VI Balancing

**youssof_Toda** · 02-06-2003, 12:00

It would indeed be nice if we have the ability to tweak our games like you suggest here. This was we can modify our games to our own liking, most likely the majority of the comm will reach an agreement on what nice settings are over time.

**TosaInu** · 02-06-2003, 13:10

I'm not sarcastic Swoosh.

What I meant with the 16v16 game is an 'advanced' teamgame.

16 players in one team, 16 in the other. 15 players in a team control 1 unit and can only see what that unit can see when restricted camera is used. The 16th player is the general unit and, together with being a unit himself, can jump from camera to camera (like clicking on a unit card does now) to get the whole picture in order to coordinate.

This would allow optimal micromanagement of each unit, and will require team coordination (first person shooters have up to 32 v 32 teamgames, same idea). A normal game has 8*16 units max, this has 32 units. Expanding it to 32v32 or 2-4 units each doesn't sound impossible: a nice extra setting for the host menu. One could also allow a reinforcement system (like respawn, a common optional thing in FPS). Again, nice for the host to set (0-6 reinforcements).

This adds, ihmo, a more interesting gametype than the half the enemy one we had in MI.

Indeed Youssof, there will be lots of possibilities, and chance is that each individual player has to make concessions about what he really likes/go with 2nd choices. But there will be an agreement about what types of/tweaked games are nice to play. Maybe 3 out of 100 possibilities will become 'mainstream'. Though one could easily switch to any of the 97 other possibilities when bored with the 3, or loopholes pop up (no waiting for official patches, not really for gamebalancing anyway). And it would be easy to set up, since one doesn't have to install mods (a serious problem for some people).

But I'ld like to see improvements there too. Unreal Tournament (together with parts of Quake 3) is a very nice example here. UT has an easy to use, extended and ingame, out of the box, configuration and Mutator (mini mods) menu (that would be the host settings menu). And easily allows to put in user made stuff (other Mutators or full mods). No swapping and backing up, just install it once and you can both use the default and/or the custom stuff. It also has a (optional) file upload from the gameserver if a user doesn't have the files.

I'm making a 'large' step here (though not inovating), and it's not realistic to expect all of it to become implemented. But many of the mentioned stuff is already there, in every title of the Totalwar series. But not in a useful way. Take the moraleslider for example. It's only one setting, going from one extreme to the other, and one has to log out of gamespy to change it (I dare say that 75% of the serious problems we have in MTW is due to how we try to bypass the terrible low morale, we hardly have another option to fix that). Same goes for fatigue and ammo. Gamespeed was available in all STW titles (never got it to work in multi) but all that could be done is making the game faster.

**Nobunaga0611** · 02-06-2003, 23:49

I can't take any more reading before I can post, so please forgive me if what i've said has been said already, as I don't know. I don't think the pav arb range should be reduced. Move the Pav Arb to late, yes, but I was thinking you could keep the regular arb in the high era. I agree with making the cav archer a bit more powerful, as they're fun to use. But making them have just as much range as all other missle units, and increasing their effectiveness makes them kind of a necessity to have, much like the Pav. Arb. is now, which I really don't like. So the solution? Play Early era games. But what happens then? Too many people take the Byz and run over you, just because you REFUSE to take them. So yes, increase price of Byz Inf. like others have said. Just very small changes though.
I think that increasing the effectiveness of the Horse Archer while keeping the range of the arb is a good idea, as then the H.A. would have a counter. After all, one of the most fun things about Horse Archers is the ability to maneuver it into a position where it can strike and get out of harms way when your opponent actually notices they're there. Taking out the morale upgrades while in game is good as well. Because in low florin games the power of cav is increased even more than they already are. If a unit can upgrade while in battle, then low valour cav become very dangerous, as they can upgrade and become even more deadly to your infantry that aren't upgraded.

The question I have, and maybe this isn't the right place, but why is it that these in game valour upgrades usually only happen to infantry units that have been hit rather hard, whereas units that stay almost full don't get a valour upgrade? I mean, I've had units that take less losses that get more KILLS, not just captures, but kills, than a unit that is upgraded in game, and the unit with more kills doesn't upgrade. The unit that has been reduced from say 60 to 25 does though. I guess you could argue that the troops that were better anyways are the only ones that are still around, but this doesn't equate to how valour upgrades are done with cav, if you see what I mean.

Basically, valour upgrades in game are bad.

**longjohn2** · 02-07-2003, 00:08

Well I've pretty much done what Nobanaga0611 said, plus a few of the other little tweaks I mentioned.

I think I'll up the morale by 2 points for MP. Hopefully that'll be a reasonable comprise that'll still allow people to play games where morale is a major concern, but reeduce the amount of upgrading needed for people who like their guys to stick around and slug it out.

Oh, the reason that full units seldom get valour upgrades, is that the unit valour is the average of the soldier valour, so for a full unit to get a valour increase, it needs to get enough kills for every man in the unit to increase in valour. Cavalry can get cheap kills by pursuing, but generally for infantry to get a lot of kills, they need to see some serious action, which means a lot them get killed too.

**Puzz3D** · 02-07-2003, 04:57

Sounds good LongJohn. I think the +2 morale will allow 10k florin/player games where morale factors and kills are of about equal importance, and flanking is a very strong tactical element. Playing at this level will also remove the prospect of ranged units becoming the equal of non-ranged units in hth ability by way of their discounted upgrades. Thanks for compromising on this point.

**Orda Khan** · 02-09-2003, 19:25

Some nice ideas there Tosa. I like to have an historic feel to battles. It is sad that there are so many things about MTW that can spoil game enjoyment. The idea of teamplay where by each member controls part of the whole has always appealed to me...imagine a 4v4 where there are just two armies....but these are two 64 unit armies

......Orda

**Monsta** · 02-10-2003, 04:13

Some excellent views..but sadly will it be a case of

'the oceans waves hitting the sea wall'....

thousands of years before you even dent the surface...let alone make a change that seems correct....

for some reason...

since STW our views have often fell on deaf ears.or seem to have.....

but this new found listnening ear of CA could be what we need...aslong as we dont get the.

"oh sorry cannot help you we are making a new game...heres have some hype to mke the pain go away ...oh btw can we have your money now"

**Monsta** · 02-10-2003, 04:17

And he posts a reply before i manage to make mine...damn Monsta thought his 'ocean' quote was nice aswell....

btw..Puzzy...your the man..did i ever tell you that...go on fella with ya %...

**econ21** · 02-14-2003, 22:56

I'm probably coming too late to this thread and taking things a little off topic, I'd like to make a belated plug for the period limits on missile units in SP to be tweaked to better match the history. I think this means the plain crossbow should be early (King Rufus was killed by one in 1100; the church vainly tried to ban them in 1139); the arbalest should late (it required the development of steel manufacturing in the late 14th century; also arbalest's performance should fall off in rain - the strings were not metal). It's not a big deal, but if the dates are up for review, it's one thing for CA to consider.

**Puzz3D** · 02-15-2003, 15:19

Simon Appleton,

Crossbows available in early era was requested earlier in this thread.

**econ21** · 02-15-2003, 16:29

Puzz3D, sorry for the repetition but it seems like what has been agreed is pavise arbalesters in late in multiplayer. I just think the history implies crossbows early; arbalesters late for the whole game. I'm open to correction, but that's how I understand things.

**Puzz3D** · 02-15-2003, 17:05

Simon Appleton,

The requests in this thread are not being made for historical accuracy reasons. They are being made to try to address MP balance. If you move both arb types to late era, then you have a rush game in high era just like you do now in early era. Crossbows to early won't cause any imbalance problems there, and if it's more historically accurate that's fine. All the arbs could go to late if archers and xbows worked a little better, and the early era gameplay would be improved as well.

**Orda Khan** · 02-16-2003, 14:37

Well I side with the church.....Ban cross bows and arbs. These were weapons chosen by those who were unable to develop the skill to use a worthy weapon. As you so correctly stated Simon, these weapons were useless in the rain. They were also extremely ( where arbs are concerned ) cumbersome and very slow to reload. There were many different designs and reloading required all sorts of additional hardware such as rachets and pulleys. For this reason mainly the pavise arbalester was more often a mercenary soldier. 30 bolts during the course of a battle would have been considered a good day.
As to the game, there are ways of sorting out the range unit mess that CA has made but do we honestly think they will bother?
There are too many things about MTW that are not right...try Arqs. How come these and Naptha throwers are rendered hopeless by rain yet the arbs keep plugging away.
Personally I will wait until the release of Rome, I'll read the Forums and see what's being said, I definitely will never pre order again. If there are stupid issues like the ones with MTW then I think I'll call it a day.
Anyone who thinks this is an MP game is very mistaken, one visit to that sad awful Gamespy Foyer will show you that MP was an after thought
I know what you are saying about rush games Puzz but don't you agree that arbs can also be rushed or that if bows could kill in this game we would see less rushing? Let's be honest you could ignore most range units if you wanted to

.......Orda

**Alastair II** · 02-18-2003, 03:06

Orda, if you hate the game so much, then why are you playing it and posting in forums about it? Also, why do you insist on talking about historical accuracy when it's been expressly stated THE POST BEFORE YOURS that the requests are NOT being made for historical accuracy reasons (I could ramble to you for ages about how historically inaccurate the game is)?

**Orda Khan** · 02-19-2003, 19:23

Well Alastair you have certainly deduced a lot about me from a few words haven't you?
Try as I might I cannot find the reference I made about hating this game?? I have mentioned a couple of issues within the game, ie the foyer and the inconsistency of range weapons affected by rain. These are issues that should have been solved before the release of the game as far as I am concerened. Take a little meander through the posts in Apothecary and see how many gripes you find there. There are many, do you intend to attack all of these people because they voice their frustrations?

I mentioned that range could be sorted and I believe it could. A good move would be to make arrows more effective but I still stick by my statement that we won't get much more. There was no work going into STW/MI during MTW so with Rome on the way I believe all efforts will be directed there.

I used the description and mechanics of the Arbalest to make a point about its ineffectiveness. Would you agree it is the strongest range unit in the game?
I don't think it should be and if that means because of historical accuracy then so be it. I ask you....all the posts about weak spears and strong cav, what was the argument there if not historical accuracy?

As for the MP foyer and the relogging, restarting, etc etc Does it seem like a forward step from MI? I don't think so

I pre ordered MTW on the strength of MI. I will not pre order RTW on the strength of this

So please, stop jumping to conclusions and don't flame me with unsubstantiated claims. When a post begins the way yours did it becomes a personal attack

........Orda

**Alastair II** · 02-19-2003, 20:01

Orda, I apologize if I seemed irrational and angry, but I do believe I have a point. In nearly every post I have seen of yours you have lauded MI and trashed MTW; this is why I think that you should go back to playing the former.

With the inconsistency of ranged weapons in rain, try to look at the rain weapons from the perspective of balance. Personally I believe that the arbalest and the pav arbalest is fine as it is, since it provides a ranged weapon for High and Late that has an impact on the game. I think that since guns in MI (or was it STW?) were so powerful, it is right for guns to be affected by rain, since they not only have the killing power, but also have a morale effect. This, I think, is not a 'problem' that should have been 'solved' before the release; rather, it is a balancing debate that is yet to be decided.

Similarly, on the topic of range sorting: if you believe it won't be changed, then why are you pointing out that it would be a good move to make?

I would agree that it is the strongest range unit in the game, and rightly so. Again, from the perspective of balance, it provides a powerful, cost-effective ranged unit, which is not the case with most other ranged weapons. As to its historical inaccuracy, frankly, I don't give a damn. The _given_ justification for strong cav and weak spears was that it was historically accurate; personally I don't believe that for a second. I believe that the devs were attempting to rebalance a situation in which spears were dominant and cav wasn't worth it, and they went a little overboard.

I personally didn't play MP MI, but I don't mind the relogging business too much. I have been able to progress rapidly in MP without much trouble, since I put enough energy into each battle that I need a little rest in between, provided by the relog process.

Again, I apologize for my previous irrationality, but still, I do believe that you are complaining a bit much to be posting outside of the Apothecary. And I don't blame those people in the Apothecary; those people are trying to report problems and find solutions. You, as far as I can tell, are simply trying to give the devs a hard time for producing the best RTS in history.

**+DOC+** · 02-19-2003, 20:39

Hi all,

Seeing as this is all being brought up again with the imminent release of VI, i'd thought i'd voice my opinions. I'll keep them brief:

1. Must stress that Archers/horse archers need a general improvement, even from a SP perspective. I currently have them with a little 0.05 increase to accuracy and 0.07 increase to lethality and armour piercing set to 0.75. This seems to help combat the increased armour levels to be found in MTW. Longbows got the same to their accuracy and lethality.

Arbs range lower than longbows, e.g. 5500, I was always under the impression that xbows/arbs were better for short range and bows better for range?

Either that or increase the amount of friendly kills by low trajectory weapons like the xbow and arb when firing through units.

All bow archer types should be given more ammo, i play with 32 and that seems about right.

What about loading as they move, or firing immediately options for missile troops?

2. The guns guys are simply awful with their guns. Although i do appreciate the unbalanced handgunners in hth. Increased range and accuracy much needed.

3, Likewise some problems do arise with skirmishing and javelin throwers and naptha bombers, whereby they always skirmish before they throw? Maybe increasing their range might help.

3. Agree that xbows should be in early, pav xbows and arbs in high and pav arbs in late.

4. Lancers more expensive, or slower like the Gothic Knights.

5. Like the +2 morale.

6. Lessen the amount of rain lol

**Orda Khan** · 02-19-2003, 20:49

And I repeat what I said earlier about you and your personal attack. Lol you are doing it again. What a strange person you are. I can only assume that English is not your first language as you don't seem to have much grasp of it.

I refer to your statement....
'If you believe it won't be changed, then why are you pointing out that it would be a good move to make?'

Sorry you've totally lost me.

I would go on but to be honest somebody who throws out an apology then follows up with another insult did not mean to apologise in the first place. You really are not worth the effort.

.......Orda

**+DOC+** · 02-19-2003, 20:52

Oh and i also believe that the reload times of Xbows and Arbs should be lowered from 15 each to 9/12 respectively.

And gunners should be lowered way down from 30 to say 20?

e.g. here's what i currently use:

Name, Accuracy, Lethality, Range, Armour Mod, Reload Time, Shoot Immediated, Reload Moving
longbow, 0.65, 0.85, 6000, 0.5, 4, n, n
shortbow, 0.65, 0.7, 5000, 0.75, 4, n, n
mountedlongbow, 0.55, 0.7, 5000, 0.75, 4, n, y
arquebus, 0.15, 4, 4500, 0.015, 20, y, y
handgun, 0.1, 4, 2500, 0.015, 20, y, y
javelin, 0.2, 2, 1800, 0.3, 3, y, y
grenade, 0.03, 10, 1600, 0, 6, y, y
crossbow, 0.7, 1, 5000, 0.4, 9, y, n
arbalest, 0.75, 1.25, 5500, 0.3, 12, y, n

**Magyar Khan** · 02-19-2003, 20:57

I dont see why lancers needed to be downgradedm they are easy to beat

Archers are fine and dont need to be upgraded, they are usefull and do kill enemy troops

Horsearchers are usefull as well

The morale system is very nice as it is now, units on hold formation and hold post with teh encessarry key combos hold long enough

so please dont chance anything from teh game, the game is brilliant as it is now..... plz...

**Dionysus9** · 02-19-2003, 21:05

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Magyar Khan @ Feb. 19 2003,13:57)]so please dont chance anything from teh game, the game is brilliant as it is now..... plz...

What? Is this really our Khan? Has someone hacked his EZboard account?

hm.....and only a single 'teh'....

and nothing but praise for the game??

Armageddon surely is at hand.

**Puzz3D** · 02-19-2003, 22:14

Orda,

Are you suggesting to ban xbows and arbs? They are not present in early era, so you can get away from them there. The archers won't get much more because LongJohn is concerned about unbalancing the SP game. I suspect that the window for suggestions is closed now anyway.

I personally feel it's better for the gameplay to have ranged units kill slowly and thereby be rushable. Arbs are very rushable. It's the inf standing behind the arbs that deters the rush. The ranged battle ensues because of the reluctance to attack.

If you play MP with no rules, then it's simply a quest to find out what works and what doesn't. That's how I approach the game. I think it's the fact that you can handle a rush with less than 16 hth units that allows you to take ranged units. If the opponent can't successfully rush with 16 hth units, then he has to take ranged units as well as long as those ranged units can kill a whole or nearly a whole enemy unit. The arb is the only ranged unit that can do that. I believe that's why the 4 pav arb armies have evolved in MTW. If the ranged units were made strong enough to stop a rush army, then the game turns into "projectile wars". I had quite enough of that in WE/MI.

A second way to play is with rules governing unit choice. You could easily make a rule for high era such as no arbs and 4 archer minimum. That would keep the game balanced by excluding a 16 unit rush army from overwhelming an army containing a few archer units. A third way to play is with a custom stat, although opponents will be limited to those willing to use the custom stat.

**Magyar Khan** · 02-20-2003, 19:05

I see no reason in banning any unit from the game, some people suggest chances that benefit solely themselves.... no kepe the game as it is. I think its very good. Itsbetter than Warcraft 3 at teh moment and adding depth might alter this. SO a definitiv no to any chance. Longjohn is highly capable of making his own decisions. Its their game... dont buy it if u dont like it.
Horsearchery and archery in general was very weak in teh medieval era. No battle was won with it. The game is highly accurate and fun. It focus highly on tactics, clicking and unitselections aint important. Read a book of Sun Tzu first before u get online.

**Crandaeolon** · 02-20-2003, 22:23

It's most likely sarcasm. It _must_ be sarcasm. Yes, it IS sarcasm. ... I hope?

Though... I'm currently working in Hell during the daytime and this odd cold wave down here does bother me a little. Hmm, let's see the forecast...

"Occasional Showers of Rusty Nails, Swarms of Nasty Biting Insects, Acidic Poison Fog (Heavy), and an Invasion of Bloodthirsty Barbarians."

Hmm, could there be a connection with the last one?

**Magyar Khan** · 02-21-2003, 02:07

Every day i play MTW online it gets better.... man teh game is brilliant. I would like to met teh programmer he must be brilliant.

Projectile wars, i had enuf of them either. i see no use in building up tensions during a game. We live in a fast society, deploy and bash. We hate sweeping teh floor at home but w elike to sweep teh battlefield with long lines. and imo thats goood.

**Tempiic** · 02-21-2003, 15:35

Right... you are scaring me

**Spino** · 02-21-2003, 19:22

I completely disagree with the current system that allows Arbalesters to be built or bought in High era SP and MP games. Steel based heavy crossbows were the pinnacle of crossbow design and did not see widespread usage until the 14th and 15th centuries. Arbalesters are very effective versus the heavily armored units of the Late era and quite murderous against high value armored units from the Early and High eras. While effective measures can be used against these types of missile troops in MP games their premature introduction in SP games seriously unbalances the arms race. Arbalesters should not be available until the Late era.

Furthermore the use of the Pavise Crossbow and Pavise Arbalester units should also be limited to the Late era. Historically there is little evidence to support the widespread usage of the pavise by missile troops prior to the 14th century. I fail to see how the anachronistic inclusion of the Pavise in the High era can make for a better gaming experience in SP or MP games.

Historically speaking crossbows may have seen considerable action as early as 1000-1100 but I feel for the sake of game balance that these units should not be made available until the High era.

**Magyar Khan** · 02-22-2003, 18:03

historical play MUST prevail over historical gameplay. therefor i consider arba in every period u just pointed out. arbas are easy to beat with archers. so i dont see awhy people have problems with them. imo arbas are very well done by teh developers.