For all veterans of STW and MTW if you wander here by

[Puzz3D]

Secondly, i would be very surprised the mod is balanced because rome wont allow it. The charge bonus value is bugged, and is instead determined by armour rating and attack value. This means all sorts of problems for stats balancing. I dont think any rome mod can be anywhere near as good as the old games untill this fixed

I can attest that having control over the charge bonus is very important to balancing. This isn't the only issue preventing the game from achieving anywhere near it's potential. When CA won't acknowledge that these things are broken or that the gameplay needs improvement, what chance is there they will be fixed? All they say is "make a list and maybe we'll look into these things". This PR trick has been played by CA too many times on this community. This is why so many players have left.

[Dagonet]

Most children grow up, some don't. I will assume y'all know the Lord of the Flies... the RTW lobby is more a symbol of hope than Goldings grotesque imaginings :) Largely devoid of self-styled vets leading the show, there is little bloodshed, no (perhaps unfortunately) live piggy-roastings. There are people who prefer to spend their time filling the lobby with inane chatter to playing, but as often as not, it's exactly the same chatter as filled the mtw lobby.

For some, a free set of nostalgia-blinkers lead people to remember previous lobbies as being far more polite and reasonable than the RTW lobbies.
For some, they fail to appreciate that with a higher number of players, comes a higher chance to meet a rude ass.

I remember logging in to MTW and having several pages of ignore list scroll by before "Evenin' All"
Fair enough.. in RTW it would prolly take a few thousand lines to parse all the ignores :) And thinking of it, more chance than not I conquered territory in several ingore lists, hah.

With RTW.. there are problems with balance, problems with bugs, problems with mp lobby. Though I'd say the "veteran" community is dishonest where it comes to claim balance or yobs as the primary reasons for their not playing.
RTW is different to shogun and mtw, where there games were once turned into scissor paper sword, CA made a game that couldn't be simplified to quite that extent, and the players of old have rebelled. RTW has the capability to be dynamic to a degree that mtw and stw just plainly didn't.

People claim that attack/armour shouldn't influence the strength of a charge. I ask them, what exactly do you think a charge is? I admit to not having examined stats or physics to any great length, and am simply responding to the assertion.

It would appear plainly and simply that the players who bear the greatest grudge, simply don't like RTW, and this of course, is up to them. But to expect CA to bespoke the game for a handful of players who want stw with prettier pictures is bordering on ridiculous.

Having said all this, I hold nothing against the CoH, it has merits aplenty.

Though I would add it is up to individuals to show those they play with and against the respect most humans are due. A CoH will hopefully give those individuals something visible to fall back on when trying to influence those less inclined to tolerance and respect.

[King Edward]

Nice post Dag, I think you explained some of the points i was hinting at in a much more articulate way than i managed too.

Good to see you at the .org!

[Puzz3D]

It would appear plainly and simply that the players who bear the greatest grudge, simply don't like RTW, and this of course, is up to them. But to expect CA to bespoke the game for a handful of players who want stw with prettier pictures is bordering on ridiculous.

CA claims that RTW is rock, paper, scissors. You and I seem to agree that it isn't. I sent them the replay of cataphracts beating silver shield pikemen frontally. Maybe CA should stop making erroneous claims.

Despite CA's PR department hinting that things might change, CA isn't going to change the gameplay. RTW will remain a highly flawed game. CA said that they sacrificed historical accuracy and realism in the interest of better gameplay. Well, they didn't get better gameplay either. The counter to army A is army A. 90% of the unit types are superfluous. That isn't better gameplay.

People who couldn't stand offensive behavior in the foyer left Total War MP a long time ago. The vets who left after RTW was released left for gameplay reasons. Almost the entire v1.2 beta team who worked for 3 months testing no longer plays the game as well.

[Olorin I]

Puzz and Dagonet:

You may be surpirsed to learn that you are both saying almost precisely the same thing. The fact of the matter is that RTW is different from STW and MTW. CA thinks it is better. Others think it is not. The point is that whether something is "better" or not is subjective. It is different and it is different by design.

I am sure, Puzz, that your assessment of why the STW/MTW vets and 1.2 beta testing team left is correct. But that does not contradict what I said above and, in fact, supports it. Dagonet theorized that many vets wanted a visually enhanced STW with some added capabilities. They did not get that - RTW is vastly different. Those differences beget different gameplay issues and require different compromises than those that had to be made in the creation of either STW or MTW.

Many vets are used to the compromises made in STW/MTW and consider them to be necessary game design "features". RTW is a very different game from either of its predecessors in the TW series. The compromises necessary for proper gameplay are equally different. It seems to me and, if you listen, to both of you, that some people can embrace these compromises, and to others these compromises are "flaws".

I like Gala apples best. Others prefer the delicious variety. Both, however, are excellent apples, although their tastes are very different, at least to an apple lover such as myself. The differences between that apples and my preference for one over another does not render the qualities of the apple I do not prefer "flawed". It also does not make someone who prefers the Delicious variety (Red or Gold) lesser than me - their preferences are simply different.

Olorin I

[buujin]

This pisses me off...

As Yuuki said the anger is partially from what CA says and then doesnt do:

I am not a MTW/VI vet, but i have played and modded both games.

Why would CA put a inactive value in the stats???. The charge bonus is NOT broken on purpose , its a falt, an error, a FLAW. One which they have seemingly attempted to work around because they did not
give the needed time to fix it correctly.

Realisticly even!, armour would have no great effect on the impact of a charge, cirtainly no more than the type of weapon used or the warrior wielding it !! and so it makes no sence to tie these two factors together.

I could make a huge list of how this FLAW effects modding capabilities for the worse, but it would be very off topic.

It infuriates me that you think CA would do these things by choice! If they did that would be evil !

It is a clear case of NOT enough testing, and NOT enough priority given to the battle engine over the dainty 3D graphics. This is why RTW does not appeal to the majority of people who played its predeccessors.

[Lord Adherbal]

People claim that attack/armour shouldn't influence the strength of a charge. I ask them, what exactly do you think a charge is? I admit to not having examined stats or physics to any great length, and am simply responding to the assertion.

charge would be determined mostly by skill. Armour would probably make for more impact but it's more a matter of being skilled with the right weapon.
and even IF it is influenced by armour it still makes no sense to link it with the game's armour value if there is a charge bonus that would be much easier to control on it's own.

[Jochi Khan]

Good posts Olorin1 and Dagonet.
(Nice to meet you on the battlefield the other night Dragonet)

This is, after all, a GAME not a way of life.
To read some of the posts you would think the mP's have a priority over how the game should be.
STW was played and ppl got used to playing the game.
Then MTW was released and again there was a learning curve and the same applied to VI.
Now RTW is here and whether we like it or not, there is another learning curve because, this is a totally new game again.
It is different from STW and MTW/VI.
CA produced this game and have listened to a lot that has been said on the .Org. They have altered some of the items listed to make the game more to the MP's liking but they have never said they would change everything that was listed.
Many 'vets' have left yes, and many are still playing.
Just how many of the v1.2 beta test team were actually playing online before leaving is an unknown number but there are still a number playing.

I still treat RTW as a game and nothing else.

Jochi

[Puzz3D]

I still treat RTW as a game and nothing else.

Jochi,

At what point of deteriorated gameplay would you stop playing? For me on a tactical level, RTW requires about 20% of the tactical thinking that the previous games required. The learning curve is very short. About 10 multiplayer games gets a player up to full potential. On the strategic level, it's almost impossible to loose a campaign game. To me RTW isn't just "different'. It's bad different.

[KafirChobee]

Gah! I miss STW all the more.

One can talk about learning curves, paper-scissors-swords (rock), or even the balance of being able to align and move ones' army uniformally or brokendown into a vast variety of groupings. All of which RTW changed. They re-invented a perfectly good wheel - seeminly to make the game more "playable" for initiates than to conform the previous style that encouraged one to learn real tactics and movement. Further, they seem to have focused on SP and graphics, over MP playability.

All of which is irrelevent, I suppose, since the damage to the former community of TW (MP) has been done. No fixing that, and more is the pity. I still recall CA's poll to determine the percentages of TW gamers that played SP or MP, the SP won 3-1, and RTW became a good SP game and a typical MP style game. Rather, than the only real time tactical game on the market that wasn't in a build and point catagory. Marketing to the majority will always take precidence over marketing to a small loyal group. RTW proves it.

Me? I still go to MTW-vi occassionally. RTW simply seems a waste of time. Though, I confess, it is a good SP diversion.

[Orda Khan]

Yes the Mp'ers are completely outnumbered though have always been very vociferous.
Is all this fuss about RTW really all that new? I seem to remember some very heated exchanges about gameplay of MTW, to the point that some members lost the plot and got themselves banned. I said my bit concerning MTW and it is pointless repeating things. One mans meat is another mans poison and nothing that has been stated thus has convinced me that MTW was such a perfect experience, for me it was anything but.

I have played RTW online and it really depends on who you play IMO. There again, I found the same with MTW.

And Dagonet is spot on when he says that rudeness etc is not a new phenomenon, it has always existed

.......Orda

[M.Cornelius Marcellus]

At what point of deteriorated gameplay would you stop playing? For me on a tactical level, RTW requires about 20% of the tactical thinking that the previous games required. The learning curve is very short. About 10 multiplayer games gets a player up to full potential.

I totally disagree with you ,Yuuki.
On what calculation is that 20% based?

Tactical thinking is a matter of some principles:

1. position advantage
2. getting initiative
3. do not engage if you are not sure to take an advantage
4. getting the enemy tired
5. morale and skill count more then men numbers
6. forcing the enemy splitting his forces
7. concentrate your attack forces on weakest enemy point
8. attack where and when enemy is unprepared
9. making the enemy do what you wanna him to do
10. make the enemy underevaluate you

In RTW still:
1. a hill is a hill a slope is a slope
2. initiative gains the game
3. errors are errors and you must do not engage if you cannot win, you loose units
4. tiredness is tiredness
5. morale is in use
6. doubling is doubling
7. concentration on weak exposed units is a tactical must
8. a good eye in catching opportunities to launch a cav charge or shoot in advantage is still gaining, for examples
9 e 10 always works.

As far as regards the 10 games to become a good tactician: how many MTW or VI or RTW do you judge Caesar or Hannibal or Napoleon should have done to became good tacticians? Some hundreds or thousands? Should they have to beat Marcus Cornelius at MTW or STW to be judged good?
A quick learning curve is not a bad thing.
Just enable good tacticians to emerge without learning, complex keyboard key alt-ctrl-shift combinations, how to group units click fast, click right, micromanage units, etc. That are true matter for click players and fast fingers.
At least in RTW you can manage an army simply with drag and drops and few keys: even bradipus tridactilus can manage it in an enough quick way, moving the less he can the most effective possible.

About R/T/S matter. RTS does not make the game more tactical. It is only a rule. Rules change. Now the rule is: a cav charge can crash a spear. You have to adapt to it.
You have less chance to counter a spam army with a balance army.
Just like when rifles comes. Cav, swords, spears are nothing against a .. spam rifle army , lol.
Maybe some those XV century men thought: “ Oh you must not to be skill or honoured to win battles with Rifles.”
But it is not a matter of skill in tactics. The man who still use rifle better wins. The man who adapts his tactical thinking faster wins.
In RTW you have more chance to beat a 7 pretorian army with a 7 pretorian army rather than with a balanced army.
But if you employ your pretorian better applying tactical principles you still win.

Surely this is less enjoying.
Surely fast killing rate and fast units are less enjoying: sometimes the battle becomes a real chaos: that is not enjoying for my eyes that love order and geometry.
And that is the real point. Nothing with tactics. RTS well balanced means more enjoying. Less fastness means more enjoying, at least for my eye.

But you can fix rules. Some simple rules: 7k 12 units minimum. And the game IMO is still enjoying.
I say IMO because if someone tell me “i am boring with that rule and i dont like the game” I must say “Ok you are right that is your opinion, and partially mine: the game could be faaarrr better if balanced”.
But i still enjoy beating spammers with balanced armies. I like beating rifles with swords and archers.

But all the matter has nothing to do with tactics and tactical skill or thousands of games you have to play to win against a veteran in MTW/STW. 1000000 games in MTW are not equal to good tactician.

Marcus

[1dread1lahll]

Some-one let this STW/MTW old timer know if it is still laughable easy is employ programming cheats in RTW, if so all the other poor quality control is mute.

[Puzz3D]

Marcus,

The 20% is my estimate of the amount of thinking I have to do relative to the previous game engine. I can perceive that it's considerably less thinking. You actually do better in RTW with a more simplistic approach because there isn't enough time to use more complex tactical plans.

The 10 game learning curve doesn't include learning the interface. If you know the interface, which BTW isn't even as good as the previous games, then you can concentrate on the tactics, and it only takes about 10 games vs good opposition to grasp the full tactical possibilities. For example, what could be done with the phalanx was clear after 5 games, and it didn't change after 25 games. I'm not including esoteric fantasy units in that estimate, or the the fantasy artillery. I'm only including learning the use of the standard infantry/cavalry/ranged units.

I'm not really interested in a game in which if you take Praetorian cav I have to take Praetorian cav. What good are a multitude of unit types if you have to select from a smalll subset of those units. MTW/VI has this problem as well. That's exactly what Orda is objecting to except he puts the blame on the player and I put it on the game. Even now BI is being promoted as having 83 new units types. So what! That in itself doesn't make the game better. You'll spend a little time learning the new units and then you'll be back to a unit A vs unit A and unit B vs unit B, etc. type of gameplay.


"In RTW still: 2. initiative gains the game"

That's the problem right there. Initiative alone should not win the game. I can have the initiative in chess, but it doesn't mean I've won the game. Where is the balance in RTW between attack and defense other than the corner of the map? I guess my expectations are too high for RTW, and I had to switch to a games like Silent Hunter III where those expectations are met.

[Lord Adherbal]

Some-one let this STW/MTW old timer know if it is still laughable easy is employ programming cheats in RTW, if so all the other poor quality control is mute.

you can see the amount of money your opponents spent on their army during the army-buying phase. So if they exceed the set amount they you know they're cheating. Whether the game will detect this by itself and call it an "out of sync" error I don't know.

[buujin]

Dissapointment in RTW as a game is only part of it. Another is the community we have almost completey lost. Finally, and most importantly... at the moment we cant even mod the game to how we like it. So much potential is going to waste there.

Its strange, i wasnt around when MTW/VI was released... but its hard to imagine anyone complaining so strongly about the gameplay... after all its virtually the same as Shogun exept its got more units and more features!.

What were the issues people had with mtw when it was released ?

[Orda Khan]

Its strange, i wasnt around when MTW/VI was released... but its hard to imagine anyone complaining so strongly about the gameplay... after all its virtually the same as Shogun exept its got more units and more features!.

What were the issues people had with mtw when it was released ?

Just about every aspect of the game from what I can remember and I really do not care to remember in all honesty. The exchanges were far more heated than any I have seen about RTW and it's the main reason why Total Wars .Net was created and the vast majority of MP'ers migrated there

......Orda

[M.Cornelius Marcellus]

Yuuki,

The 20% is my estimate of the amount of thinking I have to do relative to the previous game engine. I can perceive that it's considerably less thinking. You actually do better in RTW with a more simplistic approach because there isn't enough time to use more complex tactical plans.

I cannot perceive substantial changing in my quantity of thinking playing MTW or RTW. Maybe it is only a matter of subjective perseption.
Rather than less thinking i should say quick thinking.

Another principle of tactics is ability to take quick and correct decision in few time.

I cannot remember those so much complex tactical plans in mtw, not so different from plans in RTW anyway. IMO.

the interface, which BTW isn't even as good as the previous games,

IMO RTW interface is simpler and so better than MTW. At least you can use drag and drop better. After playing a lot of games in RTW I cannot perceive after 1.2 patch many flaws on interface. I do not wish the old alt-ctrl interface.

it only takes about 10 games vs good opposition to grasp the full tactical possibilities. For example, what could be done with the phalanx was clear after 5 games, and it didn't change after 25 games.

I cannot perceive less tactical possibilities in RTW than MTW. For example phalanx could be very effective if well employed both against infantry and cavarly. You cannot say that for spears in MTW/VI.

I'm not really interested in a game in which if you take Praetorian cav I have to take Praetorian cav. What good are a multitude of unit types if you have to select from a smalll subset of those units. MTW/VI has this problem as well. That's exactly what Orda is objecting to except he puts the blame on the player and I put it on the game.

I agree with you. I am not interested in a 7 pretorian cav vs 7 pretorian cav: spammers spoils the enjoy of the game. I choose a balanced army too beat the 7 pretorian army. Or I put rules on games to stop spamming or limit it. I repeat: 7k 12 units minimum is a simple and good rule to prevent it.
I agree with Orda the main problem is the lack of good players (good both in fair play and tactic). The few times i found those players in RTW matches I always had a good time..
Anyway I agree that RTW could be far better and has many flaws.
I did play some games on SPQR months ago and I enjoyed them a lot. Yet it was not possible to catch a considerable number of veterans on that mod that was very very near to MTW, IMO.

Even now BI is being promoted as having 83 new units types. So what! That in itself doesn't make the game better. You'll spend a little time learning the new units and then you'll be back to a unit A vs unit A and unit B vs unit B, etc. type of gameplay.

I agree with you. The expansion will be good only if:
with more balance and better RTS first
with more mod features
with more historical battles
with more historical periods
with more factions and units why not
...

That's the problem right there. Initiative alone should not win the game. I can have the initiative in chess, but it doesn't mean I've won the game. Where is the balance in RTW between attack and defense

Maybe I should have said initiative gains the game if all other factors are equal.
Anyway defence still have terrain advantage. And even in real warfare if i am not wrong, is the only advantage it has, cause attack, if initiative can be kept, can choose where, when, and with what forces to attack.
In MTW on steppes, if i remember well, attack could choose where to attack and was in advantage as well, even if it got a little disadvantage in starting shootout. In RTW is exactly the same.

Marcus

[Puzz3D]

Maybe I should have said initiative gains the game if all other factors are equal.

This is where we disagree. Why shouldn't I be able to successfully defend against an attack if all other factors are equal and I play as well as the attacker plays? I can't in RTW because I have the delay and fast combat resolution to contend with which act in favor of the player who moves first. RTW has obviously been intentionally designed to favor first strike in a big way. When you add in the fast movement which adversely affects the ability to coordinate 20 units, that does it for me. RTW is the most unfun gaming experience I've ever had.

BTW, I can send you the multiplayer replay of 4 cataphracts beating 4 silver shield pikemen frontally using large unit size. I don't consider the phalanx to be working properly.

[Lord Adherbal]

BTW, I can send you the multiplayer replay of 4 cataphracts beating 4 silver shield pikemen frontally using large unit size. I don't consider the phalanx to be working properly.

that's mainly because of the jump ability of horses. They just jump over the spearwall into the phalanx formation, disrupting it and cutting them to pieces. That jumping also makes cav spamming so powerfull.

luckily the jump animation can be modded out.

[Dagonet]

I, personally, think there is as much scope for the application of skill and as much chance of playing a rewarding, fun, competitive game in rtw as mtw or stw. Ofc, there are a few things that would dramatically improve the game.. but asking CA to.. implement them, as has been so often pointed out.. is largely pointless.

Even perhaps I'd dare go as far as to say there is more scope, but scope that has been largely left in the dust by people who refuse to see playing as a reward in and of itself. And I'll admit I pick boring armies here and now :)




"Every player believes himself better than his equal."

Je love that :D

[Orda Khan]

scope that has been largely left in the dust by people who refuse to see playing as a reward in and of itself.

Agreed. Another reason that game enjoyment degenerated, that I have touched on before....Competitive/Friendly.

When was it that each and every game became a competitive struggle? I never played a 'comp' game in STW and the reason being 'human nature', that has already been mentioned. Once the fun element has been removed it is astonishing the lengths that people will go to to be the 'best'. The exploits in the game that boils down to nothing more than cheating IMO. Honestly, can we ever expect perfection with games like this? Would we all agree on it if we did? LOL, I seriously doubt that. I prefer to wonder at the fact that I can move an army around over a phone line...Amazing! Co-ordinate armies with allies.....Amazing!

83 new units and 10 new factions coming with Barbarian Invasion, sounds very nice. I am really looking forward to seeing that but I wonder how long it will be before some bright spark discovers that grouping 3 Berserkers at experience 4 will crush anything and everything they meet?

.......Orda

[Puzz3D]

That's mainly because of the jump ability of horses. They just jump over the spearwall into the phalanx formation, disrupting it and cutting them to pieces. That jumping also makes cav spamming so powerfull.

Right, along with a weak anti-cav bonus to begin with, and this has nothing to do with competitive vs friendly games. It's a problem in the game engine, and it affects all players just as the broken charge bonus, delay in response, fast combat resolution and excessive running speeds affect all players in all battles.

Even perhaps I'd dare go as far as to say there is more scope, but scope that has been largely left in the dust by people who refuse to see playing as a reward in and of itself. And I'll admit I pick boring armies here and now.

I don't for a minute believe you'd pick a weak army if playing in a tournament. If it was a team event, you'd actually be letting your team down by doing that.

The exploits in the game that boils down to nothing more than cheating IMO. Honestly, can we ever expect perfection with games like this?

The purchasing system is part of the game. Figuring out what works best in the purchasing system isn't cheating. It's not the player's fault that Creative Assembly doesn't know how to balance their own game system. It's not the player's fault that his cav jumps over the spears in a phalanx. The game engine is doing that not the player.

We can't expect perfection, but better balance means more people enjoying the game. I don't lump STW, MTW and RTW into the same category because I enjoyed STW and MTW, but not RTW, and the reason is poorer game balance. The players don't even come into this assessment. You see the same problems in single player along with some other issues. If the game were balanced well enough, there wouldn't be any imbalance to exploit and you could take a wide variety of armies into battle with equal winning chances.

83 new units and 10 new factions coming with Barbarian Invasion, sounds very nice.

It doesn't sound nice to me given that they are not going to be balanced very well.

[Orda Khan]

The purchasing system is part of the game. Figuring out what works best in the purchasing system isn't cheating.

If the game were balanced well enough, there wouldn't be any imbalance to exploit and you could take a wide variety of armies into battle with equal winning chances.

Like I said, we can not really expect a game such as this to be perfect and no matter how good it was, we as a community would never agree about it anyway. As for exploits and cheating, I consider the sad case who discovered the pav trick was cheating, must have a lot of free time too

......Orda

[bodidley]

While we can't expect the game to be perfect we certainly can expect it to be well balanced, unit behavior to make sense, and gameplay to be as fun as previous releases, and we can expect to be able to play a debugged and complete game without buying an add-on. I have been playing Total War since Shogun and it's the first time that I've been compelled to stick to multiplayer because the AI is so terrible.

I have to say that the single player experience has not been in improved at the expense of the mulitplayer because the single player experience has not been improved despite changing the campaign engine. The AI isn't any better at strategy than it is at tactics, and all of the games seem to have the same results. The increased number of units hasn't greatly improved gameplay because many of the units are just superfluous and others are super-units. Some factions are just designed to be destroyed by other factions. This has meant that the most challenging and interesting MP battles are Roman vs Roman.

This is not a simple case of changing, this is a case of changing for the worse.

[buujin]

here here !

[Loinnreach]

Bodidely, if you compare SP to MP and you belive that MP is good then you are mistaken.

SP is great comparing to MP. That is why I've posted this post. Read the first post.

It is for all MP players since STW and MTW, who insisted playing MP part of TW till now and many gave left.

MP is what TW is all about here, becaus of personalities of people which made TW series so unique.

If multiplayer part of RTW would be so good made as single player part is then many would stay and continue to play and this and many other forums would be more alive as the are at the moment.

I'm dissapointed over the matter what attitude particulare people have. But we shall not forget that we life in life capitalism.

If we would pay this company to improve things which we would like to see, well then this would be already done.

[Loinnreach]

Can someone fix my spelling mistakes.

[Orda Khan]

No need to Vorcid, you make your point adequately well.

I have been echoing your remarks and this is, afterall, the MP forum. SP and its virtues or lack of are irrelevant. I think there have been some misunderstandings with the replies I have made because I have dared to criticise the players. Just because I say the problem with MP is the players themselves does not mean I think there is no problem with RTW. When I say that MTW and even STW had their own share of problems, this is not a way of saying RTW is fine. However it does make me smile a bit when I read all this negativity. It is possible to have a good battle in RTW despite all the claims to the contrary.
You mourn the passing of an era but this is life and nothing lasts forever. Before very long the old names will be distant, fading memories

........Orda

[Puzz3D]

Before very long the old names will be distant, fading memories.

That's right, and it's a direct result of the gameplay which couldn't be properly evaluated until the RTW v1.2 patch, which fixed most of the MP techincal bugs, was released almost 6 months after RTW v1.0.

MTW/VI has the reload fatigue exploit, but Samurai Wars gets around that by eliminating the xbows and by picking up the pace of the battle. The average battle only last 15 to 20 minutes which also helps reduce the excessive fatigue experienced in many regular MTW battles. Ranged units use all their ammo in about 7 minutes, so you don't get the long boring shootouts of MTW/VI. The 'swipe' exploit, which was a major problem in MP, was fixed by LongJohn in the VI v.201 patch. The units in Samurai Wars are balanced, and the upgrade system only plays a minimal role. So, it's pretty hard to find exploits in Samurai Wars, and we have 3 different map sizes one of which is larger than RTW's map size.