No further patches for M2TW or Kingdoms

[Puzz3D]

In TW also the firing rate for crossbows is unrealistic.

Creative Assembly wants it to be unrealistic.

Can you tell me why english longbowmen always beat french crossbowmen?

I don't know the projectile stats in M2TW.

[hellenes]

SEGA wants it to be unrealistic.

I don't know the projectile stats in M2TW.

There is no CA...

[Jack Lusted]

There is no CA...

Whilst we are owned by SEGA, will still basically operate as a seperate development studio. So there is still a CA.

And as for the discussion on balance:

First of all pavise crossbowmen make hacked meat out of archers costing more than themselves.

Pavise Crossbowmen do have the advantage of their large shields v archers. But if Pavise Crossbowmen, and a more expensive archer unit were to fire on an expensive infantry unit, the archers would cause more casualties.

Third: that combined with crossbowmen ammo lasting longer is a game killer for non-pav. crossbow factions.

Crossbowmen fire slower than archers so will always end up with more ammo left if firing for the same amount of time as the archers.

[hellenes]

Whilst we are owned by SEGA, will still basically operate as a seperate development studio. So there is still a CA.

The bottom line is that youre a SEGA emploee...so you cant deviate from SEGA's Sonic the Hendehog viewpoint...
I know you will deny all this but its aint secret we all know how business is working...

[Shahed]

Ella moray... he's not denying it, he just saying that CA does exist as a seperate development studio, owned by Sega. It's probably seperate only in name and eventually it will be absorbed if it works like any other industry. I have no idea though how SEGA works, so I can't cannot say. I guess it works like anywhere else.

Example: German insurance group AIG bought Pacific Investment Company, PIMCO. They kept the name and all the management and employees, because the brand was extremely powerful, and had huge assets under management (720 Billion US Dollars). PIMCO know works for AIG but they do have a great deal of autonomy, they choose their way within the guidelines of AIG. Just an example...

[Puzz3D]

The movement towards less realism for the purpose of making the game appeal to a wider market goes back to before SEGA owned CA.

[Lupu]

Whilst we are owned by SEGA, will still basically operate as a seperate development studio. So there is still a CA.

And as for the discussion on balance:



Pavise Crossbowmen do have the advantage of their large shields v archers. But if Pavise Crossbowmen, and a more expensive archer unit were to fire on an expensive infantry unit, the archers would cause more casualties.



Crossbowmen fire slower than archers so will always end up with more ammo left if firing for the same amount of time as the archers.

NOT true at all! crossbowmen do more that 2x the damage of archers even if their stats isnt more than 2x more and their firing rate is slower, 1 volley of bolts does more damage than 2 volleys of arrows shot by a more expensive archer unit, also pavs arnt rubbish in mellee.

What does damage help against a main army unit if your ammo just melts away and you lose the missile battle???
To that its also completely false if a good archer unit would do more damage to a normal unit.
Because archers costing same as pav.-crossbowmen do less damage and loose the missile battle and have less ammo.
Cant you just set the ammo of crossbowmen half of archers, that would be balancing.
Also the pavise protection is to much, as a good bow and arrow would easily penetrate it and the mail and still do huge damage.
I havnt heard about any battle record where crossbows were superior to bows, they were just weapons being better if carried by peasants and untrained men.

And pls tell me why mounted crossbowmen are OP.
And tell me why there are no bugs/unbalances that make eastern factions stronger? Eurocentric...

[Shahed]

The movement towards less realism for the purpose of making the game appeal to a wider market goes back to before SEGA owned CA.

That's is absolutely correct.

It may be that this decision assured the management a higher payout when selling the company. If this was part of a plan, and I'm not suggesting it was, but if it were it would make complete sense to me.

Higher revenue = higher fundamentals = higher sale price. (ceteris paribus)

Revenue is a factor that CA was concerned with. S:TW seemed by the far the best quality production. With R:TW & M2:TW clearly the mass market is the target and the strategy seems to be working to a high degree. Players are so engrossed with the GFX, they don't even know how much the game is really lacking in depth. Like 300, an orgasm of violence and theatrics without any substance. The mass market loves pop corn.

In the example I gave earlier, Bill Gross CEO of PIMCO, was guaranteed a multi million (75 Million US Dollars ? IIRC) paycheck per year, on the sale of this company, plus of course the purchase of his shares in the company worth much more. Sadly I doubt CA's management had that kind of fortune but they certainly must have received a good permium.

We all know this of course, it's largely speculation, perhaps worth mentioning.

[TosaInu]

I would think so because crossbows are perceived to be the more advanced technology, so in a simple minded way of thinking crossbows beat archers. How is it with guns vs crossbows? Did they do the same thing?

No the crossbow is less versatile, and isnt 4x as powerful as a bow as the reload time.
What you say is that all racing cars should have an automatic gearbox because thats the newest, most advanced technology, it is but it doesnt mean its better if you can use the other one right its better.

Hello Lupu,

I think Puzz3D answers your question So the expections of the general public are crossbowmen owning archers? and does not claim that to be what he feels.

[econ21]

NOT true at all! .... 1 volley of bolts does more damage than 2 volleys of arrows shot by a more expensive archer unit

With all due respect, Lupu, Lusted has done a lot of work testing and balancing M2TW. Your claims about the game don't square with my experience or with tests done in the early days of M2TW when the claim that pavise crossbows beat longbows was refuted. If you present some test results to back up your claims, this exchange might get somewhere.

Also the pavise protection is to much, as a good bow and arrow would easily penetrate it and the mail and still do huge damage.

I find that claim very implausible. Pavises were designed to protect against crossbow bolts and arrows - initially in siege situations. They would be wholly pointless if they could be penetrated as easily as you claim. IIRC, there was a battle towards the end of the Hundred Years War when French pavise spearmen proved almost impervious to the English longbows and consequently won the battle. Quite why it took the French one hundred years to figure this out is an interesting question...

Based on SP, I think CA have done the bow vs crossbow balance rather well in M2TW and certainly better than in MTW when the arbalest was just uber. Bows have rate of fire and fire arrows; crossbows have armour penetration and greater lethality. Playing as England, I don't miss the pavise crossbow. Playing as HRE, I don't miss the longbow. Both are fine alternatives. In MP, I think the pavise might swing things in favour of the crossbow as humans would be smart enough to target your shooters. That's if those early tests showing longbows winning the missile duel are no longer valid with the Kingdoms rebalancing.

I won't defend the mounted crossbows though. They were weirdly good in MTW and the same in M2TW.

[Lupu]

It was an overclaim that they do more damage, they do more against armored units, so shooting against elite units as lusted sais they will do more damage...

The pavise wasnt mounted on ones back, it was set up as a shield in front of the shooter what meant that if arrows would penetrate it thwy wouldnt do damage anyway, you didnt need a shield that stops the arrows, only one that doesnt let the fly trough.
Mounting it on the back meant death and setting it up in front of you meant you could shoot over it(do less damage)
Have you heard about any people feared for its crossbowmen when fighting people with archers(exept the chinese) only the italians, but they only were fighting nearby european states hwo also used crossbows.
The most expensive longbows are the only archer units that defeat pav.-xbows, but why not janissaries and dvor? and still you have to attack because the crossbow ammo lasts longer.
If they should beat archers, than they should cost more than the archers they beat, not less...
For the pavise spearmen the same, their shild wasnt mounted on their bodies, but on their arms, that wouldnt be unbalancing because the pavise would have guge penalties in mellee due to heaviness and that its so big...

The most funny thing with mounted crossbowmen is that they loose to bedouin camel archers in missile, but win against vardariotai.
Also them having more ammo(yes more ammo, their ammo lasts longer and I think mounted crossbows dont fire slower) and being fast makes them killing machines...

@TosaInu, yes, maybe I have understood him wrong... I still think the exeptions of the "general public" are wrong.

L :)

[Jack Lusted]

It was an overclaim that they do more damage, they do more against armored units, so shooting against elite units as lusted sais they will do more damage...

Crossbowmen have higher attack due to their slower rate of fire. Pavise Crossbowmen in the Kingdoms Crusades campaign may have a shield and high attack, but they are not as good in melee as their equivalent units such as longbowmen.

The pavise wasnt mounted on ones back, it was set up as a shield in front of the shooter what meant that if arrows would penetrate it thwy wouldnt do damage anyway, you didnt need a shield that stops the arrows, only one that doesnt let the fly trough.
Mounting it on the back meant death and setting it up in front of you meant you could shoot over it(do less damage)

The way the Pavise is shown ingame on Pavise Crossbowmen is an abstraction.

If they should beat archers, than they should cost more than the archers they beat, not less...

No because that would ignore the rest of their stats, such as in Kingdoms their poor morale and melee ability. So they might be very good at range combat, but they're not very good at much else. So the cost is balanced for what they can do.

The most funny thing with mounted crossbowmen is that they loose to bedouin camel archers in missile, but win against vardariotai.
Also them having more ammo(yes more ammo, their ammo lasts longer and I think mounted crossbows dont fire slower) and being fast makes them killing machines...

Yes they do fire slower, all crossbow units fire slower than archers, hence why their ammo lasts longer.

[econ21]

Lupu, I am not sure whether your beef is with the crossbow or the pavise.As I said, that a pavise is a great asset in a missile duel seems self-evident.

If we are talking crossbows without pavise, I'd still like to see in-game testing of them vs normal bows. I'd have thought the faster rate of fire of the bows more than compensates for the lower damage, except perhaps against well armoured targets. Do a test of peasant crossbows vs peasant archers and then we can talk.

Here are some earlier test reports (often focusing on the most elite missiles):

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=74553

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=72510

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=73597

The pavise wasnt mounted on ones back, it was set up as a shield in front of the shooter what meant that if arrows would penetrate it thwy wouldnt do damage anyway, you didnt need a shield that stops the arrows, only one that doesnt let the fly trough.

I don't get your point. Pavises provided good cover from arrows in real life and this is modelled in M2TW (perhaps insufficiently modelled, if longbows beat pavise crossbows).

But anyway, shields do stop arrows and indeed most medieval weapons. That's why they are called shields.

Have you heard about any people feared for its crossbowmen when fighting people with archers(exept the chinese) only the italians, but they only were fighting nearby european states hwo also used crossbows.

Crusaders used crossbows effectively against the Muslim adversaries who favoured the bow. I suspect the crossbow was the weapon of choice for the crusaders over the bow for two reasons. First, crossbows are easier to fire from cover - e.g. a shieldwall - which is also one reason they were widely used in sieges. Second, their longer effective range compared to most European bows.

[Lupu]

Lusted, can you please tell me why mounted crossbows are OP?

@econ21: Ranged units were not as hounoured in europe(exept italy, england, etc.)so elite units would normally fight in mellee, while people using missile weapons were peasants and so on hwo wernt trained as good, and as the crossbow was easier to use they favored it. Thats what I think.

Lets say turkish archers vs pavise crossbowmen, the pavs should win due to higher price but they win 2:1 in missile, and are better in mellee.

And pav.-crossbows vs ottoman inf: pavs win missile battle 5:3/4, are weaker in mellee but because the ottoman inf has to attack because it looses missile for its price it gets shot down so aweful on the way that it looses mellee or routs. You could just replace it with heavy inf, it isnt worth its price anyway...

We dont have to discuss about the stats or realism, fact is as an experienced MP player that its unblancing.

L

[Lupu]

For testing peasant archers vs crossbows I need someone online, because tests vs AI arnt believeable because sometimes the AI advances to far or has a differenet formation changes it etc...

[Jack Lusted]

Lupu, it seems like you are talking about the 1.2 balance, whereas i am talking about the Kingdoms balancing as that is something i worked on so i know a fair bit about. I had no part in the Medieval II balancing and so do not know as much about it.

[Lupu]

No, im talking about kingdoms balance, at the start it seemed as archers were better vs xbows than before, but after we started using guard mode for a better result in missile battle pavs started owning bows completely...
Maybe its just the guard mode, becaue befor we started using it balance was fine(exept genoese ones that also were OP before)

I did some tests that proved that melleeing is loosing:

1: ottoman inf vs genoese crossbows: I allready knew id loose the missile battle so I ran forward and charged them. I won with 8 men left but that was because I killed their gen first and they retreated loosing many men.
2:Byzantine guard archers vs genoese xbows: I did the same resulting in them winning with 24 men left...

And also that combined with crossbowmen being better vs armor, having longer lasting ammo and winning the missile battle.

PS: I respect you lusted because even if what I pointed out is badly balanced kingdoms balance is way better than 1.2 keep up the good work

still no ansver for the MCs, then I think its no reason, only bad balanced...

L

[Jack Lusted]

How exactly are you doing these melee tests as in pure melee Byzantine Guard Archers and Ottoman Infantry will beat Pavise Crossbowmen due to their higher melee attack, morale and equal or higher defence. The few volleys of the Crossbowmen are likely making a big difference given the low rate of fire but high attack and ap nature of Pavise Crossbowmen.

And guard mode keeps units together more and makes them brace more so units with bigger shields benefit more from it.

As for the Mounted Crossbowmen, they have low attack but ap and a low rate of fire, against Vardariotai i'd expect them to lose, given the very low armour and morale values of mounted crossbowmen, and low melee attack.

[Puzz3D]

How exactly are you doing these melee tests as in pure melee Byzantine Guard Archers and Ottoman Infantry will beat Pavise Crossbowmen due to their higher melee attack, morale and equal or higher defence. The few volleys of the Crossbowmen are likely making a big difference given the low rate of fire but high attack and ap nature of Pavise Crossbowmen.

That's what he is saying, and it's a playbalance problem in multiplayer when the cheaper ranged unit beats the more expensive ranged unit no matter how you use the more expensive unit especially if a faction doesn't have access to the cheaper but more cost effective unit.

[Lupu]

How exactly are you doing these melee tests as in pure melee Byzantine Guard Archers and Ottoman Infantry will beat Pavise Crossbowmen due to their higher melee attack, morale and equal or higher defence. The few volleys of the Crossbowmen are likely making a big difference given the low rate of fire but high attack and ap nature of Pavise Crossbowmen.

And guard mode keeps units together more and makes them brace more so units with bigger shields benefit more from it.

As for the Mounted Crossbowmen, they have low attack but ap and a low rate of fire, against Vardariotai i'd expect them to lose, given the very low armour and morale values of mounted crossbowmen, and low melee attack.

In a way ur saying against yourself becaue you said in you previous post that they should be equals as a hwole if the price is the same. Ottoman inf and byz.guards for some reason loose to genoese crossbows in melleeand cost more, because the missile fire makes out much as it should be, but if I would stay and shoot I would first end up with less men before mellee, and than the crossbowmen would have more ammo left and I would have to attack with less men and definately loose.

And for mounted crossbowmen, they dont win, but theyre equal in missile battle, just as theyre equal to mongol heavy archers or hungarian noblemen or dvor (I dont know why, they have lows stats and AP plos slower firing rate, with those stats I could imagine a unit with fast firing rate doing less damage)
The only units they loose the missile battle to are bedouin camel archers, strlzecy, grenadine crossbow-cav and camelgunners.

In an online battle I won against duffman's sibyan al-khass I won with grenadine xbow cav lol.
Yes, both were on wide formation, and even if the sibyans werent they should win...

[Lupu]

Ive opened a thread where the discussion can continiue, this is just not in the right thread.

This is an important matter in terms of balance, because if not rebalanced you have to take pav.-crossbow factions or rush, and have mounted crossbow-factions to get valuta for money in terms of HA.
I hope rebalances can be included in the kingdoms patch.
Caue Im sick of my expensive archers loose to cheap crossbowmen and then I have to attack.

[pike master]

im hoping with a promised patch coming out soon that the multiplayer maps will be addressed.

we need a grassy plain in mtw2 grand campaign, brittania, crusades, americas, and teutonics games.

a grassy plain that has adjustable weather instead of random. there have been too many games gone bad because of the random weather issues for grassy plains or the arsuf map.

if nothing else gets fixed for multiplayer this is very important in my opinion and should be seriously looked into.

[NimbleNota]

I will wait until results before I trust anything from CA promises are easy things to break for those people