your posts, I assume that you're taking things more of a 1 on 1 than an army vs an army.
Not exactly, I am talking more about an army based. I mean a cavs army based is stronger than an infantry based army. What I am asking to CA is to have an anti cav unit different from another cav and atm there isnt. In a good balance game there is an anti unit for every unit, if I have this kind of balance who has more skill win. So also the cheaper spears should beat ALL the cavs, ALL the swords shoud beat the spears and ALL the cavs should beat the swords. Here atm we have cavs that beat swords, cavs that beat spears and only cavs that beat cavs. Why we cannot have a good balance? Is it so hard to have one? In BFME II there is no way that a cav can beat a spear also if the cav have all the UPG and the spear have none, why it is so difficult for CA to do the same?
If every unit has it a unit that can counter it the game would be extremely boring.
No in real too Knight were more or less invincible, as they are in game. And they could easely be killed in melee fighting as they are ingame. CA did a good job at that, if you think it's wrong I suggest you make a mod no-one plays and go advertising about it ~D
ElmarkOFear
01-25-2007, 13:14
The main problem, with anti-cav units currently, is they are so expensive, when taking into account their power per florin spent. Also, only a few factions have units that can stop a cav charge without losing almost the entire unit. Lastly, the units which can stop a cav charge, must be micro-managed. If they are not in Spearwall formation and kept in good order, the unit will lose more men than it will kill when facing cav. I would rather these anti-cav units be able to hold their own without having to micro-manage them, but that is the way it was made so I adjusted.
Another way to stop the devastation of the cav charge is to stack two units on top of each other to keep the cav from being able to "push" through the units after impact. This is also very inefficient, since the timing must be right to actually trap the cav unit and kill or rout it.
I also can also show how to kill cav units, in low florin games (5K) with volume and mass. I will show anyone in the M2TW lobby how it works, if they would like. In higher florin games there are not enough open slots to gain the necessary mass to defeat cav. It also can be accomplished with the cheapest non-spear foot units in the game using the same principle.
If every unit has it a unit that can counter it the game would be extremely boring.
lets say that it is your opinion right?
STW was not imho a boring game.
BFME is not a boring game, same for BFMEII
same for CoH and many others. Games that have online about 10 times (probably much more) the number of players that have MTW2. Have you asked yourself why?
A tactical/strategic game HAVE to have an anti unit for every unit. It is called balance. You have fun with a imbalance game, np for me. Have fun, but MTW2 will never have the big community that has for example BFME.
R'as al Ghul
01-25-2007, 13:27
I know but:
-demo doesn't give one an AI
-demo doesn't give one a campaign
-demo doesn't give one MP options
You're right, but Puzz3D is not posting about the AI or the campaign, so I don't see why you bring that up.
It's also true that you can't play MP in the demo. So? As I read Puzz's posts he only concerns himself with the battle mechanics and the game play. Both factors can be observed and evaluated in the demo. The points he brings up are all in the demo.
Again, I don't see how his points can be turned down on the fact alone that he does only own the demo. A lot of other players raise exactly the same points here and in the Citadel. What do you say to them?
R'as
R'as al Ghul
01-25-2007, 13:28
If every unit has it a unit that can counter it the game would be extremely boring.
Do you think Chess is boring?
Do you think Chess is boring?
Don't see the link, but yes, Chess is boring
What do you say to them?
Nothing, I never go into the MTW2 forums, only the MP forums ... but check out the R&R section at .com sometime
Don't see the link, but yes, Chess is boring
oh ok...nothing more to say then ~:)
R'as al Ghul
01-25-2007, 13:35
Don't see the link, but yes, Chess is boring
Every piece in Chess has a counter-piece. In fact all pieces can beat all other pieces. There's not a single unit (or piece) that dominates the gameplay or could beat all other units/ pieces. A lot of people find that very intriguing.
One of the main things i feel effecting cav v spears is the shield bug. With the workaround done by the_foz_4 the game becomes much more balanced, and spears beocme much more useful against cavalry.
Once the shield bug, 2 handed bug and problems with unit cohesion are fixed(and more than likely they'll be fixed in the next patch), i think M2Tw will become very balanced.
R'as al Ghul
01-25-2007, 13:51
What do you say to them? (other players that bring up the same points as Puzz3D
Nothing
Well, if it's just personal and you don't want to participate in the Cavalry/ Spearmen discussion.......Why post in this thread?
The OP thesis was "standard spearmen appear practically useless in a competitive game right now".
You said: what do you say to people in the Citadel?
Well I said: Nothing
As I don't go there, if you really want to get me on something like that I suggest you read R&R on .com and I suggest you stop personally attacking me
I'm leaving it here, as all you can do is play personally ... trolling the entire MTW2 forum, saying other things are better ... well people simply don't agree to you. There are people that enjoy MTW2, FACE IT ... if you don't like that, well bad luck, stop posting how inferior it is, go play your Samurai Wars, atleast someone will play it then ~D
x-dANGEr
01-25-2007, 14:17
I'm afraid Paolai you're terribly wrong. In my and reality's opinion at least, that is in facts. Life doesn't go like this:
So also the cheaper spears should beat ALL the cavs, ALL the swords shoud beat the spears and ALL the cavs should beat the swords.
So, a militia barely trained unit holding swords should easily swipe a unit of noble highly trained unit of Pikemen.. Errr.. Where's the reason in that!
Currently, through the MP community, you seem to be the only one complaining about not being able to kill cavalry, it only makes people wonder.. And, it leaves us with 2 choices.. Either that all of them are wrong and you are right (Which is the option you seem to emphasize), or that all of them are right and you're wrong. I haven't played the game, am just trying to assume consciousness of what everyone is saying, and trying to judge who's correct and who's wrong.
On another subject, I don't take Puzz3D's opinion, or any other patron's opinion in regard for this matter, knowing clearly that they either don't have the game, or are just not participating in the current community tournaments.
R'as al Ghul
01-25-2007, 14:19
You said: what do you say to people in the Citadel?
Well I said: Nothing
Please, don't misquote me. I've said:
A lot of other players raise exactly the same points here and in the Citadel. What do you say to them?
[..] I'm leaving it here, as all you can do is play personally ... trolling the entire MTW2 forum, saying other things are better ... well people simply don't agree to you. There are people that enjoy MTW2, FACE IT ... if you don't like that, well bad luck, stop posting how inferior it is, go play your Samurai Wars, atleast someone will play it then
~:confused:
Sorry, that you feel this way. I was merely asking questions.
You must be confusing me with somebody else. :shrug:
ElmarkOFear
01-25-2007, 14:56
Lusted: I hope you a right about them including those in the 2nd patch. Also, I know you have worked hard to help solve and test some of these balance solutions and I for one appreciate your efforts.
Thanks :)
Plus: It will be fun having to re-test all those units again!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.