View Full Version : No further patches for M2TW or Kingdoms
guyfawkes5
10-14-2007, 20:05
Linkage (http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/reply/296124#reply-296124)
Caliban (CA)[/color]"]There are no plans for a patch at the moment.
Opinions?
General_Sun
10-21-2007, 07:40
It's a travesty.
tibilicus
10-21-2007, 14:10
They have made there money.
They don't need to care now. Well in there opinion.
Tib
There probably will be a mini-patch. so far, CA has not deviated from the 1 patch per release/expansion. But then again, I didn't follow what happened to R:TW/IB or R:TW:Alex.
Annie
pike master
11-09-2007, 06:36
maybe a patch for kingdoms but i fear the grand campaign will be left to wallow in its bugged condition.
Philosophically speaking it would take them maybe a day or two perhaps..? to combine the 4 crusade games into one. The entire mp community would then probably switch to kingdoms and leave the (still very buggy) vanilla medi behind.
But hey.. they won't do anything so lets keep dreaming shall we..:drama3:
Wolf_Kyolic
11-20-2007, 03:34
Philosophically speaking it would take them maybe a day or two perhaps..? to combine the 4 crusade games into one. :
Unfortunately not, because campaign does not allow that. Sad but true.
Yet I still do not understand why the community does not move to Crusades. It is much better than the vanilla in any sense yet people still prefer the vanilla.
Community became noobs after Wolves became inactive??
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-20-2007, 04:18
Unfortunately not, because campaign does not allow that. Sad but true.
Yet I still do not understand why the community does not move to Crusades. It is much better than the vanilla in any sense yet people still prefer the vanilla.
Community became noobs after Wolves became inactive??
Well I didn't buy Crusades, because if MT2W wasn't like I thought, why would Crusades be any better?, nor do I play MTW2 anymore.
Or....
Why doesn't people move back to RTW? Only reason people are staying on MT2W in my opinion is that it's used mainly for tournments. Just like BI was used mostly for tournments when alot of people (including myself,stll somewhat am) are active in RTW. Then when ETW comes out, RTW will become like MTW in a way, a game where all the "old vetreans" (old vets of RTW) would return to for Tournment games, while the STW/MTW vets would mostly do orginnal MTW for tournments.
If you Wolves don't like MT2W, you can always play SW Beta 5 :beam: (Hey,Grizzly did! :yes: )
With M2TW another disappointment, this non-wolf noob decided to stay out of M2TW/K. I played M2TW on single player (for about 2 weeks) and M2TW/K is still in the box uninstalled.
The decision to go back to play MTW/VI with Samurai Warlords mod speaks volume of the situation :laugh4:
Annie
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
11-20-2007, 12:00
We play also MTW VI without mods every friday evening/night (GMT). It is the last game, I still play ATM. It is still alot of fun in contrast to some other games :laugh4:
Yet I still do not understand why the community does not move to Crusades. It is much better than the vanilla in any sense yet people still prefer the vanilla.
The new multiplayer community is not using the gameplay of the STW/MTW battle engine as their basis of comparison, and are not aware of the tactical features of that engine. They come from some other gameplay system which doesn't have those features. So, to them the new RTW/M2TW battle engine is an improvement over what they were playing before, but it can be shown with objective testing that it's actually inferior in tactical features to the older STW/MTW battle engine.
Another thing these new players and some vets don't understand is that having a huge number of unit types degrades the gameplay because the gameplay becomes overly complex which undermines tactical decisions being the main determining factor of the battle's outcome. The outcome is determine more by what units you buy than by how you use the units. We saw this happen in MTW with the huge increase in the number of unit types. In an attempt to restore tactics and playbalance, more and more hidden bonuses are being used for various units in the new engine, but this technique emphasizes matchup tactics while maneuver tactics diminish in importance.
The increase of the randomization of combat results in the RTW/M2TW battle engine, due to using a less robust mathematical modeling in the simulation, is another factor that works against tactical decisions determining the battle's outcome.
The degradation of the unit sprites in the new engine also works against a player's ability to clearly see the units when zoomed out which adversly impacts the player's ability to make correct tactical decisions.
The simplification of the battle interface in the new engine reduces the player's options for tactical control and maneuver of his army.
Empires will be better... *ha ha*
Seriously they promised.. but then again they also promised that medi 2 would have an aweome mp part.. and then crusades.. which actually has but nobody plays it because you have to wait 2 hours to find an opponent who plays the same mode.:dizzy2:
Wolf_Kyolic
11-21-2007, 15:25
Another thing these new players and some vets don't understand is that having a huge number of unit types degrades the gameplay because the gameplay becomes overly complex which undermines tactical decisions being the main determining factor of the battle's outcome. The outcome is determine more by what units you buy than by how you use the units. We saw this happen in MTW with the huge increase in the number of unit types. In an attempt to restore tactics and playbalance, more and more hidden bonuses are being used for various units inh the new engine, but this technique emphasizes matchup tactics while maneuver tactics diminish in importance.
True.
Jacob Debroedere
11-21-2007, 16:12
I moved from age of empires 3 to RTW a few months ago and I was astonished by it's tactical depth(you don't know what crappy gameplay is if you haven't seen cuirassiers surviving direct hits from artillery, or never missing musketeers).
I was in doubt whether M2TW was worth buying it or not, when a friend of mine told me that if I wanted to play real strategy I should get MTW. The no further patching policy of M2TW/Kingdoms is just another motivation to search Ebay for a copy of MTW.
Wolf_Kyolic
11-21-2007, 22:01
MTW did not have as much exploits as RTW or MTW2 had so you if you were to beat a good player, the only way was to build and establish a tactic. You cannot just click behind oponents army and win in MTW like you can in RTW or even in MTW2. RPS (rock-scissors-paper) logic was obvious there so you had to watch every single unit charging to the right spot. It was sort of like chess. A single mistake and you knew you lost. Even before the engagament.
For example your oponent shoots 6 of your men in an infantry unit during the missle battle (yes there was such a thing in the past...missle battle) and you do know that this unit will route when you engage (I don't mean instantly... Just after a while). We used to mouseover and calculate the oponents combat points of the unit and compare to our own unit which would engage it and charge acording to that data. If oponent has got an 30 combat inf (attack+defence) your 27 combat one looses and nothing changes that. In RTW however, your 20 combat halved inf can route a 30 combat full unit and god knows how and why.
This changed a loooooot in MTW2? I do not think so. Better than RTW but still a lot of random sh*t is happening and you never know why. Much better than RTW but not as good as MTW (btw that random stuff used to happen in MTW too but it was called "luck factor" and its margins were not beyond acceptable limits...never and ever).
MTW was all about interpreting the game mechanics in a proper way and achieving a good amount of skills to conclude them in an efficient way and at that point creating some cunning tactics to outsmart the enemy.
RTW is all about bringing the most overpowered units to the field and clicking really fast. LMAO!
Now MTW2 is all about saving your cavs somehow and when you have the oppurtunity, flanking and disengaging and hitting again and disenagaging again and hitting again and so on until you can route a unit. LOL.
In MTW you had to do that once and you had the unit routing and most probably it would chain route the rest if that was a good rear flank. But to find that oppurtunity was not so simple because the engagement was perfectly estimated before the battle since things were not random at all and that spare cav of yours which is supposed to flank after a while could cost you the game because it was about maths as I stated above and the enemy would break your line with the extra 30 combat points he fielded into battle long before you decide about flanking from right or left with that spare cav. :)
This is how MTW2 is played now. ALL the games are the same. ALL:
1- No need for missle battle. Waste of time. Only bring troops which can melee. Don't forget to bring 3 horse archers because they do well if you flank with them and you can EVEN shoot a few volleys.
2- Advance cavs and click on enemy infantry line because cavs eat inf for breakfast now. Brilliant CA Devs decided that way.
3- The only way for oponent to stop that is to counter charge his cav to yours (nope spears won't work either) but don't worry you will pull your cavs back (disengage) after the engagement anyway.
4- When cavs engage in front of infantry line (!) double click your inf behind enemy. When they engage pull cav back.
5- Now this is critical! If you are good at pulling your cavs back, the battle is yours. Disengage as much cavs as possible and flank with them (in and out...hit -pull back, hit -pull back...again and again). While doing that always keep an eye on the rest of the cavs so that you can disengage a few more and send to flanks. And don't worry they won't route because you disengaged. This is not MTW. Things are limber now.
6- Well done. You have skills!
LMAO
Well I sure as hell miss playing MP, but what to do. It's been years now and we now it's not getting better.
There's again no good MP strategy game out there (that I know of) except HOI2:DD, but that does'nt have any battle engine. SImple map, simple units but excellent MP.
Well I sure as hell miss playing MP, but what to do.
Samurai Wars. It's free.
"It must be said, I forgot how much fun TW can and should be. Thanks for reminding me. ;)" - Tempiic 19Nov2007
Sold. Going to install it very shortly.
Wolf_Kyolic
11-22-2007, 14:56
Last night I talked to CBR on Msn. I am gonna install it as soon as I find my cd key.
R'as al Ghul
11-22-2007, 15:02
Last night I talked to CBR on Msn. I am gonna install it as soon as I find my cd key.
Sold. Going to install it very shortly.
Way to go, guys! :2thumbsup:
We're looking forward to new players (as in new to Samwars).
:bow:
R'as
Hunter KIng George
11-22-2007, 15:55
Last night I talked to CBR on Msn. I am gonna install it as soon as I find my cd key.
Awesome! The hunt is on...Hunt or be Hunted! :2thumbsup:
Jochi Khan
11-22-2007, 16:13
Sold. Going to install it very shortly.
Last night I talked to CBR on Msn. I am gonna install it as soon as I find my cd key.
Using Beta5 install for MP. Check out Puzz3D sig. for information.
The Sunday Samurai Warlords battlefield gets even bigger.
:bow:
Great, thanks. :bow:
Kyolic, are you in touch with Kanuni ? If so, and if he's still gaming might be a good idea to ask him to check it out.
Wolf_Kyolic
11-22-2007, 19:34
Sinan Kanu will be back when he gets Kingoms. He has MTW2 but not Kingdoms. It won't take long I guess. May be next week. When he is back I will make him install Samwars don't worry. :)
Hunter KIng George
11-22-2007, 19:59
Maybe you can kidnap Kansuke and Drifta...I played with them on the original Shogun on the fakeserver earlier this year. Maybe they want to give the mod a try as well. :yes:
This is how MTW2 is played now. ALL the games are the same. ALL:
1- No need for missle battle. Waste of time. Only bring troops which can melee. Don't forget to bring 3 horse archers because they do well if you flank with them and you can EVEN shoot a few volleys.
2- Advance cavs and click on enemy infantry line because cavs eat inf for breakfast now. Brilliant CA Devs decided that way.
3- The only way for oponent to stop that is to counter charge his cav to yours (nope spears won't work either) but don't worry you will pull your cavs back (disengage) after the engagement anyway.
4- When cavs engage in front of infantry line (!) double click your inf behind enemy. When they engage pull cav back.
5- Now this is critical! If you are good at pulling your cavs back, the battle is yours. Disengage as much cavs as possible and flank with them (in and out...hit -pull back, hit -pull back...again and again). While doing that always keep an eye on the rest of the cavs so that you can disengage a few more and send to flanks. And don't worry they won't route because you disengaged. This is not MTW. Things are limber now.
6- Well done. You have skills!
LMAO
Pretty much everything you mentioned above is fixed in kingdoms. Seriously, the kingdom balance is pretty good.
But nobody plays it :juggle2:
Wolf_Kyolic
11-23-2007, 16:21
I know Denali. Crusades is pretty good but noone plays it.
Actually we cannot blame them because CA released Kingdoms as four seperate games and each one has got 5-6 factions in it where mtw has a lot more than that. Why should people limit themselves to 5 factions?
I cannot believe CA. They always but always have to demonstare a **** up all the time. Always! It is like they have a **** up department and devs have to consult there for the new **** ups.
Dev: Hi John we are almost ready to finish the game can I please have the list of **** ups to add?
John (head of **** up department): Hmm ok... Make it 4 separate exe files.
Dev: That is all?
John (head of **** up department): That would be enough for now. We are busy with ETW **** ups so we could not find any more but we will have many good ones for ETW do not worry.
Dev: Cool.
...
R'as al Ghul
11-23-2007, 16:36
:laugh4: :wall: :laugh4: :wall:
Jochi Khan
11-23-2007, 18:52
I know Denali. Crusades is pretty good but noone plays it.
Actually we cannot blame them because CA released Kingdoms as four seperate games and each one has got 5-6 factions in it where mtw has a lot more than that. Why should people limit themselves to 5 factions?
I cannot believe CA. They always but always have to demonstare a **** up all the time. Always! It is like they have a **** up department and devs have to consult there for the new **** ups.
Dev: Hi John we are almost ready to finish the game can I please have the list of **** ups to add?
John (head of **** up department): Hmm ok... Make it 4 separate exe files.
Dev: That is all?
John (head of **** up department): That would be enough for now. We are busy with ETW **** ups so we could not find any more but we will have many good ones for ETW do not worry.
Dev: Cool.
...
:laugh4: :wall: :laugh4: :wall:
Exactly. :yes:
lol..:2thumbsup:
well maybe we can convince Mark here (http://www.clancommunityshield.net/castle/fields-of-battle/p44631-kingdoms-update/#post44631). But i doubt it when looking at all the comments from certain users.
But then again constructive criticism was give several times in the past and i haven't noticed any improvements as of yet.
Man I'd really love to say something positive (mp-wise, sp is awesome) but somehow they make it impossible.:dizzy2:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-23-2007, 22:51
They don't care about MP. how long will it take before we realize that??
MobileTroop
11-25-2007, 17:51
But I guess that is standed... Leave a Unfinised product go and don't fix it to the fullest :dizzy2:
We can officially close this thread: they announced there will be patch for Kingdom on www.totalwar.com.
Annie
Samurai mod here I come. Everything after VI has been a pile of C**p as far as MP is concerned.
God!!!! we used to think MTW/VI had balance issues...well CA really proved us wrong there. They showed us the real meaning of balance by removing it totally for all future TW releases.
Genius........if it doesn't exist we can't moan about it.
See you in Samurai Worlords
Be gentle with me Mizu's
Wolf_Kyolic
11-29-2007, 14:31
Genius........if it doesn't exist we can't moan about it.
Hehe we all think CA Devs are silly but you see they sometimes come with practical solutions! :surrender2:
I really want to play samwars but cannot find my mtw cd key. :(
R'as al Ghul
11-29-2007, 14:57
I really want to play samwars but cannot find my mtw cd key. :(
Hello Kyolic,
you've a PM.
MizuRas
Jochi Khan
11-29-2007, 15:34
Samurai mod here I come. Everything after VI has been a pile of C**p as far as MP is concerned.
See you in Samurai Warlords
Hi Nem
All new samurais will be made welcome :bow:
I really want to play samwars but cannot find my mtw cd key. :(
Hi Kyolic
It is your VI cd key you need not your MTW cd key. :bow:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-29-2007, 15:41
Samurai mod here I come. Everything after VI has been a pile of C**p as far as MP is concerned.
God!!!! we used to think MTW/VI had balance issues...well CA really proved us wrong there. They showed us the real meaning of balance by removing it totally for all future TW releases.
Genius........if it doesn't exist we can't moan about it.
See you in Samurai Worlords
Be gentle with me Mizu's
Since I will be on Sunday Also, I should say, go easy on me to Nem, I'm old and sucky :laugh4:
But I guess that is standed... Leave a Unfinised product go and don't fix it to the fullest :dizzy2:
This company has problems writing network code. STW, MTW, RTW and M2TW have all had network coding problems, but what's strange is that these networking problems have been getting worse with each new game in the series. In the first three games they fixed most of the network problems. M2TW is different in that CA has announced it isn't going to try to fix the network code.
Samurai mod here I come.
The learning curve is quite fast with Samurai Wars especially if you have played STW. The mod emphasizes playbalance and combined arms gameplay using the most tactically sophisticated and statistically robust battle engine of the Total War series. Right now we only have a few people who play Samurai Wars MP on Sundays, so we just play for fun with mixed teams.
It's good to see and hear from quality players.
The learning curve will indeed be fast Puzz, fast and steep if the quality of players is anything to go by:dizzy2:
MobileTroop
11-29-2007, 23:43
Where can I get this mod at?
Jochi Khan
11-30-2007, 01:05
Hello Mobile Troop
Where can I get this mod at?
You will need a clean install of MTW plus Viking Invasion plus Patch v2.01 plus the downloads shown in Puzz3D's signature (at the bottom of his post.)
For more information read Here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=90547)
This is how MTW2 is played now. ALL the games are the same. ALL:
1- No need for missle battle. Waste of time. Only bring troops which can melee. Don't forget to bring 3 horse archers because they do well if you flank with them and you can EVEN shoot a few volleys.
2- Advance cavs and click on enemy infantry line because cavs eat inf for breakfast now. Brilliant CA Devs decided that way.
3- The only way for oponent to stop that is to counter charge his cav to yours (nope spears won't work either) but don't worry you will pull your cavs back (disengage) after the engagement anyway.
4- When cavs engage in front of infantry line (!) double click your inf behind enemy. When they engage pull cav back.
5- Now this is critical! If you are good at pulling your cavs back, the battle is yours. Disengage as much cavs as possible and flank with them (in and out...hit -pull back, hit -pull back...again and again). While doing that always keep an eye on the rest of the cavs so that you can disengage a few more and send to flanks. And don't worry they won't route because you disengaged. This is not MTW. Things are limber now.
Pretty much everything you mentioned above is fixed in kingdoms. Seriously, the kingdom balance is pretty good.
But nobody plays it :juggle2:
Are you sure about that Denali? I gave in an installed kingdoms for a little try and started a crusades campaign. Now I know AI sucks, but even with the morale bonus they got at very hard (they get such things yes?), the 5-step program of kyolic seems to work too well. It's not even funny anymore.
Well the AI was never a real challenge in the total war series imo. However playing human opponents is a huge difference. I didn't play kingdoms for very long but the balance is far better than it is in vanilla. It's not perfect, that would be almost impossible but its very decent and people don't rush anymore and people use missiles. Try to play vanilla as it is now. Without a rush army or with archers or xbowmen you already lost.
Sounds good, I'll give it a try after they actually patch it :p (one single foyer for everyone).
Annie
About kingdoms balance:
Now that missile battles are important,
there are new unbalances :thumbsdown:
First of all pavise crossbowmen make hacked meat out of archers costing more than themselves.
Second: the same is for mounted crossbowmen vs other HA, also melleeing is no option for the other HA because the MC are so fast :no:
Third: that combined with crossbowmen ammo lasting longer is a game killer for non-pav. crossbow factions.
Fourth: (This has been since 1.0 but wasnt important) the winner of the missile battle has to attack because he has more men left to shoot away the remaining ammo faster. But still winning missile battle with xbows vs archers makes xbows having MORE ammo left.
Any opinions on that? it has been since 1.2 with crossbowmen being superior, they havnt fixed it, and its so easy to make out, is it because CA have european culture or something?
Thats what I think is one of the few things left in kingdoms that makes battles won by the part with the most overpowered units...
L
Orda Khan
12-02-2007, 18:30
About kingdoms balance:
Now that missile battles are important,
there are new unbalances :thumbsdown:
First of all pavise crossbowmen make hacked meat out of archers costing more than themselves.
Second: the same is for mounted crossbowmen vs other HA, also melleeing is no option for the other HA because the MC are so fast :no:
Third: that combined with crossbowmen ammo lasting longer is a game killer for non-pav. crossbow factions.
Fourth: (This has been since 1.0 but wasnt important) the winner of the missile battle has to attack because he has more men left to shoot away the remaining ammo faster. But still winning missile battle with xbows vs archers makes xbows having MORE ammo left.
Any opinions on that? it has been since 1.2 with crossbowmen being superior, they havnt fixed it, and its so easy to make out, is it because CA have european culture or something?
Thats what I think is one of the few things left in kingdoms that makes battles won by the part with the most overpowered units...
L
Sounds like nothing much has changed. These are points that were present in MTW, Pavs were overpowered back then too.
Don't forget that Mounted Crossbows also possess CC ability :laugh4: I'd love to see someone actually try to do this. It seems to be an unnecessary advantage to offer European factions who already possess a measureable advantage with overpowered pavs. If HA are a threat and a nuisance to European factions, that's how it was!
The east/west balance is still broken.......since MTW
.......Orda
Greetings friends,
some of you may remember me from the time I was active in MTW/VI. Sadly, when RTW came out it was a big step backwards in terms of Mulitplayer, so eventually I stopped playing and moved on to different things.
Reading this thread I get the impression that things have not changed much and that there is not a great MP community around M2TW.
Well, I dont want to start moaning. Just want to say hi to a few old friends and if MTW/VI is still beeing played, I may drop by there on occasion to have some fun.
:clown:
Best wishes,
Nigel
[/QUOTE]Don't forget that Mounted Crossbows also possess CC ability[/QUOTE]
OK I admit i'm a noob, whats CC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantabrian_circle
Sounds like nothing much has changed. These are points that were present in MTW, Pavs were overpowered back then too.
Don't forget that Mounted Crossbows also possess CC ability :laugh4: I'd love to see someone actually try to do this. It seems to be an unnecessary advantage to offer European factions who already possess a measureable advantage with overpowered pavs. If HA are a threat and a nuisance to European factions, that's how it was!
The east/west balance is still broken.......since MTW
.......Orda
Whats so special with CC? Most HA have it...
Orda Khan
12-03-2007, 17:00
Whats so special with CC? Most HA have it...
The ability to gallop on horseback whilst drawing, nocking and firing arrows, to the front, side and backwards (Parthian shot).
I'd love to see some guy with a crossbow do that.
Nigel
Good to see you again. I still remember some very good battles back in the day.
I believe VI is still being played, mainly on Fridays and Sundays
......Orda
True, lol, Id love see a man with a crossbow even do a parthian shot, especially the reloading.(also europeans were not skilled horseacrhers, if someone should do it than not one of them)
Even using a crossbow on a horse would mean it would loose its superiority, as the superirity of a crossbow against a bow is its greater power and that its doesnt require much skill to use it well. Because to fell a horse you dont need a bolt, due to horses mostly being unarmored, also a crossbow usable on a horse cant be mor powerful than a bow, a crossbow on a horse only gives disadvantages: slower reload rate, same strenghth.
The thing with that its easier to use also sais against something: Having skilled elite crossbowmen isnt worth it, because a skilled archer easily beats a skilled crossbowman with less expensive equipment(bow, arrovs vs crossbow, bolts)
So elite crossbowmen are unlikely and that means the mounted crossbowmen are probably wealthy militia, what also even more disproves them doing a parthian shot.
I think CA have understood the crossbow invention wrong.
To a bow its not an invention like a musket to an arquebus, its more like an aoutomatic gear system to a manual one.
What I mean is that its not an improvement, its an equal, more expensive but in some areas more useful simpilfier.
For a bad driver the automatic gear is better because than he can use it better and focus on other things but the manual gear has greater potential.
This is what I mean:
Peasant crossbowman beats peasant archer
Militia crossbowman beats militia archer
Medium crossbowman is equal to Medium archer
Elite archer beats Elite crossbowman
The strengths of a crossbow is the greater power that means its mor useul vs armor, and that its easy to use and better than a bow when used by a unskilled marksman.
The strenghts of a bow are that its cheaper, fires faster and if used by a skilled marksman better than a skilled marksman with a crossbow.
Weaknesses of xbows: More expensive weapon and ammo, higher weight, slow reload, difficult to repair.
Weaknesses of bows: Less power, good bows take long time to make and an unskilled shooter isnt good with it in comparision to a crossbow.
L
I think CA have understood the crossbow invention wrong.
They haven't misunderstood anything. As they said during RTW, they make the game to satisfy the expectations of the general public, and that their focus is not on realism and the game isn't a history lesson. Those are the reasons they gave during RTW for why hoplites use their spear underhanded instead of overhanded, why units moved so fast, why rocks explode into fireballs, why elephants throw men 150 feet through the air, why men and horses incinerate in 5 seconds, why the Egyptians were 1000 years off, why chariots are faster than men on horses and why horses could jump over the spears of a phalanx, etc. It's done in the name of fun, and the underlying quality of the simulation was allowed to deteriorate since MTW since the casual player isn't going to notice it. They even put in Sonic the Hedgehog stars appearing over units that get powerups in RTW/BI. A concession was made to realism since you can turn off the stars, but unfortunately you can't turn off the powerup itself. This is strange because in MTW/VI multiplayer powerups were removed by CA after players requested it. So, somebody at CA (LongJohn) thought it was a good idea to turn them off.
I don't know how Cantabrian Circle is implemented in M2TW, but it's extreme in RTW. A unit of 40 horse archers in CC could wipe out a unit of 60 foot archers while only loosing 1 or 2 men.
So the expections of the general public are crossbowmen owning archers?
Most of what I said there was just a standpoint in realism, the point was to say that cheap crossbowman shouldnt beat elite archers...
Jochi Khan
12-03-2007, 23:28
Hello Nigel
A long time since we met on the battlefield.
Yes, MTW/VI is being played by a small number of players on Friday and Sunday evenings. There are sometimes players in the Foyer on other evenings too.
So the expections of the general public are crossbowmen owning archers?
I would think so because crossbows are perceived to be the more advanced technology, so in a simple minded way of thinking crossbows beat archers. How is it with guns vs crossbows? Did they do the same thing?
In Samurai Wars we have guns and archers, and the guns do not blow away the archers even though it covers a time period well after the end of M2TW. Both weapons have the realistic reload times and statistical effectiveness chosen by CA over 7 years ago (with the exception of one gun type which we made 50% stronger), and they work out fine with a nice pace to the battles. Starting with RTW, CA moved away from keeping reload time and movement rates to a realistic scale. They now treat reload time and movement speed as arbitrary variables.
No the crossbow is less versatile, and isnt 4x as powerful as a bow as the reload time.
What you say is that all racing cars should have an automatic gearbox because thats the newest, most advanced technology, it is but it doesnt mean its better if you can use the other one right its better.
In TW also the firing rate for crossbows is unrealistic.
You know the crossbow came from china? Before it was improved in europe it went over many lands, and when europeans fought in areas using bows, why didnt they start using crossbows? The places in the east were actually more tchnologically advanced that europe.
Can you tell me why english longbowmen always beat french crossbowmen?
Early guns vs Crossbows: I think crossbows would win due to greater range.
Early guns vs Archers: Archers should win due to greater firing rate and range
In TW also the firing rate for crossbows is unrealistic.
Creative Assembly wants it to be unrealistic.
Can you tell me why english longbowmen always beat french crossbowmen?
I don't know the projectile stats in M2TW.
hellenes
12-04-2007, 15:46
SEGA wants it to be unrealistic.
I don't know the projectile stats in M2TW.
There is no CA...
Jack Lusted
12-04-2007, 16:01
There is no CA...
Whilst we are owned by SEGA, will still basically operate as a seperate development studio. So there is still a CA.
And as for the discussion on balance:
First of all pavise crossbowmen make hacked meat out of archers costing more than themselves.
Pavise Crossbowmen do have the advantage of their large shields v archers. But if Pavise Crossbowmen, and a more expensive archer unit were to fire on an expensive infantry unit, the archers would cause more casualties.
Third: that combined with crossbowmen ammo lasting longer is a game killer for non-pav. crossbow factions.
Crossbowmen fire slower than archers so will always end up with more ammo left if firing for the same amount of time as the archers.
hellenes
12-04-2007, 16:20
Whilst we are owned by SEGA, will still basically operate as a seperate development studio. So there is still a CA.
The bottom line is that youre a SEGA emploee...so you cant deviate from SEGA's Sonic the Hendehog viewpoint...
I know you will deny all this but its aint secret we all know how business is working...
Ella moray... he's not denying it, he just saying that CA does exist as a seperate development studio, owned by Sega. It's probably seperate only in name and eventually it will be absorbed if it works like any other industry. I have no idea though how SEGA works, so I can't cannot say. I guess it works like anywhere else.
Example: German insurance group AIG bought Pacific Investment Company, PIMCO. They kept the name and all the management and employees, because the brand was extremely powerful, and had huge assets under management (720 Billion US Dollars). PIMCO know works for AIG but they do have a great deal of autonomy, they choose their way within the guidelines of AIG. Just an example...
The movement towards less realism for the purpose of making the game appeal to a wider market goes back to before SEGA owned CA.
Whilst we are owned by SEGA, will still basically operate as a seperate development studio. So there is still a CA.
And as for the discussion on balance:
Pavise Crossbowmen do have the advantage of their large shields v archers. But if Pavise Crossbowmen, and a more expensive archer unit were to fire on an expensive infantry unit, the archers would cause more casualties.
Crossbowmen fire slower than archers so will always end up with more ammo left if firing for the same amount of time as the archers.
NOT true at all! crossbowmen do more that 2x the damage of archers even if their stats isnt more than 2x more and their firing rate is slower, 1 volley of bolts does more damage than 2 volleys of arrows shot by a more expensive archer unit, also pavs arnt rubbish in mellee.
What does damage help against a main army unit if your ammo just melts away and you lose the missile battle???
To that its also completely false if a good archer unit would do more damage to a normal unit.
Because archers costing same as pav.-crossbowmen do less damage and loose the missile battle and have less ammo.
Cant you just set the ammo of crossbowmen half of archers, that would be balancing.
Also the pavise protection is to much, as a good bow and arrow would easily penetrate it and the mail and still do huge damage.
I havnt heard about any battle record where crossbows were superior to bows, they were just weapons being better if carried by peasants and untrained men.
And pls tell me why mounted crossbowmen are OP.
And tell me why there are no bugs/unbalances that make eastern factions stronger? Eurocentric...
The movement towards less realism for the purpose of making the game appeal to a wider market goes back to before SEGA owned CA.
That's is absolutely correct.
It may be that this decision assured the management a higher payout when selling the company. If this was part of a plan, and I'm not suggesting it was, but if it were it would make complete sense to me.
Higher revenue = higher fundamentals = higher sale price. (ceteris paribus)
Revenue is a factor that CA was concerned with. S:TW seemed by the far the best quality production. With R:TW & M2:TW clearly the mass market is the target and the strategy seems to be working to a high degree. Players are so engrossed with the GFX, they don't even know how much the game is really lacking in depth. Like 300, an orgasm of violence and theatrics without any substance. The mass market loves pop corn.
In the example I gave earlier, Bill Gross CEO of PIMCO, was guaranteed a multi million (75 Million US Dollars ? IIRC) paycheck per year, on the sale of this company, plus of course the purchase of his shares in the company worth much more. Sadly I doubt CA's management had that kind of fortune but they certainly must have received a good permium.
We all know this of course, it's largely speculation, perhaps worth mentioning.
I would think so because crossbows are perceived to be the more advanced technology, so in a simple minded way of thinking crossbows beat archers. How is it with guns vs crossbows? Did they do the same thing?
No the crossbow is less versatile, and isnt 4x as powerful as a bow as the reload time.
What you say is that all racing cars should have an automatic gearbox because thats the newest, most advanced technology, it is but it doesnt mean its better if you can use the other one right its better.
Hello Lupu,
I think Puzz3D answers your question So the expections of the general public are crossbowmen owning archers? and does not claim that to be what he feels.
NOT true at all! .... 1 volley of bolts does more damage than 2 volleys of arrows shot by a more expensive archer unit
With all due respect, Lupu, Lusted has done a lot of work testing and balancing M2TW. Your claims about the game don't square with my experience or with tests done in the early days of M2TW when the claim that pavise crossbows beat longbows was refuted. If you present some test results to back up your claims, this exchange might get somewhere.
Also the pavise protection is to much, as a good bow and arrow would easily penetrate it and the mail and still do huge damage.
I find that claim very implausible. Pavises were designed to protect against crossbow bolts and arrows - initially in siege situations. They would be wholly pointless if they could be penetrated as easily as you claim. IIRC, there was a battle towards the end of the Hundred Years War when French pavise spearmen proved almost impervious to the English longbows and consequently won the battle. Quite why it took the French one hundred years to figure this out is an interesting question...
Based on SP, I think CA have done the bow vs crossbow balance rather well in M2TW and certainly better than in MTW when the arbalest was just uber. Bows have rate of fire and fire arrows; crossbows have armour penetration and greater lethality. Playing as England, I don't miss the pavise crossbow. Playing as HRE, I don't miss the longbow. Both are fine alternatives. In MP, I think the pavise might swing things in favour of the crossbow as humans would be smart enough to target your shooters. That's if those early tests showing longbows winning the missile duel are no longer valid with the Kingdoms rebalancing.
I won't defend the mounted crossbows though. They were weirdly good in MTW and the same in M2TW.
It was an overclaim that they do more damage, they do more against armored units, so shooting against elite units as lusted sais they will do more damage...
The pavise wasnt mounted on ones back, it was set up as a shield in front of the shooter what meant that if arrows would penetrate it thwy wouldnt do damage anyway, you didnt need a shield that stops the arrows, only one that doesnt let the fly trough.
Mounting it on the back meant death and setting it up in front of you meant you could shoot over it(do less damage)
Have you heard about any people feared for its crossbowmen when fighting people with archers(exept the chinese) only the italians, but they only were fighting nearby european states hwo also used crossbows.
The most expensive longbows are the only archer units that defeat pav.-xbows, but why not janissaries and dvor? and still you have to attack because the crossbow ammo lasts longer.
If they should beat archers, than they should cost more than the archers they beat, not less...
For the pavise spearmen the same, their shild wasnt mounted on their bodies, but on their arms, that wouldnt be unbalancing because the pavise would have guge penalties in mellee due to heaviness and that its so big...
The most funny thing with mounted crossbowmen is that they loose to bedouin camel archers in missile, but win against vardariotai.
Also them having more ammo(yes more ammo, their ammo lasts longer and I think mounted crossbows dont fire slower) and being fast makes them killing machines...
@TosaInu, yes, maybe I have understood him wrong... I still think the exeptions of the "general public" are wrong.
L :)
Jack Lusted
12-05-2007, 10:46
It was an overclaim that they do more damage, they do more against armored units, so shooting against elite units as lusted sais they will do more damage...
Crossbowmen have higher attack due to their slower rate of fire. Pavise Crossbowmen in the Kingdoms Crusades campaign may have a shield and high attack, but they are not as good in melee as their equivalent units such as longbowmen.
The pavise wasnt mounted on ones back, it was set up as a shield in front of the shooter what meant that if arrows would penetrate it thwy wouldnt do damage anyway, you didnt need a shield that stops the arrows, only one that doesnt let the fly trough.
Mounting it on the back meant death and setting it up in front of you meant you could shoot over it(do less damage)
The way the Pavise is shown ingame on Pavise Crossbowmen is an abstraction.
If they should beat archers, than they should cost more than the archers they beat, not less...
No because that would ignore the rest of their stats, such as in Kingdoms their poor morale and melee ability. So they might be very good at range combat, but they're not very good at much else. So the cost is balanced for what they can do.
The most funny thing with mounted crossbowmen is that they loose to bedouin camel archers in missile, but win against vardariotai.
Also them having more ammo(yes more ammo, their ammo lasts longer and I think mounted crossbows dont fire slower) and being fast makes them killing machines...
Yes they do fire slower, all crossbow units fire slower than archers, hence why their ammo lasts longer.
Lupu, I am not sure whether your beef is with the crossbow or the pavise.As I said, that a pavise is a great asset in a missile duel seems self-evident.
If we are talking crossbows without pavise, I'd still like to see in-game testing of them vs normal bows. I'd have thought the faster rate of fire of the bows more than compensates for the lower damage, except perhaps against well armoured targets. Do a test of peasant crossbows vs peasant archers and then we can talk.
Here are some earlier test reports (often focusing on the most elite missiles):
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=74553
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=72510
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=73597
The pavise wasnt mounted on ones back, it was set up as a shield in front of the shooter what meant that if arrows would penetrate it thwy wouldnt do damage anyway, you didnt need a shield that stops the arrows, only one that doesnt let the fly trough.
I don't get your point. Pavises provided good cover from arrows in real life and this is modelled in M2TW (perhaps insufficiently modelled, if longbows beat pavise crossbows).
But anyway, shields do stop arrows and indeed most medieval weapons. That's why they are called shields.
Have you heard about any people feared for its crossbowmen when fighting people with archers(exept the chinese) only the italians, but they only were fighting nearby european states hwo also used crossbows.
Crusaders used crossbows effectively against the Muslim adversaries who favoured the bow. I suspect the crossbow was the weapon of choice for the crusaders over the bow for two reasons. First, crossbows are easier to fire from cover - e.g. a shieldwall - which is also one reason they were widely used in sieges. Second, their longer effective range compared to most European bows.
Lusted, can you please tell me why mounted crossbows are OP?
@econ21: Ranged units were not as hounoured in europe(exept italy, england, etc.)so elite units would normally fight in mellee, while people using missile weapons were peasants and so on hwo wernt trained as good, and as the crossbow was easier to use they favored it. Thats what I think.
Lets say turkish archers vs pavise crossbowmen, the pavs should win due to higher price but they win 2:1 in missile, and are better in mellee.
And pav.-crossbows vs ottoman inf: pavs win missile battle 5:3/4, are weaker in mellee but because the ottoman inf has to attack because it looses missile for its price it gets shot down so aweful on the way that it looses mellee or routs. You could just replace it with heavy inf, it isnt worth its price anyway...
We dont have to discuss about the stats or realism, fact is as an experienced MP player that its unblancing.
L
For testing peasant archers vs crossbows I need someone online, because tests vs AI arnt believeable because sometimes the AI advances to far or has a differenet formation changes it etc...
Jack Lusted
12-05-2007, 15:50
Lupu, it seems like you are talking about the 1.2 balance, whereas i am talking about the Kingdoms balancing as that is something i worked on so i know a fair bit about. I had no part in the Medieval II balancing and so do not know as much about it.
No, im talking about kingdoms balance, at the start it seemed as archers were better vs xbows than before, but after we started using guard mode for a better result in missile battle pavs started owning bows completely...
Maybe its just the guard mode, becaue befor we started using it balance was fine(exept genoese ones that also were OP before)
I did some tests that proved that melleeing is loosing:
1: ottoman inf vs genoese crossbows: I allready knew id loose the missile battle so I ran forward and charged them. I won with 8 men left but that was because I killed their gen first and they retreated loosing many men.
2:Byzantine guard archers vs genoese xbows: I did the same resulting in them winning with 24 men left...
And also that combined with crossbowmen being better vs armor, having longer lasting ammo and winning the missile battle.
PS: I respect you lusted because even if what I pointed out is badly balanced kingdoms balance is way better than 1.2 keep up the good work:2thumbsup: :applause:
still no ansver for the MCs, then I think its no reason, only bad balanced...
L ~:)
Jack Lusted
12-05-2007, 16:22
How exactly are you doing these melee tests as in pure melee Byzantine Guard Archers and Ottoman Infantry will beat Pavise Crossbowmen due to their higher melee attack, morale and equal or higher defence. The few volleys of the Crossbowmen are likely making a big difference given the low rate of fire but high attack and ap nature of Pavise Crossbowmen.
And guard mode keeps units together more and makes them brace more so units with bigger shields benefit more from it.
As for the Mounted Crossbowmen, they have low attack but ap and a low rate of fire, against Vardariotai i'd expect them to lose, given the very low armour and morale values of mounted crossbowmen, and low melee attack.
How exactly are you doing these melee tests as in pure melee Byzantine Guard Archers and Ottoman Infantry will beat Pavise Crossbowmen due to their higher melee attack, morale and equal or higher defence. The few volleys of the Crossbowmen are likely making a big difference given the low rate of fire but high attack and ap nature of Pavise Crossbowmen.
That's what he is saying, and it's a playbalance problem in multiplayer when the cheaper ranged unit beats the more expensive ranged unit no matter how you use the more expensive unit especially if a faction doesn't have access to the cheaper but more cost effective unit.
How exactly are you doing these melee tests as in pure melee Byzantine Guard Archers and Ottoman Infantry will beat Pavise Crossbowmen due to their higher melee attack, morale and equal or higher defence. The few volleys of the Crossbowmen are likely making a big difference given the low rate of fire but high attack and ap nature of Pavise Crossbowmen.
And guard mode keeps units together more and makes them brace more so units with bigger shields benefit more from it.
As for the Mounted Crossbowmen, they have low attack but ap and a low rate of fire, against Vardariotai i'd expect them to lose, given the very low armour and morale values of mounted crossbowmen, and low melee attack.
In a way ur saying against yourself becaue you said in you previous post that they should be equals as a hwole if the price is the same. Ottoman inf and byz.guards for some reason loose to genoese crossbows in melleeand cost more, because the missile fire makes out much as it should be, but if I would stay and shoot I would first end up with less men before mellee, and than the crossbowmen would have more ammo left and I would have to attack with less men and definately loose.
And for mounted crossbowmen, they dont win, but theyre equal in missile battle, just as theyre equal to mongol heavy archers or hungarian noblemen or dvor:help: (I dont know why, they have lows stats and AP plos slower firing rate, with those stats I could imagine a unit with fast firing rate doing less damage)
The only units they loose the missile battle to are bedouin camel archers, strlzecy, grenadine crossbow-cav and camelgunners.
In an online battle I won against duffman's sibyan al-khass I won with grenadine xbow cav lol.
Yes, both were on wide formation, and even if the sibyans werent they should win...
Ive opened a thread where the discussion can continiue, this is just not in the right thread.
This is an important matter in terms of balance, because if not rebalanced you have to take pav.-crossbow factions or rush, and have mounted crossbow-factions to get valuta for money in terms of HA.
I hope rebalances can be included in the kingdoms patch.
Caue Im sick of my expensive archers loose to cheap crossbowmen and then I have to attack.
pike master
12-11-2007, 01:59
im hoping with a promised patch coming out soon that the multiplayer maps will be addressed.
we need a grassy plain in mtw2 grand campaign, brittania, crusades, americas, and teutonics games.
a grassy plain that has adjustable weather instead of random. there have been too many games gone bad because of the random weather issues for grassy plains or the arsuf map.
if nothing else gets fixed for multiplayer this is very important in my opinion and should be seriously looked into.
NimbleNota
12-24-2007, 22:19
I will wait until results before I trust anything from CA promises are easy things to break for those people
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.