Most important skill in MTW

**Alrowan** · 05-05-2003, 18:01

you began saying how much chosing units was down to knowledge magy

as for your last post, well what can i say, its simple

every player is given the same # of florins to do with what they wish

some might spend some on horse archers, others on some spears, now a good player with horse archers (Vandal for example) can completly use them and get at least a kill for each man in his unit. A poor general might get half. Obviously using your units to your style is reccomended, and experimenting is encouraged. Now a good general will learn from his mistakes magy, and try improve on what he did wrong. not give up on that unit all together

**Tera** · 05-05-2003, 18:59

You played STW/MI Alrowan?

If not, I understand your points. In STW the real skill was shown when Magy kicked your a$$ hard with 10 HorseArchers...or when AMP slaughered you with units that nobody in the world used to get because of their apparent useless function. And when I say 'you' I mean the creme de la creme of the skill hierarchy of the community at the time. This is very very difficult to see in MTW, because armies are much more important. That's why we are lamenting, the game still needs skill, but compared to the good ol' days.....

Tera.

**Nikodil** · 05-05-2003, 19:03

If anyone can win everytime with a rush army, why don't everyone use it in every game? There's more at work here than just honour. It's about winning. If I know my enemy will pick his usual rush army, do i pick my average well balanced army? No, i sharpen my long pointed sticks and shove'em up his a**

Just as in the paper-rock-scissor game, you can't just always pick scissors, no matter how sharp they are. In MTW you don't have just one, but 16 choices to make, and the well balanced choice will be better off in the average.

BTW, my preliminary scientific tests indicates that peasants suck for a fact

**Tera** · 05-05-2003, 19:13

It's all about winning, yes.

That's why everyone gets strong armies in the battles that count

The problem is that we're always seeking improvement in skill, possibly coupled by public recognition of the skill developed...but it is difficult to find a 'measure' for skill. We all have different opinions.

I have my own definition of skill, developed over years of playing Total War online. I am not an 'elite' player like AMP or Magy but I do recognise who has 'raw' skill and who just has a good army he knows how to use. Show me.

**baz** · 05-05-2003, 20:05

i just think that you had a better oportunity of showing your superior skill in stw/mi .. by this what i mean is that there were more ways to open up the game to pull your opponents army around the feild a little, and give you the opening to trap units using pure micrmanagment skill .. the inability of archers to penetrate armour has a big part in this .. today i played a guy who i felt was a lot more inexperienced than myself, and i was hoping to use my cav archer to pull him around a little i ended up with my turcopole getting free shots at his maa, its full amount of ammo was spent and it took just out a total of just 12 men .. Alrowan you talk about use of cav archers lol, well i shot at his least armoured units and thats what i got .. this is what sucks, your opponent can play his own game and for you to manipulate your opponent to make him move in a way you want is very hard indeed esp if the player is average or better .. oh well i have high hopes for VI ..

**Wolf_Nashwan** · 05-05-2003, 21:13

Ok let me say the final words

First when the topics came here some days ago, ppl say no skill need in mtw. This i just could not belive so i gathered proofs, I made some to agree with me anyway little that the game needs skill, now its gone so far we start compare with stw and mi.
But i must say its aint enogh in battlefield skill, but. as someone came with (words from suntstu) the game can be over be4 u played it if your preaperd well, here in mtw its much hard (allso fun) to create own armyes and tactics that u can play well with, and use it against the opponent that this works on. But i must say again i do agree with u all that there is more battlefield skill required in stw and mi.

Ohh btw i heard some said the game is about winning the battles: i am sorry but this i cannot agree, i think its about winning the honour and have fun. I am most sure u guys will agree this is the correct answer

btw to having fun u search for challenges: u can find challenges against someone that is lesser good than u, if he is using better army than u (evendo if its abit unfair) but here its just about having fun /nothing to brag with/, or u have a weaker faction.
this is one good way to see at it

But veterans please avoid choosing unfair unbalanced armys.
Or many spain lancers to rush with* this is the only thing that ruin the games fun.

Wolf_Nashwan

**tgi01** · 05-05-2003, 21:36

Hmmm why is everyone so focused on 1 vs 1 -s here ?

In larger games the team with the better strategy wins ...
IMO it takes more skill to be a good team player than to be a good 1 vs 1 player anyway ...

And realism ...

, in reality if defending I would be in one of those large castle things with 8 serps in every tower

( and let the other army call it unfair

)

What I expect from VI : NO MORE PAVISE

TGI

PS : Hope CA does a World War II version of Totalwar,hopefully that would stop the horse archer discussions ...

PS2 : Ok then we would get the : Why cant my polish lancers beat tanks people .... ( my retainers were sooooo good in MTW why did they change that ... )

**ErikJansen** · 05-05-2003, 21:37

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (baz @ May 05 2003,14:05)]today i played a guy who i felt was a lot more inexperienced than myself, and i was hoping to use my cav archer to pull him around a little i ended up with my turcopole getting free shots at his maa, its full amount of ammo was spent and it took just out a total of just 12 men ..

I've got to agree some here, the pure damage you inflict with HA's seem too small sometimes. We all know they can create openings for you tho, cav traps and all that, but this requires a LOT of micromanagement and effort on your part, whereas the 8 heavy cav general may just head straight for your lines. I find that I've more success when coupling some HA's with very nasty upgraded Alans, but again this isnt anything new either

Its a challenge tho and very fun, not to mention very satisfying when you get results. For me that's the main point

**Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe** · 05-05-2003, 22:25

Sometimes it is very satisfying to play with HA.... CMAA are not the best target around, too bad there were nothing else... Recently shot some Swiss Halb nicely. Billmen & Gallow are also among my favorite. As long as it doesn't have shields, it is fair game...

I actually find HA very helpfull in end game... Sometimes arrows are enough to rout some remaining units, without too much missile around, HA becomes somehow more effective in ennerving the opposition. And HA don't get too tired raising their combat effectiveness when all other units are very tired / exhausted. I try sometimes to keep them for the endgame... Too bad they don't try to make it to the end game

For sure you can argue that without HA and with one more heavy cav there would not be any endgame to speak about, but a giant mass rout...
Yeah, sure... but it is somehow fun to play with those...

Too bad that 3v3 or 4v4 are too crowded to allow any good use of HA... I still bring at least one... And more if 1v1 or 2v2.

Louis,

**AMPage** · 05-05-2003, 23:06

Check this out, this game requires so much skill, that i won a 4v4 against the 7bear7 clan, while playing praetorains at the sametime.

I was using Byz and all i did was mix in with an ally on my right flank and sat there untill my other two allies on the left routed aswell the ally i was mixed in with. I didn't start moving or giving any commands even when they starting attacking my left with a few units. It came time to react when they started attacking my left with more units and the byz army infront started coming up the hill at me. All i did was order a few fast attacks here and there and went off to playing praetorains again. My army did all the work for me and i would look back once and while to order a few units to chase the routers.

My allies were saying to me "wow you're really good" and at the same time "why don't you command you troops"?.

Where is the skill in that, being able to win without giving hardly any commands or not payin much attention to the game? Well there is none. It was mostly all about my unit selection, the over powered byz. All i had to do was give few fast orders with my mouse at the right times and let my over powered units do the work.

I would have voted for unit selection as most important, but i don't consider that a "skill". The only thing on that list of skills i could relate to is "fast mouse clicking". Now anyone can click fast, but it's all about clicking fast knowing what you're doing. As in setting up fast traps, doing hit and runs, avioding bad engagements by not letting troops wonder off, and other little things...

So to me the real skill won't be back in the total wars, unless they fix overpowered and underpowered units as well as the standard unit size. In stw most units were set at 60 unit size, so having all these different unit sizes i think messes things up as well.

**Nikodil** · 05-05-2003, 23:10

Today i gathered my local peasants (there were 800 of them) for a small scientific experiment. I told them to fight one hundred order foot soldiers, those who survived would be spared. (i threatend to kill those who didn't). They surrounded the soldiers and engaged. All of them were scared like hell, some even ran away for a while until they remembered my threats. Their losses were huge, 519 deaths, but eventually they won, killing 59 soldiers.

Conclusion: Peasants rule?

(The relevance to this thread is left as an excercise to the reader)

**baz** · 05-06-2003, 00:17

i agree that picking an army is not much of a skill, it is a part of trial and error from the whole community .. its just how fasy you catch on .. look online now even new guys take v4 militia and a3 pavs .. roll on VI i hope to bring back some archery

**Magyar Khan** · 05-06-2003, 01:55

i am more concerened with game mechanics and upgrades value than i am with unitsizes.

i am most concerned with gaining valour during battle. (in combo with weaponupgrades ofcourse)

**Alrowan** · 05-06-2003, 04:30

heres my rundown of baz and amps points with armies

firstly baz, with your horsearchers, perhaps you need more skill in picking a better target for them (ie ones with less armour or no shileds) then you will see results.

AMP, with your byz army, sounds like you corner camped and waited till your enemies men were sompletely tired, and so which case, your task wasnt too hard, hit a few units, get them routing, and the chain rout starts. id like to see you pull that off again aginst fresh armies, then i would more than likely see your army get trounced

one final note to this.
how is it that all the recognised players (amp and magy) all seem to hold such high reputations? its because they were good at STW. If MTW has no skill, then how is it that when players like myself for example, who didnt play STW, have such high repute on the battlefield? is it because i can pick the same armies as everyone else? no, its because i win my games based on skill. If MTW was all down to armies, there would be no stand out generals.

**Kocmoc** · 05-06-2003, 07:05

thx amp, thats my opinion
yes, this shows 1 more what the prob is.

inactive player are harder to beat as active with a small mistake....

moralsupport is too big and the unitsizes dont help...

koc

**Kocmoc** · 05-06-2003, 07:50

well im not mag neither amp

but noone said, u need no skill in MTW, ofcourse u need some basic skill but if ur an average player, there isnt a big difference between u and the "better" player.

all we said is, u need less skill to win ur games in MTW, and if i see players who do many mistakes in game but still can win or nearly win it in the melee i ask myself what the problem is...

no, its too much about fatique, moralsupport, stronger cav, bonusses, unitsizes, bad shooters, bad terrainbonusses

my mainprob is, that u dont need to move in thsi game and Amp explained that game and it shows what i mean, u dont need to move and win at the end, so inactivity is better as activity. this is stupid.

koc

PS: btw, hi aaron, paolo said "hi" to me

**Paolai** · 05-06-2003, 08:14

THX AMP I have your same opinion

OK OK OK Alrowan, you are the best player here, and the only one who need skill to win a game, I dont need it (and I dont have it) cause my unit selection do it for me

without do nothing expecial, just wait...sometime split my army, and then double click...
Choose an army is NOT skill, this is not a board game

P.S.: hi Mike

**AMPage** · 05-06-2003, 08:19

Alrowan, no i didn't corner camp and yes i'm sure those that came at me from the side were tired, but they tried to get my byz inf to rout cause i had routing allies all over next to me. The one enemy infront of my had a full fresh byz army, but had to march up a rather small hill.

Anyway, it was just an example of how much skill that is required to win, i could come up with more...

Yes, i have pulled of many games like that when the enemy had fresh armies, by rushing at the start with an all cav army just doing a few clicks, while the cav do all the work.

I'm not saying this game dosn't require any skill, just saying it dosn't require nearly as much as stw.

If anyone needs some proof of this all you need to do is come online and play me a few games...

PS: hi, Mike

**Alrowan** · 05-06-2003, 08:45

i never said i was the best, i was making a point.

anyway, im sure there is a logical enough reason as to why you won that game, and im sure i could beat your army (yes army not player

) if you left them alone.

as far as it goes though, skill is required, even to pick an army.

as for the topic its just going in circles now

**ELITEofGAZOZ** · 05-06-2003, 08:47

I can´t hear the Shogun nostalgy anymore:

@Unbalanced Units:

Well nothing changed from STW to MTW concerning the games without any rules (like "no arty", "2 max" etc.).

In Shogun we had only one faction, but we moaned about unbalanced units all the time: Monks, Musks, Naginata Cav...did you forgot?

We moaned about Mongols were stronger than Japanese forces...did you forgot?

Now we have 12 factions. What are you guys expecting?

There are so many undedected possibilites in MTW, you don´t really know.

Recently I ve beat 4 times in a row, even against skilled players, a spanish armies with lancers, with my new composed turkish army. I dedected a cavkiller unit, which was always underestimated till now...maybe I can make them popular like the Militia Sergeants become popular.

I am sure. If we would have started the TW series with MTW and than would have switched over to Shogun the disappointment among us d be much bigger.

Furhtermore it was simply stupid in Shogun if you could win the game just by camping on a damn small slope on Totomi or Nagashima temple or other maps. This is not possible in MTW anymore. What a luck

In Mongol Invasion your guns were able to shoot behind hills once. Did you forgot?

@Gameskill:

Don´t mix up "skill" and "elegance".

Winning in STW was maybe more elegant than winning in MTW, for example by using cav archers, which are nothing worth in MTW due to the mostly armoured units. The armies in MTW are same like a all naginata armies in STW (heavily armoured), so don´t be suprised about the bad results of cav archers, they were never armour crackers, not in STW and not in MTW. On the other hand the MTW armies are tired quicker than in STW, due to the heavy armour, these is all very logical. I can´t understand the main critic.

But elegance didn´t rule Shogun always. I saw many very skilled player with balanced armies losing vs a simple rush army...

In MTW you have to consider much more factors than in STW/MI. Many veterans ignore the new factors, which didn´t exist in STW/MI. The Total War Series are like this: We started with Tennis, switched over to Squash, now we are playing Badminton and VI will be like Table Tennis. Now it is funny if Björn Borg or Ivan Lendl d say, Badminton is such a bad game, the net is too high, the ball is so slow, every dude is now able to beat me, cause I can´t serve all the as´s I was used to in Tennis. Wouldn´t u call them ignorant/arrogant?

The reason why people think, there is no need for skill in MTW, might be the fact, that we don´t face always the same situation like we did in Shogun. In Shogun we knew perfectly what No Dachis do, what Yari Sams do, what Monks do after playing with them 1000 times, but in Medieval you can´t improve your skills on French vs French in High era cause u even dont play these games 10 times in a row

Imo only few changes are neccessary:

- better morale of all units

- no unit upgrades during battles

**Paolai** · 05-06-2003, 08:55

Gaz, do you think that AMP and Kocmoc lost many games on MTW? So if you dont beleive that you will be agree with me that they know PERFECTLY how the GAME MECHANICS works. So plz....
------------------------------------
UH What you have done Gaz? Yuo edited your post where you said that the Vets dont know how the MTW GAME MECHANISMs work

? Ok....maybe you changed opinion, its ok then

-------------------------------------

**baz** · 05-06-2003, 11:04

sorry Alrowan could you just show me what to aim at next time

i am not trying to bring up a conversation about "the good old days" i just want to improve future TW games .. at the moment there are important units that are not worth getting, which leads to a simple battle format .. i agree with koc and have played many 1v1 games with just full frontal assaults which i dont find particularly enjoyable .. esp if i loose them

im going to be quiet now and hope VI adds to all our enjoyment

**Wolf_Nashwan** · 05-06-2003, 11:05

Gazoz i totaly agree with u... this is what i am allso trying 2 explain

Wolf_Nashwan

**Wolf_Nashwan** · 05-06-2003, 11:27

Yo AMP
That byz army i won 4 times in row... it aint a prob beating that army, u just need the right army against it...

And the bears may not knew u was going to us a sucha unbalanced army, (and remember) where is the honour of your playing amp ?

its like u do all to just win, its like u ruin ur chances of the game should be fun and the other opponents... meanwhile u say this dosent need skill... amp, us fair balanced armys and u will see it requires more skill that u ever belive.

Hmmmm Hmmmm Hmmmm: no matter how many proffs i come with ppl keep saying ohh if i take my unbalanced army i would win, so its no skill... well cmon PLAY fair and this wont happend.

I must say its like u guys forgot mi and stw... i say its much harder to hold a good rusher in mi and stw than its here in mtw... i am most sure of it, i lost against noobs with using like 1 arbs some monks rest heavy cavs, and i lost. Here i would garanti u all, it woulded work... when i puted my winning streak with 67 wins in row, so was about over 15 of thoose rushes made to eliminate my winning streak... but i held this (by my battle experieance) i dident lose consentration...

But now ppl would say now (evendo u dont lose ur consentration) we can beat u with a all cav spanish rush... (first i say a newB would newer win with even that rush against me, other: i would say i may lose against a very good veteran, Third: that veteran dosent seem to know what honour means* i do completly not care if i lose that game, i would know the honour is on my side...

Wolf_Nashwan: Why cant ppl just admit that if yah dont take the lancers and the damn boorring unfair unbalanced armyes the game is more of skill than u ever belive?
and as i said in my other mails... remember this units ( example lancers, may be good in flat grass maps, and this byz infs may be good in woods... but try fight the lancer against the byz inf in the woods, or try use the byz infs against the lancers in the flat grass, allso go try us this both infs in the desert against against a muslim faction or in winter against a army that got better condition than this fat heavy units this game is many more times advanced that stw and mi, its just you guys who always must see in the bad way (but meanwhile u dosent look back and check the bad ways in stw and mi.

Soon i will give up cuz u guys dosent seems to listen to all the mails i sent... gah

Wolf_Nashwan

**LRossaRikimaru** · 05-06-2003, 11:29

i agree with you GazZoz (

) , we must adapt to new standard as we will adapt to Viking and to Rome.

Still hope that Viking bring some new fashion to the game

LRossaRikimaru

**Wolf_Nashwan** · 05-06-2003, 11:46

BTW PAOLAI *

u keep saying this is not a bourd game... ok what would u say if i in chess is able 2 select all the quinns that is best at the game? and lets say everything is allowed, but u wanted to have fun by using a army with variations, and i keep winning u and say hah u got no skill... What would u say paolai... ?

u would say as me and all else, u are the one with no skill, and u are just afraid... and u dunno what honour means... and u got no honour *

THIS IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO EXPLAIN * vets just dont take the unfair GAHH armies... play the game to have fun, with using different faction/armies tactics. (and this will give u more (challenge).

**Aleborg** · 05-06-2003, 12:00

The never ending history...

Nash, u should see the difference. Of course MTW needs skills, thats obvious, but lets see:

1. If u are in the main battle and u try to retry some units (even after u have use your reserves...) to make another envolving movement the only thing u will see is your whole army routing. Agree? Well, it means that one time u start fighting u can go to play Praetorians like AMP did.

2. If u choose a strong army u have the 70% of the job done (IMHO). And if u dont know how to do it just play 1 game with a vet and then copy his army (so not so complicated).

With having that in mind, u can say that skills are very less important now, i have no doubt regarding that now (and i have tested it on my own: i really had very HIGH problems to win Magy on STW as many of u. I won some, but very very few. Well, on MTW i also have problems to win him, of course, but i can say not soooo big as on STW, because if i pick a nice strong army, keep my flanks protect and move a bit fast and just go straight against his h2h units i can win some games against him if i have just a bit luck, and he of course is better than me, so the difference between player's skills are less now).

Skills are necessary, but not SO necessary nowadays. Sadly.

**Paolai** · 05-06-2003, 12:03

Nash,
I like this game more than other games, but my opinion is that on STW/MI you had to have more talents/Skill to win a game than on MTW, thats all, and beleive me, I am not saying that cause I dunno the game mechanisms....maybe I know them too well

**LRossaLordJimi** · 05-06-2003, 12:10

In Belt challenge players have many restrictions about army choosin,map,florins etc. Many times two player have to face with a similar army with the same factions,but many time i see the stronger general win(sometime player with less error win).If is not skill,why he win?

So about what AMP say and his all cav or biza stand-up-play-praetorians-drink beer-watch tv-army,he just found the best way to win,every pc game have one:a game is not reality,this is just some numeric algorythm with some fall.But people who like fun just love to found another way to win than the easiest

Ave

**Alrowan** · 05-06-2003, 12:15

well firstly baz. that army would toast on that desert map, so id keep them moving, and you can use horse archers for that. Getting them tired before hitting your army will see you rout those guys in secconds flat.

as for all this talk on skill and army, so what if you believe army is 70% of the skill, what about that other 30%? if you are more skilled and can use your army better than the opponent can use his, then you will surley win. I have beaten all cav spanish armies, and they dont scare me. What i thinkt he problem is, is that we have too many people stuck in a STW mentality, where all the units actually had a role to play, here in MTW there are some units with very small roles, if any at all. But when it comes to chosing units the main ones i chose tend to cover close to 70% of those available. of those 70% i can win nearly any setup i chose, not based on army, but based on skill.

Hell if army was such a factor, then i could select all, then rush your center unit and win

View Poll Results: Most important skill in MTW - if you want to win that is...

Thread: Most important skill in MTW

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions