this game is boring!

[Kocmoc]

hi guys,

i had a phonecall from maca and i thougth about things...


but anyway, this game got a rush-game like WC3 or any other arcade games..
and with this gamemechanics this game is stupid. there is not a balance in any way!

there never will be a balance!

the uphill or downhill bonusses are bad.
the moral-penalty-influence zones are stupid, and the bonuss is to high...

lol, and many other things i already mentioned....

all what i see is SP game, wich is no fun to play online!

this isnt a 3D game it got reduced to a 2D game.

and imo, we see maybe in januar or later a patch wich could change something, but than still the same probs and still the same peeps who wont change the real probs...
so imo, nothing will change ....so we wont see any tactical battle just some stupid rush battles...

my prob is, i dont see any possible good changes coming soon and this makes my ill

koc

[Didz]

I'm sorry MTW did not meet your expectations.

All I would say is that it is the best strategy/warfare game I have come across since STW but it does require a lot of 'well' Strategy to win.

I certainly would not recommend that anyone buys this game just to play Multiplayer battles the real value is in the campaigns.

I suspect that the TotalWar series are just not your sort of game and that you should save your money for something more to your liking. My son says Mafia is very good.



------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

[youssof_Toda]

I couldn't agree more with someone than I do right now with kocmoc. Imho the mp-experience has deteriorated ever since we got away from stw to mi/we and mtw. All the stupid armour and weapon upgrades have disbalanced the game. I think the power of stw was that eveyone could choose the diff basic units (without having to tweak 1000X times to find the 'best army')and use tactics to beat each other. Right now it seems the way to beat ur oponent is to 'outtweak' his army.

The power of the mp experience was that you could use any tactic to beat ur oponent (rush, balanced, all cav).

Don't worry 2 much though koc, I played a nice 3v3 the other day with some rtk's and we had a fun battle cuz no one was picking cannons or loads of spears.

[Major Robert Dump]

whoa there D, either you're being sarcastic or u don't realize Koc has been aroud the total war series since the creation of the universe.

I agree with him, there are many sucky imbalances that are impossible to overcome as of now if u like to play certain races vs other races...but i still see hope

[Magraev]

Heh Didz I liked the implied insult. Only problem is you can't be sure he got it...

The total war series imho is THE best game series. Ever. And I say this feeling there is an embarrasing amount of obvious bugs (building valour springs to mind) in the present version of MTW. It detracts from the game, but it's still the best.

ahem I only play sp and have no interest in mp, so I might not be the best judge there.

[This message has been edited by Magraev (edited 10-10-2002).]

[maroule]

yes didz, you could also have pointed that your cat recommended Donkey Kong.

Kocmoc, this is said with no malice : if the game stinks, stop playing it, stop reading about it, and stop waiting for the patch. Life is short and there are plenty of other things to do. That you've been around for so long certainly is a surprise, as the pre-teenage remark 'beuh the game stinks because of valour upgrade' shows a distinct lack of acknowledgement of the work put into it.

MTW comes closer than others to what I expect my perfect game to be, historical, strategic, tactical. There are obvious improvements to be made (there are 12.876 threads devoted to that, and I contributed my fair share) but the exciting thing is that there is a market, a community, hence the following months/years will see improvements.

Once we get a merge of EU (for diplomacy and historical depth) and MTW(for strat and tactical balance) that you can play multip with friends, there my friends you'll get my perfect game.

[This message has been edited by maroule (edited 10-10-2002).]

[Rosacrux]

...and shall that occur before or after pigs equiped with wings start swarming the airways?

[hrvojej]

Quote Originally posted by maroule:
yes didz, you could also have pointed that your cat recommended Donkey Kong.

Kocmoc, this is said with no malice : if the game stinks, stop playing it, stop reading about it, and stop waiting for the patch. Life is short and there are plenty of other things to do. That you've been around for so long certainly is a surprise, as the pre-teenage remark 'beuh the game stinks because of valour upgrade' shows a distinct lack of acknowledgement of the work put into it.

MTW comes closer than others to what I expect my perfect game to be, historical, strategic, tactical. There are obvious improvements to be made (there are 12.876 threads devoted to that, and I contributed my fair share) but the exciting thing is that there is a market, a community, hence the following months/years will see improvements.

Once we get a merge of EU (for diplomacy and historical depth) and MTW(for strat and tactical balance) that you can play multip with friends, there my friends you'll get my perfect game.

[This message has been edited by maroule (edited 10-10-2002).][/QUOTE]

I agree. We all have been disappointed by a game every now and then, expecting one thing and getting another (btw, does anybody want my copy of Empire Earth or Civ 3?). You just have to deal with these things in life.

[youssof_Toda]

What disturbs me the most is (maybe also to kocmoc) that mp has only gotten worse since every new version of TW was released.

[maroule]

Quote Originally posted by Rosacrux:
...and shall that occur before or after pigs equiped with wings start swarming the airways? [/QUOTE]

I know, I know, call me a romantic

but still, I started playing with 'space invaders', and we've been some places since, so...

by the way rosacruz, I though 'your ass was burning' today, so get back to work, lazy helene

[This message has been edited by maroule (edited 10-10-2002).]

[Kocmoc]

true youss,


some of u guys miss the point!
there isnt tactic! there isnt trategie!

..or would u say its tactic to rush all the time?

and this isnt the point ether!

the point is, that the archer are useless!
they hit nothing!
the cav is useless too! ...too slow and too fast tired!

so it is reduced to be a h2h unit battle and there ISNT much tactic!
the prob is that some of u speak about something u dont know!

but anyway i didnt said that this game is bad... its just boring to play all the rushing idiots wich still loose to ur balanced/weak army.

and btw, its realy annoying to wait 1 hour to play a rush-boy in 3 min and than wait 1 hour for the next rushing boy....

before some "wise" guys start to speak,....i wont see so strong archer or strong cav´s i just want to see a balanced system where the units are worth the money!

koc

[hrvojej]

Maybe the problem is not in the game then, but in the people who play it?

But look on the bright side.... The SP is actually getting better with each new installment of TW.

[TheViking]

I totally agree with kocmoc in his last post.

When I started to play STW against the a.i. rushing suited me perfect I thout I was a damn good player, but when I started to play MP games I had to start all over again learning the game from the beginning cuz if u rushed someone there specially the vets u sure got crushed. Well sometimes it worked but not very often.

But in this game the first to rush will win atleast that what ive read in many threads not only in this forum. And thats my experience too.

Theres not much of strategi and tactic in the battles. The strat and tactics is on the campain map in SP.

------------------
There I see my father.
There I see my mother, my sisters and brothers.
There I see my line of ancestors back to the beginning.
They call on me and ask me to take my place with them in the halls of Valhalla where the brave may live forever.

[LittleGrizzly]

heya kocmoc cheer up m8

i dont use range units in multiplayer or spears the range are too weak but spears are beatable i find the cav are good if u use thier charge bonus to the right effect i find a cav charging at a unit fighting something else highly effective

but i feel range and cav should be improved.
(while im talking bout improvments) id also like the fatigue to be reduced so u can help ur ally better.

i cant really talk bout the
(the uphill or downhill bonusses are bad.
the moral-penalty-influence zones are stupid, and the bonuss is to high)

cause i aint really sure bout them but im sure u could mention this in the patch thread ?

[ICantSpellDawg]

didz: "I suspect that the TotalWar series are just not your sort of game and that you should save your money for something more to your liking. My son says Mafia is very good."

Mafia BLOWS

[Inferno]

A lot rides on the patch I think. If MP is still poor after the patch, MTW may slowly lose favour, especially when Star Wars Galaxies comes out.

------------------
It's getting warm in here...that must be one hell of an INFERNO!

[maroule]

Quote Originally posted by Kocmoc:
true youss,


some of u guys miss the point!
there isnt tactic! there isnt trategie!

..or would u say its tactic to rush all the time?

and this isnt the point ether!

the point is, that the archer are useless!
they hit nothing!
the cav is useless too! ...too slow and too fast tired!

so it is reduced to be a h2h unit battle and there ISNT much tactic!
the prob is that some of u speak about something u dont know!

but anyway i didnt said that this game is bad... its just boring to play all the rushing idiots wich still loose to ur balanced/weak army.

and btw, its realy annoying to wait 1 hour to play a rush-boy in 3 min and than wait 1 hour for the next rushing boy....

before some "wise" guys start to speak,....i wont see so strong archer or strong cav´s i just want to see a balanced system where the units are worth the money!

koc[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I'm making any sense of this but let's try anyway.

1/ The rush problem is MP, I presume. BUT still, I've played a few games on gamespy, found a decent adversary (the guy was called KeePah I think) and we both used balanced armies (loads or arb, and cav) to beat up each other senseless. Very fun. Then we team up, played a coordinated defensive tactics in 2vs2 and beat the living shit out of a few rush boys. Very very fun. Still the SP is the core of the game, and I agree if you judge the value of the game on MP you're mistaken.

By the way, the problem in SP is NOT ENOUGH rushes. I win 99% of my battles in defensive position, even badly outnumbered, because the AI does not rush me but dances in front of my arbalesters until their general dies. So I WANT to be rushed.

2/ archers are useless. Again, in MP maybe, but I find them very usefull in SP, either in attack or defense. Arbalesters are also extremely useful : It's rare that they get less than 60 kills each in battles (and often kills of very expansive units, so cost effectiveness is very high)

3/ Cav useless : two words for you, flank and prisoners. Cav too slow : steppe cav anybody? Too tired : avoid desert, and it's just historical. Do you think a horse covered in metal with a fat bastard on its back will galop for an hour? Do you know what a horse looks like? even been on one?

"the prob is that some of u speak about something u dont know!" True, even now I'm trying to make sense of it, I don't know what you're rambling about.

4/ lack of general strategy, well yes the AI is too weak on that point, but there have been useful suggestions to correct that. I haven't seen any of them coming from you.

General point : you seemed to be disapointed by the lack of balance and the lack of depth. I've run a thread somewhere here to ask around 'what units did you discover while playing more and more' and 'what units did you used at first and then dropped'. Very interesting answers, because they were all different. People had diverse experiences, but ALL when through a dynamic discovery of each units strenghs and weaknesses. That, for me, means depth and balance. Feel free to read it.

Anyway, my gut feeling is that it's your style of play that lacks subtlety. I'll play you anytime, by the way, and I swear I'll use a balanced army including missiles and cav. (Gamespy, name 'maroule').

[Kocmoc]

mar,

SP and MP are complete difference.

in SP u spend much money in buildings, to get new and better units! so the "new" unit have to be better or u wouldnt spent ur money in buildings!

i think the SP game is very good, with a few bugs but its well done!

but i dont like SP, so i speak about the MP.


koc

[Didz]

Quote Originally posted by Magraev:
Heh Didz I liked the implied insult. Only problem is you can't be sure he got it...
[/QUOTE]

Believe it or not I was not trying to be insulting or sarcastic. It sounds to me that K bought the wrong game. We all do it sometimes. I bought Battle of Britian expecting it to be a strategy game and discovered it was just a rahter poor flight simulator.

And no I wouldn't recommend this game to anyone who just wanted to use it for MP.

As for archers 'they are lethal'. In every SP battle I fight they clock up more casualties than any other unit on the field but the light cavalry who get to massacre the routers.

There has always been the belief that missile troops don't work in MP ever since STW but it all hinges of playing style.

I get the impression that the frustration with MTW multiplay is that there are just too many options. In STW it all hinged on Monk Rushes and high Honour YA's. I suspect MTW isn't that easy to bottom out and players are getting frustrated at not being able to find the perfect combination.

Just take the game back and buy something else.


------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

[reader]

I couldn't disagree with you more.

I have been playing MTW days after it became available. So I am as experianced as anyone here to comment on it I feel.

Ultimately I cannot see you problem with archers. My archers always take it to the units I direct them at. Perhaps your problem lies in the lack on planning?
I never direct archers at Armoured units unless absolutely needed and no other target warrants attention. Archers are not good versus armour. But then you knew that right?

Archers, "Hold Ground" "No fire at will". I only allow directed fire. Otherwise it's a waste. Besides you must conserve your archers abilities.

Second, Spear units.
I have never had a problem routing spear units. I think many here have just not used the right units for the job at hand.

I was reading on another thread about some guy who had his Swiss Pikeman routed, by the discription of what he did, though very vague, and the unit make up, it is very obvious to me why he was routed. He did not have flanking cover forces. What was screening his Swiss Pikeman? Nothing? 8 Units of Swiss pikeman, what a waste of resources, not to mention giving away tactical authority to the enemy before you even start. And he had the lack of presence to charge them, without a flanking move to correspond with it and force home his point, (punt intended).

Some of you, from reading these boards, tend to think this is shogun, where by you max out on one or several units to achive a victory, (Warrior monks come to mind). I am sorry but this game actually requires you to think, (at expert level).

Medieval European warfare is not one or two units that win everything, it was and is a lesson in the earliest forms of combined arms.
This is where the Romans and Greeks were lacking, but came later by various peoples to a head. Thereby teaching, and learning lessons that required skills to command.
As with the Ottomans/Seljuk Turks, they won lots with a tactically inferiour army. And one that was essentially easy to route.

I find the Archers excellent, I also totally enjoy the later Arbalesters.

I find Spearman tough, but easliy routable when flanked. I perfer the spearman being tough, as it gives the AI a chance of success, much like the Ammo-head Urban militia. As after all the wars the AI still can field a respected unit. Though in all honesty a Feudal Knights unit will go right though the average spearman unit in real life, and come out the other side. As my 34th grandfather did in ~1234AD war against the Southern Baden-Baden free/Imperial cities with 34 of his Knights. Or his great grandson with Barbarrosa in northern Italy, when he charge the reserves into the Italians to stop them enveloping the flank. Earning the family several towns for the action and an increase in noble rank.

I use my knights for flanking attacks and screening, espeically when other enemy cavalry units are present.

As for tactics, I always use tactics, I have not lost a province since the second day I played this game. I have now won this game 8 times, 2 English, 3 Byzantium, 1 Polish, 1 Spanish, 1 Turkish.
(I rate the hardest factions to play are the Polish and the HRE, closely followed by the French and Spanish).

When I go into battle as a western European Player, I tend to use the following.

4 or 5 units Polearmed Serjeants.
4 Archers or 4 Longbows, 2 Arbalesters .
2 Knights, Commander included.
1 or 2 fast horse unit, Hobliars, Jinittes, Polish Retainers, or mounted Serjeants.
and 1 or 2 Halibers or Men at Arms/ Urban militia. Something to hold the flank, though depends whether the Faction has good light/Medium Infantry.

As for Rushing your units?
Well that in many cases is a joke, you will die quickly. If you rush armour units they become tired fast, very fast.
You should wait until you have worked out what you are going to do, and how you are going to do it. Then excute it. Do not waste time on rushs without a proper flanking move, or an envelope, or a sissors move, or a slip defense.
How many of you use a double line defense? Or a two prong attack? I suffer no more than 35% casualties when I use tactics, even when out number 2 or 2.5 to 1, but I suffer greatly when I charge.

Or a recent battle, I was playing the Byzantines.
I had 560men and fought 1584 Eyptians for Nica.
I won, I had no upgrades, and a 4 star general. The eyptians had a 7 star general and excellent V&V. And upgrade troops, it was in the late period, so they had lots of good units. I wouldn't have won without tactics. And those only come about once you see the army you face.
I also suffered 29% casualties. and only lost 7 men from ranged units of which I had three. In total my two archers took out 157 Enemy men. Arbalester unit took out 92. I (always withdraw ranged units once expended, so I don't have to protect them).

Tweaking.
If someone is tweaking their units, then it is obvious it is to make up for there lack of tactical ability. So it is not the games fault. Fault lies in the person or persons that lack ability. They are obviously not playing for enjoyment, but playing to win at any cost, even if that means tweaking/Cheating. There belies the fact that the game is good, because they cannot obviously be guaranteed of winning. So they cheat to change that. Or is that just to obvious to see?

Perhaps i just have a distinct advantage, having studied military history for over 15 years, and been an officer in the army for a number of them. But really it couldn't be that hard to see.

Sure there are "game bugs" As with any game. Hell M$ windoze is one big bug, but I bet you are using it everyday. Are you thinking of swapping over to Linux? Probably not.

I agree with Didz. Sarcastism and all.

Perhaps you have been around for a long time, but perhaps also STW is your limit? MTW being just a little to much?

If you find I am a little to "blunt", (for want of a better word). Then you should have thought about your own posting, and written something that delt with actual issues rather than an overall "this game is stupid" or the "there never will be a balance!". Are you gazing into a crystal ball? Or trying to make up for a lack of tactical ability?

That being said perhaps I just manage what i am given, better?

Qoute from Kocmoc: "my prob is" ....All of the above?

[Didz]

Quote Originally posted by Kocmoc:
mar,

SP and MP are complete difference.

in SP u spend much money in buildings, to get new and better units! so the "new" unit have to be better or u wouldnt spent ur money in buildings!

i think the SP game is very good, with a few bugs but its well done!

but i dont like SP, so i speak about the MP.


koc[/QUOTE]

Err! No! Actually thats not the way it works.

For instance playing Almohead I find I have to buy building in order to work through the tech tree and make more buildings available that I need like Merchant Guilds ect.

However, I rarely buy buildings with the expectation that the troops then made available will be better then the ones I've got. For example most of my troop producing towns can produce either AUM's or DA's which are the backbone of my army.

So, I would never upgrade a building just to obtain crossbows because I don't want them the DA's are better. I have also ignored seige workshops because I don't need catapults I can always hire them. Nor do I buy Spearmakers because IMO AUM's are superior to the Murabin Infantry and Muwahid Foot Soldiers you get as a result.

So its a bit more complicated than you suggest. Some buildings have to bought merely to gain access to other buildings but in my experience the motivation is rarely an expectation of better troops. Well not for Almohead anyway.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

[+DOC+]

Wait until the patch comes out. I'm sure many things will be addressed.

Very rarely does the release version of any game work very well online or well balanced.

Look how many patches most online games generally require. Half-life, Quake series?

A lot of this hot air is simply huffing and puffing due to waiting for the patch. Patience is a virtue. Find something else to do while you wait...



------------------
=MizuDoc=

[This message has been edited by +DOC+ (edited 10-10-2002).]

[Magraev]

You must admit it would have been a neat insult (ofcourse for all I know your son could be 35, but I'm assuming not).

[Soapyfrog]

Crossbows are way better than Desert Archers, Didz!!

I once thought as you do, I have since seen the light...

Of course half the problems are with the AI'd "dithering" tactic, waiting to get gunned down.

[baz]

for the record, kocmoc is talking about Multi-Player ok? not single player they are COMPLETELY different games! maybe archers in single player are good (because the stupid AI puts his expensive units in front of them and just wanders about, but beleive me an experienced player like koc would not give you this opportunity!) but in multi(against experienced tw gamers) they are not worth getting because they do not kill enough! simple! period as you yanks say!

what koc is trying to say is that the MP game is not as good as previous toitalwar MP games, because the ranged are too weak and the cav are not strong enough

i think that it is a fact that ranged do not kill enough and that cav are not worth their money, let alone a cav archer
(ask any tw vet, beta tester etc...and im sure that they will tell you the same) you new guys have got to trust us

imo this limits your choice of army and which therefore limits the tactics that can be used and therefore limits the longlasting enjoyment that is potentially there for MP



------------------
previously BarryNoDachi - KenchiBND

Clan Kenchikuka

[Soapyfrog]

So what does a standard "rush" army look like?

16 order foot?
16 FMAA?
8 Order Foot and 8 FMAA?

How many florins do you need to make an effective rush army?

[This message has been edited by Soapyfrog (edited 10-10-2002).]

[maroule]

order foot stinks, in my MP and SP experience
but good question, what's this miracle rush army you're rambling about?

[+DOC+]

I'm assuming it'll be something along the lines of:

4 italian inf
4 order foot
4 FMAA
1 CMAA
2 alan merc?
and a general unit.

or something close...



------------------
=MizuDoc=

[A.Saturnus]

What matters for ME is that playing MTW is fun. I can`t play MP so i can`t judge it, but the battles rule anyway.
I had to defend Egypt with a crusade army against the Egyptian counterstrike. I had about 700 against 1200. I had lots of heavy cav, AI had camels.
Although my lines broke several times I managed to rally them, and won. About 900 dead on his side.
When you play WC3 or AoE2 or SC you see normally instandly if you win a battle or not. Especially in WC3 it`s offen decided after seconds. In MTW it`s open till the end, just like it is in real battles. And this feeling of "will my lines hold?" is unique in TW. That`s why I like the battles, not because everything is so well-balanced and there is no secure way of winning. Surely 90% of all players - and I`m surely one of them - aren`t so good that they could win every time even if there where an ultimate tactic.

------------------
In the name of electricity: CHARGE!!!

[TheViking]

READER:
it was probably my post about the swisspikemen u read. Read it again carefully and u c that it was probably an a.i. cheat.
I had my flanks protected. My pikes were better in every way u can imagine and they lost anyway.

My advice to u is: Read it again, but carefully this time.


This game is about MP doesnt matter what u say and its sad that they couldnt balance it.
We all play it for the 3d battles or am i wrong??? is there realy people here that play it for all the micromanagment (or how u spelll it) if u r play better games like EU2 with much more better diplomaty.


------------------
There I see my father.
There I see my mother, my sisters and brothers.
There I see my line of ancestors back to the beginning.
They call on me and ask me to take my place with them in the halls of Valhalla where the brave may live forever.