View Full Version : Smaller Armys
Tomisama
07-30-2007, 13:07
Yesterday in a 2v3 game the 3 player side shared 18k, playing with 6k each.
I actually found it to be enjoyable (less to keep track of), and thought that possibly the lag experienced in our 4v4 might be helped if we took smaller armys?
The lag was most likely caused by connection problems. They seemed to be gone when I started hosting yesterday as Yuuki might have had some problems (he dropped from TS a couple of times too)
Control is easy Tomi. Use reserves instead of bunching up in one big pile :clown: Oh and flank flank flank!
CBR
Hello,
Yes, but there may have been another issue too. Not quite sure how that could have affected all of us. I think my machine caused a lot of trouble and made an already suboptimal situation impossible, sorry.
My Soundblaster card causes some static and thus I enabled the onboard one. That worked fine in a 4v4 custom and 2v1 MP worked too, but it caused (?) a lot of PC lag in 3v3 and 4v4. That was fixed after disabling onboard sound and rebooting, also when Yuuki hosted.
We actually made an error in setting up that 2v3. The side with 3 should have been limited to not more than 11 units each. It was an oversight.
As much as possible, I think players should strive to control units individually. I would suggest using the minimum number of units that you judge necessary to carry out a particular task, and leave the rest as reserves as CBR suggests. Also, use combined arms. A YS + ND pair are much more effective than 2 YS or 2 ND. In Samurai Wars, the units have been given enough morale to carry out their intended task, but since we don't use upgrades individual matchups are more important because the combat differences aren't reduced by upgrading the weaker units. For instance, YS and ND were usually upgraded in STW and could stand up quite well to WM. In Samurai Wars, getting a YS matched against a WM is not good and an ND will get creamed by NC and loose to YC. Even a WM is no match for HC.
Another consideration is attrition of the enemy in team games. You don't have to go for broke in an all out win or loose effort against your individual opponent. If you are able to inflict 600 kills before being eliminated, that will give your ally(s) a reasonable chance of winning the game. For instance, in a 2v2 the total men per side is usually around 1800. If you take out 600 enemies, your ally can probably win by achieving 900 to 1000 kills which is doable. However, if you only take out 300 enemies, your ally will need at least 1200 kills to win which I've only seen done once in a Samurai Wars 2v2 with 60 man unit size.
Sunday there were a couple of players who's machines couldn't handle 4v4. Everyone's time would be better spend making two 2v2 games rather than one 4v4.
Control is easy Tomi.
Hello,
It isn't easy, but you can do a few things to make it easier for yourself. And yes, less units can mean less headache *.
Make groups and supgroups, learn a system, so you can do something even in the most chaotic heat of battle.
My defensive infantry (ys, ya and ni), is 'always' CONTROL SHIFT 1. The gunners are always group 0, a second and third infantry missile group are group 9 and 8. The left wing shock units are group 3, the right wing are group 4.
The whole infantry stack is group 2, so I can move them all at the same time, that sometimes includes the taisho.
Cavalry is group 5. It's possible to modify a bit when using special armies, but best is to keep it the same and get used to it.
* It happened a few times to me that I felt to be in the game after 75% of my units were erased. You can try a few things here too. First of all you can take less, but more powerful units: 4 WM and 4 HC cost 8,800, get a teppo to spend all money. Of course that is a vulnerable army in the open, but there are teamgames and specialty maps that would make such a punch tactic viable.
Another thing you could do is buy more strong units than normal, but complement it with cheap to make the numbers. You could spend 800 on 4 ya, 800 on 4 arq, 4,000 on 4 WM, that leaves 3400 for four (or less!) more units (avg 850). Examples: 2 HC and 2 Nod, 2 NC and 2 NI. Of course you want the cheap ya and arq to do something good, but you do not have to worry too much about it, your money is in 8 units that are out of harms way and wait to turn the tide. Even just using the cheap units to soak up enemy fire is good.
Yet another idea is to buy a solid army like usual, but include units that can take care of themselves. Examples are NI on hold hold and CA on skirmish (which you can also use to make waves: keep your whole army out of harms way and send some bugs to keep the other busy). The BN can be used like that too. It's a bit of a wildcard unit, it can make over one hundred kills, it can be near useless, best use them in woods. As it is invisible you can show a weak belly and trick your opponent.
If you buy 2 NI, 2 CA and 1 BN, you have only 11 units to really care about.
Use the terrain and stay calm, no matter what. Hide a few units in the woods during deployment and just never touch them until you really really really need them (of course not so far away from the action that they'll be too late). Be aware that your opponent may wonder and start to scout, so it may pay to have something to counter the eyes.
You can do a southpaw deployment and ambush something north (do not forget to disable FAW). Either grab the chance and kill some guns early on or let the whole army pass and have Rangers for the endbattle.
Of course you can mix one or more of those tips, whatever works for you and whatever your opponent doesn't expect you to do.
Edit: the hatamoto is an excellent unit for taisho. It is 'cheap', fast, tough, has good range and skirmish abilities and can be left alone for a bit. When the area is 'secure' even completely forgotten.
We actually made an error in setting up that 2v3. The side with 3 should have been limited to not more than 11 units each. It was an oversight.
It was no oversight on my part as I dont mind the side with more players take whatever units they want. It becomes a question of quality v quantity and more asymmetrical which makes for different battles.
You had a total of 41 units v our 32 and of course had more low quality units to make up for that.
I think we could have won, but we did not kill off Tomi as he had several strong units to the rear which ruined a couple of my pursuing YC. Masamune and I also got a bit seperated which meant I had a few strong unit not engaging fast enough against you.
But an enjoyable game nonetheless.
CBR
Hello,
It isn't easy, but you can do a few things to make it easier for yourself. And yes, less units can mean less headache *.
Make groups and supgroups, learn a system, so you can do something even in the most chaotic heat of battle. *snip*
Im using stuff like one main infantry group (swords and spears mixed) with either a secondary group behind it or on one flank, or individual units on both flank but behind main group (mostly one spear) So anything from 3 groups to just one group and a few individual units.
Cavalry is generally single or in groups of 2 although I might start out with one large if I have many of one type (4 YC) and then release the ones I need.
Most group movement is done by dragging a line so I know precisely where it ends and its facing. And if desperate I use it too for the attack, and if I have time I do the individual attacks before the line hits enemy units.
CBR
Togakure
07-30-2007, 18:53
Some great tips. I use control groups much like Tosa describes, and it helps a lot. For next week I will be customizing my control buttons. I've been using the stock ones and they're not really handy for this lefty.
Practice games (not just battles, but practicing manuevers with another on the battlefield) can work wonders. if you're interested and ever have the time, I would enjoy doing this. I need the practice too, and can usually meet in the evenings on weeknights after 7 PM EST. I can show you the kinds of things I do, and you could show me what you do. Maybe George would join us (he said he is planning to next weekend, yay!). Sometimes Yuuki is around, maybe he might join us occasionally. I used to do this all the time with new 47 Ronin. It accelerated their learning curve from beginner to intermediate dramatically. For us though, going from intermediate to advanced takes more time, and of course, practice, practice, practice. Maybe we will discover new tricks.
As Yuuki says, match-ups are so important in SW--more so than in the other TW games because it's well-balanced and we don't upgrade. Also crucial are use of terrain, getting a good charge in with cav, supporting units with others for morale--particularly when in the midst of a lot of enemies. Timing attacks with the coming and going of rain can work wonders--particularly against their cav if they don't have many and you have more, and against their pesky archers and CA who tend to come out of hiding when it rains.
I realize how hard the reserves concept can be. I am still playing en masse, using my whole army as one much of the time. From the standpoint of using morale as a weapon, this can be good, but when you commit, you commit! If you commit in error ... well you know how that goes, lol. I will be trying a more divided approach as I get used to SamWars, to see if I like it better. Really though, it's all about the right approach under a particular set of circumstances.
We actually made an error in setting up that 2v3. The side with 3 should have been limited to not more than 11 units each. It was an oversight.
More vs less is not a fought battle. The three armies wouldn't do well if the two are in the woods. The three wouldn't have enough hth (hand to hand).
Playing some 12 or less unit battles is fine with me. We can either play normal unitsize or medium to field more men.
As much as possible, I think players should strive to control units individually.
Move group(s) to the spots and then move individual units from that group to flank if necessary and time permitting.
Yes move into position in groups or even the whole army in one group. Once in position I have guns in one group, infantry in another and two cav groups (one on each flank or both on one flank). As needed, I break units out of their groups to use them individually. Often, you can't get units to move quickly (run) when they are grouped, so if I have to move my infantry line fast, I ungroup them. Moving fast can be critical when you are coming to the assistance of an ally who is under attack.
During setup, I place my units so that they correspond to the left to right order of the icons at the bottom. In this way, I can select the closest unit to respond to a threat even if I don't have my own units in the field of view.
Togakure
07-30-2007, 22:32
Yep, I do all of the things Puzz describes, except ungrouping my infantry line when moving quickly. They do "March Quickly" when grouped, but it seems that the speed at which they move is "lowest common denominator" --they will "March Quickly" at the rate of the slowest unit in the group. That has been my observation (but I haven't tested that mathematically). I will have to try ungrouping, but my concern is that then they will break the strict line formation. In STW this was the problem, and why I kept them grouped.
My commmon numbered groups are:
Guns/ranged line
Infantry Line
Infantry Shock if mixed unit type
Right Flank Cav
Left Flank cav
All Cav except Gen
Given Puzz's advice re: mixing unit types when engaging and splitting out, I will be trying mixed infantry subgroups too, probably left, center, and right groups.
I only use "hard" groups (non-numbered, with the bar across the top of the tabs) to move into tailored positions after moving into a general position in all-group. Of course, I use all-group to swivel my entire army if I need to while maintaining the formation the army is currently in.
The last tip Puzz offers regarding setting up from left to right in tab order is really helpful in combat. IIRC, I don't think you could do this in STW, and I really loved the feature once I made the transition to VI.
It was no oversight on my part as I dont mind the side with more players take whatever units they want. It becomes a question of quality v quantity and more asymmetrical which makes for different battles.
You had a total of 41 units v our 32 and of course had more low quality units to make up for that.
The 3 attackers fielded 14 gun units costing 3200 and got 470 kills with them. The 2 defenders fielded 9 gun units costing 2100 and got 219 kills with them. Since the attackers were able to generate twice as many kills with the guns for 1.5x the money, it worked to their advantage, and it forced the defenders to attack. I think this might be a typical outcome for 14 guns vs 9 guns. Of course, if it had rained or the battle was in trees the extra money spent on guns would have been wasted.
The last tip Puzz offers regarding setting up from left to right in tab order is really helpful in combat. IIRC, I don't think you could do this in STW, and I really loved the feature once I made the transition to VI.
Actually, you can do it in STW, but you have to buy your units in a particular order, and it's quite complicated to figure out. I've now forgotten the method, but I remember doing it.
Tomisama
07-31-2007, 03:25
I am familiar with all of the above, and use the same techniques as most of you.
Really, I found nothing new. But what I did find in going over everything you wrote, was something “major” that I have been doing "wrong" for some time now. I don’t know how long for certain, or how it crept in, but it is a self defeating practice I wont use anymore.
I don’t know how much of a difference it will make, but after we play again next weekend, I will post my discovery.
Many thanks!
You guys are the greatest :bow:
Hello Tomisama,
Perhaps you can already practice it a bit in a custom SP game or two? It already provides some feedback, you can finetune it and it becomes more natural to you when you use it online. Try the old method and your new in two identical situations.
I use custom to experiment too (manoeuvres, matchups).
Of course don't tell us (yet): if nothing else, you told us you discovered something. That will make us think twice to attack you, that alone should give you an advantage.
Togakure
07-31-2007, 14:16
A spontaneous thought: does anyone use waypoints? Or are these even available with the MTW engine? I remember trying them ages and ages ago in STW, but they didn't work as expected and desired, so I forgot about them.
Essentially you could hold a key and click several points on the map in succession, to instruct a unit or group to go to point A, then B, then C, etc.. If I remember correctly, the problem was that the units would march at normal speed from point to point, but if you wanted them to run, you'd have to issue a run command after each point, as they would return to walk speed otherwise. Facing at the destination was also an issue, iirc.
While this wouldn't be particularly useful in the heat of battle, it could be useful in the early stages of positioning, posturing, baiting, etc., and in the aftermath as the remaining stalwarts repositioned to decide the contest. My guess is that it must not work particularly well, if it's even available, because I don't see anyone talking about it. Just thought I'd ask about it to see.
A spontaneous thought: does anyone use waypoints?
I don't use them because I can almost always use straight line movement to get where I want to go. Straight line movement minimizes both fatigue and the time to move to the new position. There are situations, such as moving around obstacles, where use of waypoints is indicated, but I'm not in the habit of using them and therefore it doesn't occur to me to use them. I think I'm anxious to give a single command and then get back to my other units so that I don't get caught off guard by an enemy threat.
A spontaneous thought: does anyone use waypoints?
I do Masamune, but very rarely.
Togakure
07-31-2007, 18:21
I don't use them because I can almost always use straight line movement to get where I want to go. Straight line movement minimizes both fatigue and the time to move to the new position. There are situations, such as moving around obstacles, where use of waypoints is indicated, but I'm not in the habit of using them and therefore it doesn't occur to me to use them. I think I'm anxious to give a single command and then get back to my other units so that I don't get caught off guard by an enemy threat.
I do Masamune, but very rarely.
Sometimes in Early Game it's practical to skirt enemy flanks with CA and other cav, much like you did in the canyon battle against CBR in those replays you just posted. In a situation like that, it would be nice to use waypoints for the same reason you described--click, click, click, out of mind for a few, focus on the rest of the army. In the game last weekend (the last one, I think) where Tosa rebuffed me from his clump of trees, I was thinking as I was playing that it would be useful to have waypoints to direct my two CA and a cav unit around and behind. As it was, my direct line resulted in minor casualties and a lot of micromanagement, as I let my concern for my two CA distract me from other opportunities.
I don't think I'd use waypoints often, but if they work and I can control speed and destination facing, they might be useful in certain circumstances. I'll experiment with them in Custom SP.
Thanks for your rapid responses. :bow:
Sometimes in Early Game it's practical to skirt enemy flanks with CA and other cav, much like you did in the canyon battle against CBR in those replays you just posted. In a situation like that, it would be nice to use waypoints for the same reason you described--click, click, click, out of mind for a few, focus on the rest of the army.
Yes I was thinking of that very situation as one where waypoints could have been used to advantage. However, consider this about that situation. I was moving 3 cavalry units far away from my main body. I actually wanted them to stop at the first point to see if CBR was going to react by attacking my weakened main body. After they started forward, I was not going to be able to bring them directly back to hit CBR's flank due to the cliff. Once I was confident that he was not going to attack, I sent the 3 cav on to their deep position behind him. At that point, I have to micromanage the cav because my CA are in great danger of being killed by his YC, so I don't see waypoints as useful after arriving at the second position.
In the game last weekend (the last one, I think) where Tosa rebuffed me from his clump of trees, I was thinking as I was playing that it would be useful to have waypoints to direct my two CA and a cav unit around and behind. As it was, my direct line resulted in minor casualties and a lot of micromanagement, as I let my concern for my two CA distract me from other opportunities.
Yes they are useful so that you don't cut the corner and take casualties from ranged units, but you can do it manually with two moves and a final 3rd move to rotate and advance toward the enemy flank. You can actually do the rotation during the second move.
You can't forget about units that are moving into enemy territory using waypoints, and it does take time to set those waypoints, so your attention is drawn away from the rest of your army for a longer time while you set up the waypoints. The enemy could advance a ranged unit and shoot the units you have moving via waypoints, so you have to check them periodically anyway. The waypoints work ok if the enemy doesn't move.
A key to effective play is knowing where to look. It's a Sun Tzu axiom to know your enemy. That's partly how I decided that CBR wasn't going to attack me in that 1v1 after I moved my cav to that first position. Also, it's helpful to set the battlefield screen resolution in the game's options to the highest setting that your video card supports because you see more of the battlefield. This can be a bit trial and error because a high setting can appear to be working only to fail during a battle, but you will see an error message if that happens so you can just reduce your resolution to the next lower setting. The other thing that might happen is you get too much lag at a high resolution.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
07-31-2007, 23:45
If you know your enemey and yourself, you shall not fear a deafet....
begins something like that, and goes on alitttle bit. I got Sun Tzu Book, read it many times :-)
Anyhow,
Smaller Armies can be good, if you can pick a good army.
Togakure
08-01-2007, 00:23
... At that point, I have to micromanage the cav because my CA are in great danger of being killed by his YC, so I don't see waypoints as useful after arriving at the second position.
Yes, I agree 100%. It might be useful for initial positioning on flanks after a general position is established for the whole army, when the armies have reached that point of "face off" immediately preceding ranged war and initial skirmishes. After that, I think it would be an unacceptable risk in most situations.
Yes they are useful so that you don't cut the corner and take casualties from ranged units, but you can do it manually with two moves and a final 3rd move to rotate and advance toward the enemy flank. You can actually do the rotation during the second move.
You can't forget about units that are moving into enemy territory using waypoints, and it does take time to set those waypoints, so your attention is drawn away from the rest of your army for a longer time while you set up the waypoints. The enemy could advance a ranged unit and shoot the units you have moving via waypoints, so you have to check them periodically anyway. The waypoints work ok if the enemy doesn't move.
Here, speed of eye, reaction, control are deciding factors. Agreed that you can't "fire and forget" using waypoints. My hope is that, with practice, I could execute way points getting wide-flanking cav into general position (not attacking, but just outside attack range and ready to attack immediately) faster than having to manually direct them, allowing me to set up other areas simultaneously. If I cannot achieve this, I will not use waypoints. As far as the enemy moving--let them. Maybe that's just what I want them to do in relation to my nimble flanking distractions ... :beam:. My real focus might be elsewhere (discovery, etc.).
I have several translations of The Art of War, and of Go Rin No Sho. I delight in that each time I read them, I learn something new. Thinking one knows a thing creates barriers to further learning about that thing.
In regard to resolutions, I have a small but widescreen laptop display, set at 1280x1024 resolution, matching maximum resolution and widescreen settings in Game Options. It's been working well. The only time I get lag is when everyone else has complained of excess lag. This has been a wonderful change from my STW days, when I was playing on a less than 30 kbps connection, and 1024x768 resolution, standard width. One can never have too much screen real estate, but I reallly have little room to complain, except perhaps for the physical size of my screen.
Thanks for sharing your views. These discussions should be useful to those who are learning about MP, and SP battles too. Keep 'em coming!
Tomisama
08-02-2007, 01:03
I am familiar with all of the above, and use the same techniques as most of you.
Really, I found nothing new. But what I did find in going over everything you wrote, was something “major” that I have been doing "wrong" for some time now. I don’t know how long for certain, or how it crept in, but it is a self defeating practice I wont use anymore.
I don’t know how much of a difference it will make, but after we play again next weekend, I will post my discovery.
Many thanks!
You guys are the greatest :bow:Ok, ok, I'll come clean.
The revelation I had came from reading about the limitations of moving while grouped. As I was going down the do’s and don’ts I saw that, and to myself said “I don’t do that”.
Wrong! I do that, only didn’t realize that I was.
In Shogun days I had a rule, never to group (G) except to turn (wheel) a formation, and then be sure to ungroup (G again) before you do anything else.
The years pass, and somewhere along the line I loose my concerns about remaining grouped (G). I start leaving the whole army grouped (G), causing all units to move at the speed of the slowest. Either that, or grouping all my selection groups (Ctrl Shift # then a G), and leaving them that way. The later really only probably slowing the selected pack when different types of units were mixed, but the grouping bar it’s self itself is way too handy, and provides ease to a major pitfall.
And that is attacking while grouped.
In investigating what happens when you do this, I found out something else, but lets talk first about what happens when you do attack while grouped. So far what I have seen is that all units in the group take the mission personally. When you click on your attack target unit, all of your group try to beat a direct path to the same facing of the target, and the bunching up that is the result (thank you Master CBR). I am guessing, but this probably limits the effectiveness of your group to that of a something near a single unit.
Now here’s the kicker! If I am correct, “any” form of grouping (G, Ctrl Shift #, Ctrl Double Left Click, and Ctrl A) will have the same effect on slowing unlike units, and compressing attacks.
Can someone please verify (or un-verify) the above, or expand on the particulars that I may have wrong above. I have done what I can to do this, but time and energy are limited.
Thanks in advance:book:
If you attack with a selected group the whole group will go for just that single target. With the obvious result of bunching up that narrows your front and makes it easier for your opponent to hit your flank, as well as causing a negative combat modifier if your units become too compressed (not sure how compressed before the modifier kicks in)
As we have noticed you doing that regularly we suspected you had played too much RTW where bunching up is good :beam:
CBR
Tomisama
08-02-2007, 03:05
Two methods I intend to exploit in my journey to free myself from the group addiction. I have used both before to some success, but they have fallen by the wayside.
Most group movement is done by dragging a line so I know precisely where it ends and its facing. And if desperate I use it too for the attack, and if I have time I do the individual attacks before the line hits enemy units.
During setup, I place my units so that they correspond to the left to right order of the icons at the bottom. In this way, I can select the closest unit to respond to a threat even if I don't have my own units in the field of view.
It's funny how you can get in the habbit of doing something. Now I have to retrain :whip:
Thanks again :wink:
If you attack with a selected group the whole group will go for just that single target. With the obvious result of bunching up that narrows your front and makes it easier for your opponent to hit your flank, as well as causing a negative combat modifier if your units become too compressed (not sure how compressed before the modifier kicks in)
According to LongJohn, a man fights at half strength (-2.5 combat points) if he doesn't have 1 meter of space around him. This is the so called "squeezed too tight" combat penalty. I used to think this only happened in a gateway or on a bridge, but LongJohn clarified that it can happen anywhere. As I recall, men in a unit are spaced at approximately 1 meter, so any amount of overlapping of units is going to incur the penalty. The greater the overlap, the more men will be affected.
Tomi,
What most of us are doing when attacking with a group is clicking on the ground behind the enemy. This maintains the formation as the units advance. While the line is advancing, we look at the enemy's line to see how our units are going to matchup with the enemy units, and then give individual attack orders to each of our advancing units not only to get the charge bonus but to get advantageous matchups if possible. If I want to get there as fast as possible especially when coming to the assistance of an ally, I ungroup my units and hit ctrl R to make sure they are running. Quite often my units won't run when grouped. If your ally is getting doubled, it's quit effective if you can charge into the flank of the enemy as long as you get there before your ally breaks.
Tomisama
08-04-2007, 14:54
Tomi,
What most of us are doing when attacking with a group is clicking on the ground behind the enemy. This maintains the formation as the units advance. While the line is advancing, we look at the enemy's line to see how our units are going to matchup with the enemy units, and then give individual attack orders to each of our advancing units not only to get the charge bonus but to get advantageous matchups if possible. If I want to get there as fast as possible especially when coming to the assistance of an ally, I ungroup my units and hit ctrl R to make sure they are running. Quite often my units won't run when grouped. If your ally is getting doubled, it's quit effective if you can charge into the flank of the enemy as long as you get there before your ally breaks.
Thanks Lord Yuuki :smile:
I have used before, and will start employing past enemy position clicking.
Am also re-studying match ups, as it has been a while.
Have changed about one quarter of my army. Now using Hata General which will enable spending a little more money on sword infantry.
With a re-awarness of grouping foilbles, I may be able to hold my own a bit better.
Cya Sunday :2thumbsup:
Tomisama
08-04-2007, 23:18
Connection Speeds
In our conversation online last Sunday concerning internet connection speeds, I got my Ethernet and Internet mixed up :oops:
My Ethernet is Gigabit, and Internet is up to 10 Megabits per second download speed.
According to the advertisements, that’s 6 times faster than 1.5 DSL and 170 times faster than Dial-up, where we all started.
Now that I got that straight, I started thinking about our 4v4 games, and that we might have a wide variation of connection speeds. As already has mentioned, maybe we can work around some slower connections by having some smaller games.
Is there anyone playing with a weaker connection, or older computer? The thing is that we need to know who has what, so we can adjust our battles accordingly. I believe that for all us, that would be no problem. We just want to play, and have as many others playing as we can get :yes:
What cha ya got?
You can check your connection speed with the speed tests at speakeasy (http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/). You have to choose a server for the test. The closest one will probably give the highest speed, but it's my understanding that GameSpy server is on the USA west coast.
Using the New York server I get 6 Mbps download and 360 Kbps upload speed. Using the Seattle, Washington server I get 1.5 Mbps download and 360 Kbps upload speed. The San Francisco, CA and Los Angeles, CA servers give the same result. Even for the faster server, my 10 Mbps ethernet card (NIC) is still adequate.
R'as al Ghul
08-05-2007, 14:35
Connection Speeds
Is there anyone playing with a weaker connection, or older computer? The thing is that we need to know who has what, so we can adjust our battles accordingly. I believe that for all us, that would be no problem. We just want to play, and have as many others playing as we can get :yes:
What cha ya got?
I have a 6029/580 kBit/s connection , 2 Ghz CPU, 2 Gb RAM and a 256 MB GPU.
Tomisama
08-05-2007, 14:52
Interesting stuff!
Chicago and New York (I am near Chicago) were about the same with a 10 Meg download. San Francisco and L.A. were respectively 8 and 7 Meg down, and uploads were the same everywhere, at close around 950k.
I am sure everyone with DSL or cable is fine, though it is interesting to study the numbers :yes:
Another thought or two.
If you are sharing a connection with other active computers, or sharing operations with other active programs (downloading anything), virtually any programs running that might interfere with game data transfers, please shut them down (most communication programs should be ok for mid and higher end users :wink: ).
And please everyone “always” re-log between battles, and reboot the game if the last battle did not complete properly. I believe these are just good habits that most players practice. So common to everyone that we think they do not need to be mentioned. But people forget, and if no one tells the new players, how will they ever know.
:bow:
Togakure
08-05-2007, 16:24
2v2 has always been my favorite game, so playing smaller battles in that respect would be fine with me.
I'm not very enthusiastic about regularly taking less than 16 units per player. That changes the dynamic of play a bit too much for me. I don't mind doing it once in a while to balance out an odd number of players though.
My test results using the LA, SF, and NYC servers were pretty much the same: 28.7 mbps download and 7.3 mbps upload. I use Verizon DSL service, and connect directly atm, not via wireless.
I play on a 1.8 Duo laptop with 2GB memory, 256MB video card (Nvidia GO 7300), and a 7200 RPM HD. It can run Oblivion, so I don't think I should be having any issues with MTW1.
Tomisama
08-05-2007, 16:33
You can check your connection speed with the speed tests at speakeasy (http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/). You have to choose a server for the test. The closest one will probably give the highest speed, but it's my understanding that GameSpy server is on the USA west coast.
Follow up:
GameSpy seems to be in Santa Clara California, USA. These signals do not go direct however. The path from my home computer went to Chicago first, then Denver, San Francisco, then to Santa Clara. Even with all that, the ping was under 200ms.
You can check yours using www.pingplotter.com free software download.
Now, GameSpy “does not” handle the game it’s self, to my best knowledge they are only responsible for the lobby. When the game starts, the host’s computer becomes the server for the duration of the battle, passing everyone back to GameSpy when it’s over.
So if you have login problems or get dropped out side of the game, it’s GameSpy. But if you are having difficulty in a game, that is between your computer and the game host’s computer, directly!
Therefore, game hosts should have the very best in equipment and connection whenever possible. And don’t forget the insertion of “ –strictserver” in your desktop shortcut to the game exec file (only hosts need this). This makes sure all players in a particular battle are playing the same game (very very important) :yes:
P.S. Vista users may not be able to add strictserver, at least I can not so far :wall:
R'as al Ghul
08-06-2007, 11:02
I've been thinking about the connection issues we had and came across this:
WinXP SP2 reduces the number of half-open TCP connections your PC can establish to 10 or lower (XP Home=5, XP Prof.=10). Info here (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314053) (English) and here (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314053/de)(German). For info on Vista (http://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/Network-Tweak/TCP-IP-Limit-AutoPatch.shtml).
These are Gamespy ports:
6667 (IRC)
3783 (Voice Chat Port)
27900 (Master Server UDP Heartbeat)
28900 (Master Server List Request)
29900 (GP Connection Manager)
29901 (GP Search Manager)
13139 (Custom UDP Pings)
6515 (Dplay UDP)
6500 (Query Port)
Medieval VI uses port 18322 on TCP and UDP.
When we play 4v4 battles, each machine keeps the connection to Gamespy and the other players, that's 1 server and 7 player-machines that you connect to. That means that your machine needs alone 7 TCP-connections to keep in touch with the players and at least 5 more to keep in touch with gamespy (rest seems to be UDP). This may exceed the number of allowed connections for your machine. Additionally you have to calculate MSN or Teamspeak connections into this.
You can change the max number of connections by manually editing the registry, by using the latest XP-AntiSpy or perhaps TCP/IP-Optimizer.
We should discuss this and I'll try to find out more about it.
This may well be totally irrelevant since there are different kinds of TCP/IP connections and I don't know enough about the topic.
There is a way to tell whether your daily networking activities are being affected by the patch. Each time your computer tries to establish more than 10 half-open connections, a system event will be logged in Windows.
EventID 4226: TCP/IP has reached the security limit imposed on the number of concurrent TCP connect attempts
Access the event viewer by Start / Control Panel / Administrative Tools / Event Viewer / System. Sort by Event and scroll down to 4226.
Those who dropped yesterday, could you check this, please?
Opinions?
R'as
Hello R'as al Ghul,
Not yesterday, but it has happened and I should certainly edit this.
There is a whole cascade of errors: ranging from sound to network.
Tomisama
08-06-2007, 12:33
Great work Lord Ras :bow:
I'm on Vista, and looking at 4226, I have zero entries.
But I did not get droped yesterday, I was forced to quit. My game stoped working twice, with no chat comunication, had a cursor movement but no field position marker, and loosing music playing in the back ground. Although I was still looking at the battlefield, my game was over before it had even begun :dizzy2:
This happend with the first 2 team games. I then played two 1v1 games with Lord Tosa, and the rest of the day with various teams with no problems.
R'as al Ghul
08-06-2007, 12:40
Hello R'as al Ghul,
Not yesterday, but it has happened and I should certainly edit this.
There is a whole cascade of errors: ranging from sound to network.
Great work Lord Ras :bow:
I'm on Vista, and looking at 4226, I have zero entries.
But I did not get droped yesterday, I was forced to quit.
If we can rule this out in the end that's good, too.
My main theory is that GS is :furious3: up.
But we did have some fun with your army after you quit Tomi. They joined me on the hill and covered my flank. Then Yuuki routed them while I attacked CBR and when they routed through me all units ran off the field. :laugh4:
Good to hear that it worked for you in the end but for me it was a bit frustrating, I only managed to get into one game that played okay till the end.
R'as
Togakure
08-06-2007, 14:29
Hi there. Nice research, R'as--so thorough and well-communicated. I use WinXp Media Center w/SP2, which is essentially Home with bells and whistles. I'm at the office, but will look into this when I'm home.
I'm also going to bite the bullet and set myself up to host. Yuuki has advised me and pointed me at information (some of which you have included here as well), so I think I have enough to get started.
Despite the technical issues and drubbings, I had a good time yesterday. Thanks all. :bow:
***
EDIT: Home now. No such errors in my Event Log for yesterday. There are two 4226 events logged since I've had this computer, neither occurring on a Samurai Warlords Sunday.
Based on what I've read, it's "...the number of concurrent, incomplete outbound TCP connection attempts ..." that are limited, not your total connections.
Here's an excerpt from the Windows Help and Support Center:
Details
Product: Windows Operating System
ID: 4226
Source: Tcpip
Version: 5.2
Symbolic Name: EVENT_TCPIP_TCP_CONNECT_LIMIT_REACHED
Message: TCP/IP has reached the security limit imposed on the number of concurrent (incomplete) TCP connect attempts.
Explanation
The TCP/IP stack in Windows XP with Service Pack 2 (SP2) installed limits the number of concurrent, incomplete outbound TCP connection attempts. When the limit is reached, subsequent connection attempts are put in a queue and resolved at a fixed rate so that there are only a limited number of connections in the incomplete state. During normal operation, when programs are connecting to available hosts at valid IP addresses, no limit is imposed on the number of connections in the incomplete state. When the number of incomplete connections exceeds the limit, for example, as a result of programs connecting to IP addresses that are not valid, connection-rate limitations are invoked, and this event is logged.
Establishing connection–rate limitations helps to limit the speed at which malicious programs, such as viruses and worms, spread to uninfected computers. Malicious programs often attempt to reach uninfected computers by opening simultaneous connections to random IP addresses. Most of these random addresses result in failed connections, so a burst of such activity on a computer is a signal that it may have been infected by a malicious program.
Connection-rate limitations may cause certain security tools, such as port scanners, to run more slowly.
...
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
08-08-2007, 14:28
I like 3v3's more. you got one in the middle, one on your right, one on your left, and that's it :-).
Originally posted by Tosainu
Hello,
It isn't easy, but you can do a few things to make it easier for yourself. And yes, less units can mean less headache *.
Make groups and supgroups, learn a system, so you can do something even in the most chaotic heat of battle.
My defensive infantry (ys, ya and ni), is 'always' CONTROL SHIFT 1. The gunners are always group 0, a second and third infantry missile group are group 9 and 8. The left wing shock units are group 3, the right wing are group 4.
The whole infantry stack is group 2, so I can move them all at the same time, that sometimes includes the taisho.
Cavalry is group 5. It's possible to modify a bit when using special armies, but best is to keep it the same and get used to it.
May i ask further in detail about the control+shift+number for controlling a group selection? How such a grouping is made? It wastes me considerable time in the heat of the battle to ungroup the main infantry line (so itmoves at individual unit speeds) and after having moved it to take up its units one by one with clicks in the control panel in order to move them again. Such a thing would allow for much improved infantry maneuvers.
Can such subgroups coexist mixed? ie make a group say of 4 of your infantrywith another with 3 of your infantry that contains two of the first one.
Thanks in advance
Noir
May i ask further in detail about the control+shift+number for controlling a group selection? How such a grouping is made?
The group is made with control+shift+number and recalled with control+number.
Can such subgroups coexist mixed? ie make a group say of 4 of your infantry and another with 3 of your infantry that contains two of the first one.
Yes.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.