View Full Version : Creative Assembly Cav rush
With the patch cav is cheaper...spears more expensive...faced some all cav armies just rush in and rout a "normal" army in seconds.
I start to dislike this game http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
Kas http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
http://www.aggony.org/kasicon.gif
HIC EST KAS DUX
www.aggony.org (http://www.aggony.org)
Well whats a normal army? You cant use the same type of "good" army as you did before the patch.
Cavalry is stronger so you have to get good spears and other anti cavalry units...and/or heavy cavalry.
CBR
Yes, a little more detail please.
Expensive spears are still cheaper than heavy cav, so they can get better Valours.
The ones you can't stop with spears you can check with your own heavy cav (hopefully).
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
where is the almighty elusive balanced force which can beat everything?
ANS:
it never was, and never will be.
[This message has been edited by Whitey (edited 11-07-2002).]
MagyarKhans Cham
11-07-2002, 20:37
ur right Kas, but who gives a damn if ur right? at first noone, cuz your findings are just the succesfull thing for others. bringing it to a discussion is considered to be whining, after some time just an hand full online gamers who also noticed that gameplay becomes sucky.
furthermore, its easy to balance the game yourself. buwt what do w eget? the chatting in the foyer like, "3 cavs max, 3 archesr min" ????
one of the problem is the sucky Pathetic Patching Policy.
other problem is, noone gives a damn, besides things for their own good
overall solution? none
"close to a" solution? many options.
I personally am interested in a list of dozens of somehow balanced armies. even some historical based.
Battles like "Balanced German I vs balanced Byzantium III". I can work out this idea but for whom am i doing this?
Without some major involvement from all actors this game for MP-online is DEAD.
Sjakihata
11-07-2002, 21:26
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000447.html
Soapyfrog
11-07-2002, 22:03
Oh so, wait a second, cav is now TOO POWERFUL???
Just goes to show, people complain and complain without knowing what they are talking about.
I don't think they are.
One can hardly make an educated guess 1-2 days after the patch has been released.
------------------
=MizuDoc=
Orda Khan
11-07-2002, 22:09
Sheesh! Why did you guys leave Shogun for this ??
....Orda
------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
Soapyfrog
11-07-2002, 22:12
+DOC+ I agree, my point is that pre-patch we had all sorts of people yammering about how cav was useless, and now we have some chap popping up here post-patch saying cav now rules the battlefield (which I sincerely doubt).
Oh, the pain.
Hope I have time to do some multiplayer over the weekend.
MagyarKhans Cham
11-07-2002, 22:14
well the rout bug in old shog causes even more headaches
Soapyfrog
11-07-2002, 22:17
I would never go back to Shogun. It was a great game in it's day, but MTW has it totally surpassed on all levels.
For the same reason, I would never go back to Centurion (remember that game? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif )
Quote Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
+DOC+ I agree, my point is that pre-patch we had all sorts of people yammering about how cav was useless, and now we have some chap popping up here post-patch saying cav now rules the battlefield (which I sincerely doubt).
Oh, the pain.
Hope I have time to do some multiplayer over the weekend.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, first it's spears, now it's cavalry, lol! I mean, lets face facts, a game the size of this with so many units and potential army variances is almost certainly going to be impossible to fully balance.
In spite of all that, i think the devs done exceptionally well coming up with something quite close to balance (v1.1).
My only reservation is sometimes i feel the battles are over too quickly but, as Puzz3D suggested, it works well at 10K florins as this will allow a little across-the-board valour upgrading. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
=MizuDoc=
[This message has been edited by +DOC+ (edited 11-07-2002).]
hey doc, some guys are just faster as other :P
so the most just copy a few bring new ideas...
this patch move from 1 unbalance to the other.... i see just overpowerd units.... and u could easly reduce the "100" units too 4 or 5, coz 99% thius 5 units are used!
i just ask, why the cav al lhave the same speed?
why near all archer useless and same power/reload.....?
well, cavarcher have more arrow.... good! but still, slow reload and less power, they have same power as in stw 0,6 (im not sure) but vs all this armour we need more power to the archer, at least a bit....not too much
cav eat now and u havnt good counter.units.... cav win vs spears that the same like befoe the first patch in MI...u remember when all the NC beat the spears?
i think the SP are happy now, that good!!!
now plz help us MP, if not fast, and i mean realy fast!!! the MP is jsut an stupid rush-arcade game!!!! well and than we can move to WC3, this game looks much better!!!!
the hillbonusses are near nothing!!!
I respect all ur work mizus, but u guys have a problem....u know the game well, very well but u fail to bring this knowledge to the battlefield!
so maybe u should open ur mind and listen sometimes....
koc
Soapyfrog
11-07-2002, 22:59
Oy, Kocmoc, who cares if you only use 5 or 6 different unit types in MP?
It doesn't really matter!!! You can't balance 130 unit types, spread over three broad tech levels and 8 factions... so yeah, there will be some units that are more optimum than others.
Well that's life! Your best bet is to sit down and build your own stat that you perceive as "balanced". I am sure there are plenty of high-quality, like-minded players who would use it.
In the end MP battles will remain "rush" games as long as there is no campiagn framework to fit them into. If you have no need to conserve your forces, you can rush all the time. If you need your army to remain viable after the battle, rushing becomes more problematic.
Knights might beat spearmen, but then maybe they should, speramen are nothing better than cheap peasants with spears and shields. They probably don't beat better quality spearmen like FSer, CSer or OFoot and they are anyhere from 2-4 times the amount of florins to buy!
I'm sorry, i don't get the argument here!? Is it about the units per se, or the various morale penalties incurred during battles and the range they reach?
Because if it's about the morale penalties and the shortness of some battles then i might agree with you on that. I've always hoped for a little hike in overall morale for all units or a slightly lower morale penalties over a slightly lower range. I often find that once one routs the whole bloody lot do, so it can become a race to rout the first unit...
However, if it's the units i disagree, i do actually think that the units are fairly well balanced now.
------------------
=MizuDoc=
MagyarKhans Cham
11-07-2002, 23:07
Koc is right and froggy too (ofcourse http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
I challenge Koc to make his own unitstats file with projecttiles and we have a poll or jury or whatever to see if it is better then we have now.
if more people make their own stats we can make a STATS of the week. everyone can download it and slowly we converge to the single final most balanced point....
Ofcourse the question is, who cares and for whom are we doing this?
There will NEVER ever be a balanced stat.. no way. not at any florin levels, not with all the units.
You want a balanced stats. Ok. I give you these
60 Scissors: 100 florin. A5D5 vs paper, A0D0 vs stone.
60 Papers: 100 florin. A5D5 vs stone, A0D0 vs scissors
60 Stones: 100 florin. A5D5 vs scissors, A0D0 vs paper.
Pay extra 50 florin to improve speed of any unit by 1m/s.
Pay extra 50 florin to improve attack by 1.
Pay extra 50 florin to improve defence by 1.
Pay extra 10 florin for ability to attack from range for one round.
Now.. this is balanced. No matter which way you see, its symmetrical. But with MTW stats? You can get a Ph.D to make it 75% as good as above example, where every unit has it worth at any florin level.
------------------
tootee the goldfish,
headmaster of Shogun-Academy (http://shogun-academy.tripod.com)
loyal roach of Clan S.G. (http://thesilvergazwa.tripod.com)
'Pa Si Buay Chao! Si Liao Ka Song!'
------------------
Kocmoc,
The changes you see in unit balance had nothing to do with Mizu's. Where did you get that idea? My suggestions, posted here at the org, were rejected by LongJohn because I couldn't construct strong enough arguments for them.
Kaneyashi,
You can construct a mostly infantry army that can stop all cav, but the so called "balanced" army of 4 ranged, 4 spear, 4 sword and 4 cav, probably can't do it, and as far as I know it was never an objective of the patch. You need a very strong rock, paper, scissors like what exisits in WE/MI v1.03 to make that work.
The cav knights were made cheaper and the spears and arbs and Alans more expensive because LongJohn went online and saw people using a lot of arbs and spears and Alans. He posted that observation here at the org. If players are now using 5 or 6 unit types as Kocmoc claims, that's better than before when they were using 3 or 4 unit types. I know how hard it was to balance WE/MI v1.03, and I certainly don't expect CA to balance the MP game to that degree.
hehe, oki doki http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
arba are not fixed!!!
they are best in any direction...range 6000 power 3 .........accuracy...... and so on
but HELL, still they cant make the rush less effectiv!
nice they changed cav http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gif
Hell, now i see 16 cav rushs all the day!!!
they beat spears :O
jeezus, this is balancing or not?
make the most units more expensiv and u solve problems?
i said it long time ago: the moralbonusses are too big, the influence zones are terrible, the bonusses add each other to a hardcore domention!!
u can break everything in a very short time, if u go below 10k its a fight of 10 secs and 1 is running, coz u break everything with just multiple hits....
this is an arcade game, get many .....rush fast.... thats it.... shooters are near useless.....cavarcher are absolut shit...
and the standart h2 units are not worth the money...i tested the most h2h units with moral from 6 till 10 and u can make them all rout with about 50 men left and fresh!!!!
if a 60 men unit with moral of 8 or 10 cant hold till at least 30 men the killspeed and game speed is too fast....u cant see it as a tactical game if ur units break with 50 mens!
so im sure i can break units with 60 mens, i jsut can see it that fast :P
plz guys, let us work together and bring fast some stats wich are fix the major problems.... dont fear the rush but make some more untis worth the money...
thx
koc
Quote Originally posted by Kocmoc:
i just ask, why the cav al lhave the same speed?
why near all archer useless and same power/reload.....?
koc[/QUOTE]
Koc, Let me try to explain.
Cavalry will nearly always the same speed for a march, as a horse has a standard speed, just like people walking. The differences arise when the armour and weights are taken into account when the horse starts to run/charge.
As for archers? Archers traditionally in Europe, where not very powerful.
To explain better perhaps an example.
Archers in the East, (desert warfare) and in the hotter countries was very important and effective. The reasons for this are the low amount of armour generally worn by the combatants, hence easier to effect and advantage over the enemy.
However, in western Europe in particular, the archer in the early and high period, declined somewhat in importance due to the large amount of armour, (and quality in some places) that the combatants could wear.
Archers themselves could not effect an advantage from this.
Now this leeds obviously as you would have guessed to the development of the crossbow, longbow and of course later the arbalester.
With these weapons they where able to reverse the effects of the increase in armour to some degree and therefore placed a new emphsis upon the archer/crossbowmen.
You must also keep in mind, in most battles the archer could be consider more of a area effect weapon, rather than a target identification and fire.
Why archers have same reload? Because a human can only do so much.
fenir
Dionysus9
11-08-2002, 01:37
Quote Originally posted by Puzz3D:
Kaneyashi,
You can construct a mostly infantry army that can stop all cav, but the so called "balanced" army of 4 ranged, 4 spear, 4 sword and 4 cav, probably can't do it, and as far as I know it was never an objective of the patch. You need a very strong rock, paper, scissors like what exisits in WE/MI v1.03 to make that work. . . .
[/QUOTE]
Well, Yuuki, I'm going to give it a good old college try. If (notice I say if Im not convinced yet) a balanced 4/4/4/4 army is no longer viable, then I think we have taken a step backwards. Pre-patch it was certainly viable and seemed to work well against all-cav, all-spear, all-sword armies. I will retain my 4/4/4/4 army until I get sufficiently spanked to abandon it for a more arcade style rush army. I hope that isn't what ends up happening.
MizuDoc says this patch brings better balance and you say the days of the balanced army are no more....do you disagree on this? Am I missing something?
@ fenir:
this is a game, and if we would have a historical correct game, spears wouldnt beat knights!
but this is a game, so we want challanges and tactical battles....
this means we need different units too, with different stats and advances...
now, u just buy the best cav for ur money...no other choice, there isnt any countercavs nether a faster or slower cav...
like yaricav in stw compared to heavy cav...quite easy
archer.... cavarcher was a mopve-fast-close-and-shoot-unit...than turn fast back....
if u cant disturb or kill ur enemy effectiv this unit is uslesee, like we have now, this unit is 1 of the important tactical points...and this point is away now!
again, we want challanges, now we see many horses and many spears wich just rush....so many units "100" i believe http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif
and just a few are used....this is a laught....
koc
Soapyfrog
11-08-2002, 01:59
How many unit types did you use in STW? 3 or 4? So by your own admission, MTW gives more options.
Your complaint about cav I don't understand, you are complaining becuase Alan cav and Steppe cav can catch horsearchers?
There are many different speed cav. Frex Alan and Steppe cav are faster than anything, then light cav, medium cav, heavy cav, very heavy cav...
Are you saying the differences are not dramatic enough?
So, let's start working this, was would YOU, Kocmoc, do to balance the stat. Give some concrete ideas!
no - don't ask him to do that, he is saying it is not possible,
and so should you - balance in this game is an impossible dream, its because the game is based around SP, with MP added on. Add to this that we cannot decide whether we want historical accuracy or good fun gameplay (OK - as individuals - almost all of us have decided, but as a group...) so what can CA do? piss off one half to placate the other? so we are left by a bodge job - this is not CA's fault, but ours.
hey frog,
i used much more than 4 units in stw, if u have some logfiles left u can go and have a look http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
i had my personal 3ms rule....u can easy proov it
there was so many treads about possible solution from me in the last months...if u dont saw it or didnt red it, im sorry but i wont count it here again!
just a few ideas....
wich i already mentioned ....
if i see moral 8 units run away with near 60 men left, something must be wrong?
...the moralbonusses are too big....
they patched all this great things, but didnt realised that the arbas are still overpowered?
lol i get a laugh, they chaged the SP nothing else!
the arba are still best in any direction, so what we can do?
the first step would be, to lower the power, the range and the accuracy of the arba and raise some of this things by the other units... i couldnt notice a reload time, so maybe i dont see it or it isnt possible to change! if its possible the reload time of the cavarcher should faster, and the power and accuracy a bit higher.
moralbonusscircles, they are too big, just make them closer.
donhill-uphillbonuss!!! the mainpoint of this game, coz (i thought so) we have a 3d game! but somehow the effect is extrem reduced to a point where hills are useless....if udont sit on mont everest http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif
where are the defensiv parts of this game?
there are no defensiv....we are just on offensiv....rush all the time!
i would lower some of the armour of different units, to make it possible to kill some of them...
deep-line-kills....differents between 3 lins till 1 line----kilratio is very big....
i would intent a unit, example....handgunners with much power and more accuracy but low range, so they could stop a rush but are not effectiv in a gunbattle.... u have the advance to stop the rush but the problem to save the units....
spears...lol....they should beat the cav right? but hell, h2 chiv seargent got beat by a alan cav...dunno v2 or v3.....not sure
the problem is the same like with v1,02 in MI, spears are overpowered, but now the cav is overpowered and the other h2h units (60 men) are usless, at least very risky, coz they run with moral 8 like bitches!
its nice if many units effect each other but if u cant control this bonusses and circles u lose or win by much luck.
to the cav...sorry but the spead to catch some cavarcher are NOT enougth, go online and try it.
the other cav are all the same no special!!!
so its just the question, what u choose for ur money.
all together, missles should hit something and archers LOL....at least every 10th arrow should hit a bit!!!
koc
MagyarKhans Cham
11-08-2002, 03:34
well teh best thing might be, if u dont agree with koc just challenge him. i am sure he would like to show it to u in battle. ofcourse say in front of teh game what your intentions are cuz he might field a more gentle army.
Soapyfrog
11-08-2002, 04:50
But I don't understand you are saying arbs are great but the only usefull units are melee. Why are you worrying about Arbalests when they are useless anyway?
Why not power UP missile units across the board to make them usefull? (now that we can).
Morale circles and terrain bonuses... cannot mod these AFAIK, so we are stuck. Any fix will have to be stat based... e.g. raise everyone's morale so the impact is less.
As for Alan merc cav beating chiv sergeant... WTF? That's nutty! I'll test...
Soapyfrog
11-08-2002, 04:52
Well I'd be glad to play online. What's your availability like?
Dionysus9
11-08-2002, 04:58
Quote Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
Well I'd be glad to play online. What's your availability like?[/QUOTE]
Who are you asking Soapy?
Kongamato
11-08-2002, 05:01
excuse me, I have never been online so please do not feel anger towards my noobishness.
Have any of you tried an army that is LESS than 16 units? I know that it resembles the AI too much, but would the extra valours help to stop the cav rush? Has anyone tried using a square formation or otherwise compact formation? What have experiments with these ideas proven? I would like to know.
------------------
Did they differentiate? They do not keep you distinctive. We do not have the necessity of differentiated you. I may of it no i prove differentiated between you at you that you feel you!
Quote Originally posted by Dionysus9:
Well, Yuuki, I'm going to give it a good old college try. If (notice I say if Im not convinced yet) a balanced 4/4/4/4 army is no longer viable, then I think we have taken a step backwards. Pre-patch it was certainly viable and seemed to work well against all-cav, all-spear, all-sword armies. I will retain my 4/4/4/4 army until I get sufficiently spanked to abandon it for a more arcade style rush army. I hope that isn't what ends up happening.
MizuDoc says this patch brings better balance and you say the days of the balanced army are no more....do you disagree on this? Am I missing something?
[/QUOTE]
The ante has definitely been increased with MTW.... by this i mean there are >10x as many units and therefore the challenge of balancing it is many times more difficult to achieve, if not nigh impossible.
What i meant was the unit balancing was remarkably good considering the extent of MTW and with the patch it has got better. However, i don't think for one moment that online MTW will ever be perfectly balanced.
------------------
=MizuDoc=
Erado San
11-08-2002, 05:21
The idea to strengthen Cavalry has come from the many requests to make them stronger. And when used well, a spear unit generally can still beat a cav unit.
This balance works fine when two players or more do battle with balanced armies, or armies with units selected for a particular tactical game.
All cav armies, or any rush army, like the spear heavy rush armies before the patch, will always be selected by lousy players. You can balance the game, but not balance the players.
This is something you can't change. It took almost 2 months to make 1.02 for MI/WE. It took a long time to make 1.03 based on the work done for 1.02. I don't know what time it would take to balance MTW this way. It wasn't the scope of this patch, and that you knew, Koc.
The way I see it, if serious players meet the current balance provides many options for good games. In that respect those lists would serve well, Magy. It would take a hell of an effort though to make this game balanced as well as 1.03, as far as I can see.
Hello,
As it stands now, I hope MP is never successfully balanced. That would mean that the game's historical value had been immensely diluted.
Now, if you want to have separate MP and SP unit files, THEN balance the heck out of MP and make SP as historically accurate as possible. That way both camps might be happy.
Personally, I find all this nattering about MP unit balance odd. I've never heard ancients miniatures players talking like this. They want it as realistic as you can get, they build their armies from historical lists and go at it. If you're not going to use reality as your base, then why bother with Shogun or M:TW? You could go find some SciFi or fantasy game to enjoy.
Albatross?
V'ger gone
Soapyfrog
11-08-2002, 05:52
Kocmoc... or really anyone who claims that cavalry is all-supreme.
v3 Alan (983fl) vs v2 Chiv Sergeants (867fl)
In a standup fight, the Alans will inflict between 2 and 10 losses on the Sergeants, and take 32 or losses before breaking.
Alans do slightly better in wedge. In one test where I successively disengaged and re-engaged, always attacking from as much on the flank as possible, I managed to inflict 28 losses on the sergeants but the Alans were reduced to 2 men and broke.
Now v3 Alan cav is more expensive than v2 Chiv Sergeants by 115fl. 115fl extra troops for the Chivs, and the Alans just might as well not show up.
come on ed!
again, i got ur point http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif but whats the problem with give the missle more power and balance it a bit?
and the bonusses and the circles should be closer or less effectiv, sorry but this isnt so much to change, ofcourse we wont see a fast 100% balnced game but the major problem could be fixed!!!
i just see the arba and the other missle units and i ca neasy say, they changed nothing!!!!
so dont tell me they changed something or it took 3 months to change nothing!
we have the stats now, and it took u 15 mins to gice some power to the missles and reduce some armour, ofcourse (u will be right) it wont be the perfect thing, but it would be help much!!!!
and btw, to the cav...again, if i just turn in and i dont come close to the enemy unit and it routs before i even attack, lol...than i would say there is something wrong. and i can say u what is wrong and i can say u what should be changed.
.........but back to the point, they wont change it and just worked (90% if i gopt jil right) for the SP....
ok, we can change the stats for ourself, but there are still option wich we cant change!!!!!!!!!
koc
Soapyfrog
11-08-2002, 06:01
I'm sorry Koc you aren't being clear, are you saying you just gallop v3 Alans around v2 Chivs and eventually they route without even taking a casualty???
Didn't test that!!!
longjohn2
11-08-2002, 06:09
Thanks for your post soapy frog. I was beginning to think you guys were playing a different game from the one I worked on.
I made heavy cavalry a bit cheaper, and gave them slightly more chance to push back spears and so break their formation, but certainly in the testing I did knights would not beat a spear unit that cost anything like as much.
I didn't change anything with the missile troops. They work for SP, and I figured that making cavalry more useful in MP would automatically make archers more useful as cavalry are big targets in small units.
frog u dont understand me, coz u dont play MP!
i cant explain it for u!
john, hell i showed it enought peoples, and mag saw it in a 2v2 today!!!
my cav wasnt even close, they DS#IDNT fought and the enemy unit routed!!!!
im not stupid, and john mabye u know the game well, but on the battlefield u need more than to know the gmae well!!
so come online and i show u the problems.
frog: sorry m8 u sound like a new player, and u bet u tested it in SP in a custom game... u dont know much so, sorry but u miss my point!
koc
btw;
"I didn't change anything with the missile troops. They work for SP, and I figured that making cavalry more useful in MP would automatically make archers more useful as cavalry are big targets in small units"
this shows, thats "ur game"... u dont play MP and this exactly show that u miss the point too!
i wont shoot just cav! lol i want to shoot (and hit ofcourse) some h2h units as well!!!
btw, u ever tryed to shoot a heavy cav with 7,5 armour?
go and try it plz, u will be surprised how many hits u can make....and hell.....what u do if the cav is protected by an enemy missleunit?
a arba eat ur cavarcher....so come on.... plz let us talk about some real points...this just show that u dont know much about MP.
yeah i know ... but the changes dont make the game better, it jsut create more inbalance...
Soapyfrog
11-08-2002, 06:41
It's true I don't understand.
Fortunately, I have a LAN here with 4 PCs, all with MTW installed, so testing MP is not a problem!!!
MagyarKhans Cham
11-08-2002, 07:01
ofcourse we all can try to let Koc shut up and let him keep his knowledge for himself.
i think u all arent ready yet to see what he means, so u need just more time. i know my Khan knows it and he hates it as well.
but with all tw versions before, we all waste a lot of energy convincing each othera nd one day we have a fine balance.
therefore i suggest a that we must resurrect a modding group. not sole statsresearchers but very good people who know whats going on on teh field of battle as well.
matt8260
11-08-2002, 07:12
Is there any way to make a mod to make all the unit stats the same as before? Because now the games no where as enjoyable as the calvary just kicks the ass out of everything and theres no way to stop them.
[This message has been edited by matt8260 (edited 11-08-2002).]
I think you should try and view this game a little differently to STW. I think Koc and a few others view MTW as a more advanced version of STW with more units, whereas it should be viewed as a completely independent game with subtle variances.
The rock, paper, scissors is till there, only it's slightly different, one unit type cannot be 100% guaranteed to beat another 100% of the time. Unlike STW, spear units now require to be kept in formation, facing the opponent and in a certain number of rows to gain their full combat stats with rank bonuses, whereas previously in STW a Yari Sam was effective against cavalry no matter what its shape and orientation were.
Therefore it is entirely possible that under certain circumstances a spear unit will get beaten by a cavalry unit.
Like i said earlier, the only one factor that i may be in agreement with Koc and co is the morale bonuses or rather penalties that are incurred throughout a battle. Rather than battles to-ing and fro-ing like a see-saw, it can often be the case that once one unit routs the whole lot follow suit and the battle is over in less than 5 min. It's not uncommon under these situations to see entire units simply turn tail and run without having even entered into the fray. Like Koc, i'd like to see the morale penalties have a slightly smaller range.
It was never the intention of this patch to divulge into serious unit balancing and all of us here knew that, including Koc. Minor changes have been implemented and on the whole these have been generally welcomed.
I'll stick by my guns in that cavalry were the dominant factor in the middle ages and i believe the way they are represented now is far better than in they were in v1.0. We should branch away from the basic spearman should beat cavalry. The basic spearman unit in MTW is exactly that...basic. It's no match for the heavily armoured and ferocious battle hardened knights, that is until the pikemen arrived on the scene.
------------------
=MizuDoc=
MagyarKhans Cham
11-08-2002, 07:26
frog would u like to be part of a broad-carried-stats-mod-testing-and-releasing group?
i have seen cav eating spears, i am a cavlover and before people start accusing me bribing CA to make cav powerfull i am willingly to make all cav weaker and horsearchery stronger in return...
longjohn can we arrange some time online with koc and me? we tried before to arrange something but it failed.
matt8260
11-08-2002, 07:44
I tried chivilric spearmen against chivilric knights both with equal valour and the chiviric knights beat them on level ground. Calvery are not ment to go charging into a hedge of spear points and come out on top, its just not possible in my mind. They should be able to beat a unit of spearmen charging into the flank, but not in the front. Thats why they have horses so they have better mobility to get around to the flanks.But a unit that has good mobility and a defense to hold up against so many spears? I don't think so.
Soapyfrog
11-08-2002, 07:51
I would love to contribute in any way I can...
I can test balance very easily in MP (aforementioned 4 PC LAN) without the burden of going online and setting up a game.
I need Kocmoc to TELL ME how he managed to get units to route without even fighting. DON'T KEEP SAYING you can't explain.
Explain or post a replay!
Soapyfrog
11-08-2002, 08:00
BTW, I don't think we are giving Longjohn and crew enough credit.
The micromanagement required to get 1 cav unit to make a dent in one spear unit is quite dramatic, and even then the cav always seems to lose.
In a large battle it would be totally unmanageable.
Not saying we shouldn't worry about tricky little maneuver exploits, just that it is probably not the crazy problem that is being claimed.
Kongamato
11-08-2002, 08:05
A strange, interesting, yet probably doomed to fail idea just hit me. Why not go islamic, use a mass of cheap spears, and flank the Cav army with a mass of V4 W3 A3 CAMELS. Just make sure the terrain is arid or desert. Aren't camels supposed to cause fear? Could that small bonus work when super-charged? Has anyone tried?
------------------
Did they differentiate? They do not keep you distinctive. We do not have the necessity of differentiated you. I may of it no i prove differentiated between you at you that you feel you!
Well said DOC.
Spearmen and equivalent units are peasantry given basic drill/formation training and low quality (but not useless) equipment. Elite Cavalry units smashing into them on the flank or rear should quite rightly butcher and rout them unless a great general is around to inspire the Spears to hold.
Once you start fielding more "professional" spear infantry like Feudal and Chiv Sergeants should you expect to put up a fight....and of course Halberds and Billmen are superb Knight killers.
As for the "one rout, all rout" theme, perhaps you should be looking at your unit selection. Spearmen and Chiv Sergeants for example are not good morale units.
I'm dloading the patch now, and will see if an all-cav army can cut it against Feudal Sergeants with Cav support.....or even against Byz Infantry with Kataphraktoi and Varangian Guard fire fighters.
I expect to see piles of horse carcasses.
Quote Originally posted by matt8260:
I tried chivilric spearmen against chivilric knights both with equal valour and the chiviric knights beat them on level ground. Calvery are not ment to go charging into a hedge of spear points and come out on top, its just not possible in my mind. They should be able to beat a unit of spearmen charging into the flank, but not in the front. Thats why they have horses so they have better mobility to get around to the flanks.But a unit that has good mobility and a defense to hold up against so many spears? I don't think so.[/QUOTE]
ah, but in the game the Chiv Sergeants are useless at killing anything tougher than a peasant. They can take a lot of punishment, but they don't pack any punch. I'd be interested to see the outcome of Feudal Knights vs Feudal Sergeants http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Quote Originally posted by Cadarn:
Well said DOC.
Spearmen and equivalent units are peasantry given basic drill/formation training and low quality (but not useless) equipment. Elite Cavalry units smashing into them on the flank or rear should quite rightly butcher and rout them unless a great general is around to inspire the Spears to hold. I'd even fancy the Knights to cause enough damage in a frontal assault to make the Spearmen start to worry morale-wise.
Once you start fielding more "professional" spear infantry like Feudal and Chiv Sergeants should you expect to put up a fight....and of course Halberds, Pikes and Billmen are superb Knight killers.
As for the "one rout, all rout" theme, perhaps you should be looking at your unit selection. Spearmen and Chiv Sergeants for example are not good morale units.
I'm dloading the patch now, and will see if an all-cav army can cut it against Feudal Sergeants with Cav support.....or even against Byz Infantry with Kataphraktoi and Varangian Guard fire fighters.
I expect to see piles of horse carcasses.[/QUOTE]
Nobunaga0611
11-08-2002, 08:38
I'd like to help out as well with unit balancing. I just have some questions, and if we're truly going to do this, then let me know.
1) Are we going to be editing costs for upgrades, or just the stats (eg. hit %) ?
2) We all know that missle units get more effective at shorter ranges, is there a way to enhance this, so rushing is more of a bad idea, but doesn't kill too many so as to render rushes impossible?
I have more questions, but reading this thread has taken too much time http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
I gotta say, this thread cracks me up. After all the ranting about spears beating cavalry not being true to the Middle Ages and people wanting this fixed . . . and now people are complaining about the opposite. It just goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished . . . damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Grifman
Quote Originally posted by V'ger:
Personally, I find all this nattering about MP unit balance odd. I've never heard ancients miniatures players talking like this. They want it as realistic as you can get, they build their armies from historical lists and go at it. If you're not going to use reality as your base, then why bother with Shogun or M:TW? You could go find some SciFi or fantasy game to enjoy.
Albatross?
V'ger gone[/QUOTE]
Hm then you are not a member of the yahoogroups that support most miniature ruleset. There are always discussions about game balance/realism.. especially if its a new game in development.
If the game balance is wrong then some units will simply not be used, units that did exist back then for a reason. So realism means game balance to me.
Before the patch cavalry was too weak... now..hmm I think it might be a bit too good. But need to do some more test battles to see if an all cav army can be stopped and how its done.
CBR
Dionysus9
11-08-2002, 08:45
Quote Originally posted by Kongamato:
excuse me, I have never been online so please do not feel anger towards my noobishness.
Have any of you tried an army that is LESS than 16 units? I know that it resembles the AI too much, but would the extra valours help to stop the cav rush? Has anyone tried using a square formation or otherwise compact formation? What have experiments with these ideas proven? I would like to know.
[/QUOTE]
First-- GET ONLINE AND TRY IT! You'll have a blast and learn a lot.
Second-- the problem with using less than 16 units has a lot of factors, but can be summed up like this:
8 high valor spear units with upgrades that get charged by 16 cav units from all directions (i.e. outnumbered 2to1) will route because of the massive morale penalties they take from 1) being surrounded by enemy, 2) being charged by cav [in the sides and rear], 3) taking high casualties all at once.
Some type of square formation work, it deserves testing, but the general (very general) rule is more men is better than less men-- regardless of valor.
Hope to see you online.
HopAlongBunny
11-08-2002, 09:11
Would this be worth trying?
For MP (maybe even SP) find a set of minuature rules you agree on; edit the values for different unit types => have at it!
just a suggestion
Quote Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
Kocmoc... or really anyone who claims that cavalry is all-supreme.
v3 Alan (983fl) vs v2 Chiv Sergeants (867fl)
In a standup fight, the Alans will inflict between 2 and 10 losses on the Sergeants, and take 32 or losses before breaking.
..snip..
[/QUOTE]
Yes all fine but a 1v1 unit test doesnt tell you that much about how a battle with 16 v 16 units works.
When the patch came out I started using the army I had used for fun before I got tired of diconnects etc etc. 4 Lancers with lots of arbs and some maa. It was a fin army and sometimes I even had some nice victories.
With the patch this army is a lot better..not perfect or anything but now my Lancers were more than just some expensive flankers. But they can still be beaten if I just let them charge frontally into good spear units.
I find them more realistic and cavalry in general are now a main unit on the battlefield and not just a support unit as before the patch. Thats good for gamebalance.
Ofc several of the victories to cavalry Ive seen so far is because people still think they can defeat cavalry by using the old tactics from before the patch..cheap spearmen and swords now have lots of problems against cavalry so we all have to get used to that.
One problem now is what if I give my lancers an "escort" of 12 other cavalry units?...not many people will buy 16 spear units for a MP battle...
Before the patch I preferred games of 10K florins or less now I think I prefer 12K or more as the foot dont have enough valour to stand up against lots of cavalry.
Halbardiers that are good against cavalry dont have enough valour so they really need the upgrades. And Ive started to use chiv foot knights to help my spears...but havent done any online test battles yet with that combo against the all cav army.
CBR
Quote Originally posted by HopAlongBunny:
Would this be worth trying?
For MP (maybe even SP) find a set of minuature rules you agree on; edit the values for different unit types => have at it!
just a suggestion[/QUOTE]
Well we cant change the combat/morale mechanics. Only cost of units and some mechanics were changed with the patch afaik and the effect is big and that was not really the cost that did it IMO.
CBR
Koc/Magy, maybe you are just too good with your cav http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif. In a single unit 1v1 v2 Alan Cav cant beat a v2 Chivalric Sergeant. The C.S breaks probably due to other reasons. Have you considered you both are on the leftmost upper percentile of the normal curve, so in your games you find them just too easy, and see faults that your opponent's spears run even before combat? If MP is 10% of the MTW markets, I think you guys are 0.5% of the market then http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gif My point is, I think it is a gameplay problem only when it an army of your opponent of similar skill level breaks as you have described
----
I think Koc main complain is that the current morale is low such that when a unit sustain some casualty, and if its surrounding is overloaded with enemy, the morale penalty is sustained made it run when its still a sizable unit? And when a friendly runs, the morale penalty it inflicts on other friendlies is too much such that they too run with a sizeable army.. that's what Koc trying to put across? *just helping out http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif* That now, the game is more about rushing and out-manouvreing your opponent such that some units of his sustain quick casualty and demoralised to an extent it starts the chain-rout while the rest of army is still in good size?
------------------
tootee the goldfish,
headmaster of Shogun-Academy (http://shogun-academy.tripod.com)
loyal roach of Clan S.G. (http://thesilvergazwa.tripod.com)
'Pa Si Buay Chao! Si Liao Ka Song!'
------------------
Quote Originally posted by Grifman:
.... It just goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished . . . damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Grifman[/QUOTE]
Yes damned if you dont make the tests needed before you release a patch http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
CBR
anymapkoku
11-08-2002, 10:19
I haven't played 1.1 yet but I'm pretty sure I could beat an all cav army of magyars/kocmoc's in my first game.
Tootee your logic is contradictory. "Kocmoc's wrong because he is right." That doesn't make sense. "the master is wrong because the student isn't as good as the master."
Kocmoc your logic is pretty screwed up if I do say so myself. I said it once before, but I'll say it again. "the number of unused units doesn't mean the game takes less tactics." It's the number of useful units that determines the tactical nature of the game. And don't bring MI into this. We all knew you and the rest of the mi crowd whined about super ashis and guns and the 4 unit rule. Using a 3 unit rule doesn't prove a thing. All it proves is your good with a 3 unit rule.
anymapkoku
11-08-2002, 10:22
Using a 3 max rule is like playing chess and using 3 of each chess piece. 3 queens 3 pawns etc. Winning like that doen'st prove you're good at chess. It proves you're good at using a 3 unit rule.
Dionysus9
11-08-2002, 10:38
Quote Originally posted by anymapkoku:
Using a 3 max rule is like playing chess and using 3 of each chess piece. 3 queens 3 pawns etc. Winning like that doen'st prove you're good at chess. It proves you're good at using a 3 unit rule. [/QUOTE]
What about using a 1 king max, 1 queen max, 2 knight max, 2 bishop max, 2 rook max, 8 pawn max rule? If you could win with that rule, what would it prove?
It would prove you are a good chess player, is what it would prove. Lol.
If a "chess patch" comes along and makes the standard chess game have 3 queens per side, it will drastically change the balance of most chess games. All openings will be different, all midgames different, all endgames different. If a person can whip ass with a 2 queen rule, are you going to tell them they are "merely good at a 2 queen rule"
Its your argument that doesnt make any sense. Tootee is saying that Koc and Magy are phenomenally good players, esp. when it comes to cavalry. If the game has become too easy for only them because cavalry is made stronger, then thats not nearly as big a problem as if strong cav has messed up everyone's game.
Kocmoc and magy arent complaining about losing. They are complaining that it is now too easy for them to win. I.e. no challenge.
anymapkoku
11-08-2002, 11:12
Yes exactly. If you are good at playing by the rules of chess, that makes you a good chess player. Whereas if you are good with a 3 unit rule, this niether makes you a good or bad chess player, nor does it make you a good 2 unit max or 1 unit max player, or 3456 unit max player. It simply makes you a good 3 unit rule player. If the claim is "I am good at 3 unit max rule" then it is not the rules of chess which matter, but rather the 3 unit max rule that matters. If the claim is "I am better at tactics" then it is tactics that matter, and nothing else. If the claim is "I am good at chess" then it is the rules of chess, and nothing else, which matters.
I may have been wrong but the way i read Tootee's post was that a good player's opinion doesn't matter because most players that play aren't good. If that's not what he meant I am in error.
[This message has been edited by anymapkoku (edited 11-08-2002).]
anymapkoku
11-08-2002, 11:13
And yes if someone can win with 2 queens, and 2 queens is within the rules of the game, then yes they could claim to be good at chess.
[This message has been edited by anymapkoku (edited 11-08-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by CBR:
Yes damned if you dont make the tests needed before you release a patch http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
CBR
[/QUOTE]
Wrong, it's not even a matter of testing. Some people - if you've bothered to follow the threads - thought pre-patch it was just fine that cav had trouble with spears. Others thought the opposite. Now that post-patch things are a bit different, everyone is now screaming the opposite.
Which is right - I really don't know. Point is, CA can't please everyone no matter what they do or how hard they try.
Grifman
The morale penalty for one flank being threatened is -2 and is felt at 75 meters. This is not a big penalty and it's not a great distance. It's the same as it was in STW. I don't think it's possible to rout a unit without inflicting casualties even if you have 16 units vs a valor 0 peasant unit.
There are a couple of problems when you exclusively use battle testing to determine play balance and discount objective testing. The problem is that the players are never perfectly matched in strength, and no two battles are exactly the same. Magyar attempted to demonstrate this claimed morale bonus problem to Sp00n, and Sp00n beat him. What would you conclude from that? You need some kind of objective testing to go along with the battle tests, and you should be able to demonstrate the problem in objective testing if it's a real problem. You can also now see the morale and fatigue levels of every unit in a replay which is something I requested back in the WE/MI days, and I find it very helpful to see when units are getting into morale and fatigue touble.
The fundamental tactical factor in this game is morale management. Getting flanked is bad because it lowers morale. If you've got units over half strength routing, then you're not managing morale as well as you could. It happens to me, and 95% of the time I see what I did wrong. Slightly raised overall morale or lowered rout point would allow units to fight longer in adverse situations. Taken too far, like the +12 morale with the "no morale" option, essentially removes morale from the tactics because the change is very large compared to the size of the typical morale penalties.
Quote Originally posted by anymapkoku:
I may have been wrong but the way i read Tootee's post was that a good player's opinion doesn't matter because most players that play aren't good. If that's not what he meant I am in error.
[/QUOTE]
Yes you misread my post, pardon me for not expressing myself clearly, but Bacchus got my point. My point is that Koc/Magy observation s may not be a big issue to most MP players because they are very good players and as such may be feeling that things are too easy when playing vs opponents not of their level, e.g. unit rout w/o fight as quoted by Koc when facing cav etc.. but in fact is due to their overall solid gameplay, rather than simply "now v2 A.Cav can eat v2 C.Ser and A.Cav is cheaper".
It will be an issue if let say two newbies square off, one send one unit of cav to attack a spear and spear lost *we know for newbie they tend to manage a unit at a time*. That screw up gameplay.
Thanks for clarifying Bacchus.
------------------
tootee the goldfish,
headmaster of Shogun-Academy (http://shogun-academy.tripod.com)
loyal roach of Clan S.G. (http://thesilvergazwa.tripod.com)
'Pa Si Buay Chao! Si Liao Ka Song!'
------------------
MagyarKhans Cham
11-08-2002, 14:01
In the game Puzz3d is referring to our Khan just knew a little percentage of what Kocmoc knew at that time considering teh bonusses, and the army Spoon was using to defend himself was made up certain units itself. Both armies were combatinf and combatcav where he had 3 arbalesters.
At that time my Khan didnt know a thing about influenceranges of teh units (and he still doesnt really) so he was showing only morale overloads.
What i am trying to say is, let 2 very good players play, or wait for some weeks and see what competitive armies are like of each player. Hold a tourney and look at teh armies used at that time. Its combat army vs combat army.
Imo the beauty of the game doesnt appear in the historical simulation but in the range of different units, different ways of solving the puzzle to create a win on the battlefield. How do u crack the nut called teh enemies formation.
I saw what the ranges could do in battle, somethimes i think its effective to click a hundred times when selecting a unit and clicking on an enemy to attack it. but that i cant proof.
I suggest people try and test a bit in games to have some combat cav units selected in a bunch and click on the battling enemy units. Just play around with it.
SO perhaps what we just miss is an effective rock scissors paper, even between the unittypes. slow horses fast horses, heavy armoured infantry, horse-eaters and so on.
[This message has been edited by MagyarKhans Cham (edited 11-08-2002).]
Yes a solid shocker cav that can take out most troopers except to a cav-killer cav like the yari-cav can add more dimension to the current gameplay. Now all cav are basically one in many faces.
------------------
tootee the goldfish,
headmaster of Shogun-Academy (http://shogun-academy.tripod.com)
loyal roach of Clan S.G. (http://thesilvergazwa.tripod.com)
'Pa Si Buay Chao! Si Liao Ka Song!'
------------------
youssof_Toda
11-08-2002, 14:53
Quote Originally posted by anymapkoku:
And yes if someone can win with 2 queens, and 2 queens is within the rules of the game, then yes they could claim to be good at chess.
[This message has been edited by anymapkoku (edited 11-08-2002).][/QUOTE]
No one would play a game with 2 queens cuz it ruins the balance of the chess game. Is nice for a little change from the original game but it gets boring when ppl start to learn the inbalance and use it to the fullest. Would jst make you a good player at a boring game.
Jemasze Toda
11-08-2002, 15:13
I can't say too much about the new patch because i only got it two days ago and wasn't able to play more than a few games.
Hence only some impressions on the patch from TheFool:
Cav IS definately stronger than in pre-patch times which - from my point of view - is good! I always enjoyed using Cav extensively, even before the patch and in fact during all my Totalwar experience. So the new system boosts my personal style of play very much and i don't regret it. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Is Cav too powerful now?
I have faced two Cav-rushs from my opponents so far and my army was rather easily able to beat both of them but i must admit though that these Cav-maniacs were poor players without any skill whatsoever.
A well-led Cav-rush might be a totally different thing and i am looking forward to see one!
By the way a 16 Cav-army used to be THE most difficult army you could choose (in old Shoggy too), especially if you tried NOT to rush but to inflict the Mongol (in fact the tactic of ALL the great horse-warriors of yore...) tactic upon your enemy:
A kind of guerrilla-warfare with horse-archers annoying constant rain of arrows and the slow bite at your enemies army bit by bit until he looses his nerves and spirit and either escapes battle ( LOL so often seen even by veterans who somehow consider that tactic unfair and unhonourable) or foolishly chases your Cav around the battlefield thereby neglecting the cohesion of his army....
Of course against very good or cautious opponents this tactic is doomed mostly.
Unfortunately in MTW 1.00 Cav tired horribly fast and as Koc and Magy stated often before Cav-archers were (they still are?) a pain in the ass. Due to that fact so many tactical options were a lot more difficult or near impossible to do. Still! I enjoyed trying the Cav-thing and i guess this tactic will be more effective now...
Some say speers are now too weak against Cav.
Are they?
My speers worked fine for blocking enemy-cavs long enough until i won the battle with my own Cav in more than one battle after the release of the patch. But i won't deny that the pre-patch speer-only times may be over...
which is fine in my eyes!!
Concerning the ranged units as a whole (including the horsies) i agree with Koc and Mag and others that they should increase a bit in overall value in order to get a bigger variety of battle-setups and armies.
On the other hand Longjohns statement about the use of archers (hmm mostly or exclusively Horsearchers i think) against Cav is not without foundation. If i have the choice between targeting Order-Foot (or similar) or Cav i almost always decide to decimate the Cav even if i am only able to inflict a very small damage due to armour.
Most people still underestimate the importance of having "air-control" with your Cav in a battle....
So: Less speers, more cav, more and better targets for cav-archers! I am not yet sure about that, but it may be an option..
I wonder if we see many cav-rushs in the days to come...it remains to be seen how effective this "cheap tactic" really is.
Too often i saw and heard too many complaints about too many things ( monks, guns, ashis, speers, cav...) and while some of them are certainly not without reason often it serves only as excuses for own failures and short-comings.
To come to a conclusion:
As i see it the patch was able to solve some issues of game-balance in MP ( i do not know about SP) while others remain to be observed carefully and in due time fixed by another patch.
Personally i am quite pleased by the patch, at least what i can say after such a short time.
More tests need to be made and a lot more battles to be fought!!
A step ( no more but also no less) in the right direction!!
yours Jemasze alias The Fool
Jemasze Toda
11-08-2002, 15:15
Oh and please: No 4 Cav-rule Kas!!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
That would damage the game far more than any Cav-rush could ever do....hehe
Erado San
11-08-2002, 15:21
First of all a message to everybody...
Stop this polarisation, with the two groups of people with different opnions opposing each other. We're all talking about the same game and a good balance, both in SP and MP is in everybody's bet interest.
Personally, I don't think the balance as it is now is bad. Players who play tactical games and don't focus on the easy win armies will play a lot of good battles with interesting armies. The problem in this is not the balance in the game, but the attitude of the players, which has always been the problem. Keep in mind that the near perfect 1.03 for WE/MI cam about a year after the release of WE/MI. It takes a long time to achieve.
Having said that, an effort to balance the game better, for MP mostly, and maybe even to some extent for SP, is welcome. If there is a way to take out some of the easy rush armies and keep enough diversity in unit stats, I am all for that, and will happily join any group of serious players that will make this effort (mail is on the way Magy).
For those that may wonder why this was not addressed by the beta testers... A full scale balancing effort was not the scope of this patch. I can only hope that CA will give us a chance to repeat our performance for MTW.
anymapkoku
11-08-2002, 15:54
DOn't try to pin the blame for imbalance on good, honest, decent players who abide by the rules, Erado San. It's no one's fault but CA's if the game is unbalanced.
MagyarKhans Cham
11-08-2002, 15:55
it would benefit teh game if we enhance the shooters like archers and horsearchers accordingly.
jemasze u will never be able tyo beat a combatarmy if its well executed with a army with 2 archers and 2 horsearcherunit and u know it or better experienced it.
imo 100 spears in deep ranks should not break by incoming 40 cav. perhaps only if the spears are attacked from 2 sides simultanueously
to longjohn...
the assumption that u should buy archers for targetting horses with it is just a lack of knowledge how the game is played. in this we can forgive u. so lets help u a bit.
cav are mobile troops which can easily retreat from shooting enemy. combatcav has good armour, and archers always shoot crap in their first turn. so teh changes that archers are good against combatcav in a battle is heavily reduced to almost zero.
teh fact that i beated giljay with a fun army og horsearchers doesnt mean that the unit is good, it may tell me something about my enemy.
i hope i didnt sound rude.
Straight Up, these are my impressions.
So far I have not faced an all cav army,
I have seen that cav are powerfull and it does seem that a cav rush would be "interesting".
But remember the Monk Rush, after some trial and error ways were found to defend against Monk Rushers.
One thing i must disagree with is increasing the missile units capability in firing,
Cavalry are vulnerable to missle fire, even heavily armoured cav - which were hard to knock down historically anyway.
WE/MI turned into a gunners game, guns were too powerful. If we increase missile units abilities too much we risk the same happening to Medieval.
One thing i would like is a little more capability in H2H for archers and the like.
I have seen the height bonus work effectively, (vanilla spearmen and fanatics knocking over Teutonic Knights). So i don't understand why people claim it makes no difference.
I have seen and caused cascade routs, perhaps the penalties applied to nearby units need to be reduced a little, the range(distance) of such effect appears adequate at this time.
With all these points further time and testing is needed.
We must be cautious, we do not want the game to become a missile dependent game again,
WE/MI got ruined because of it, even 1.03 did not correct the overpowering effect of guns. Naturally that was not helped by so many people insisting on flat maps.
MagyarKhans Cham
11-08-2002, 16:10
ho well we are all fragmented once again so only time will bring us together. for now lets skip the archers and lets face the arcade armies. and come back here in some weeks.
Magyar,
I agree http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
combatting arcade armies is more important
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Well, i for one, definitely find missile troops useful against cavalry. The fact that it's easier to kill a cavalry unit over an infantry unit with the same armour makes them more vulnerable to missile fire.
If someone has a 650+ florin 40 man knight unit and you kill 20 of them with missile fire you've already cost your opponent a lot of florins.
Like someone said earlier, there's really little point in targeting the 100 man spear units as the return on damage done in florins will be poor. Target the expensive and easier to hit mounted knights and you can start counting the damage costs. Like LJ once stated if you can accrue your money's worth from missile troops then maybe they do serve some purpose.
Plus now you can improve them with valour more easily than other units. The handgunenrs are actually quite effective fighters (att 1, def 3, hon 4?)and therefore a couple of cheap valour increases on them and they might be very useful in melee too...
I have to admit though, in my own modded campaign i play with slightly modded accuracies of certain missile units:
Mounted longbow 0.5 instead of 0.4.
Short bow remains at 0.63.
Handgunners 0.08 instead of 0.05.
Arquebusiers 0.10 instead of 0.07.
Ballista 1.0 instead of 0.9.
There's definitely a case here that some players are simply so far ahead of others, ability and knowhow wise, that they see the stats as the reason for constant victories. Sometimes i think some people just end up knowing the game far too well and when the average player comes along to challenge them they use their knowhow of the game's mechanics (morale penalties/bonuses, range of influences, thresholds, etc) to deadly effect.
------------------
=MizuDoc=
MagyarKhans Cham
11-08-2002, 17:10
i know my Khan dont know shit about stats, not more than anyone else. he relies on manouvring and creating chaos, plans and implementing his own ideas.
but i fail to see how missile fire can harm combatcav.... maybe i am blind ofcourse.
i try it once again.
u have an army with 8 infantry, 4 cav and 4 shooters, sounds fair, no?
i have 8 infantry and 8 combatcav
how the hell could u make those archers effective against my cavalry?
first the cav have good armour
secondly archers are crap in their first shooting round
third cav are moving towards u, high speed in case of a smart rush
so 12 combatunits of yours face 16 of mine. while even the trapped archers of u might effect your combatrate. ofcourse u save d soem florins on teh valour 0 troops but still i am sure u cant make that difference effective. u will loose wheter i am a better player or not.
while in my banningseason i read a post from u, doc, about resizing some units. i fully agree with that. even more drastic than u suggested. something like
peasants 160 or 200
spears and alike 100
archers 80
arba and crossbow 60
swords and knight seem to be adressed now
this will give archers a bit more value for money although teh effectivness while rushed is limited.
I was one of those who argued that infantry should be more vulnerable against cavalry. While I still think that a true historical model should be more complex (e.g. infantry more vulnerable while marching, charging, etc.) I think that with the patch the realism of infantry vs cavalry is somewhat improved with low quality infantry being beaten while good quality infantry is now able to stand. And this is probably the best that can be done in MTW.
Probably, if archers were able to perform direct fire at close range instead of firing in arc, their effectiveness would be improved (in fact, even if they had infantry in front, a cavalryman is always higher and is vulnerable to a direct shot from rear ranks even during a melee).
Cheers,
Antonio
Heheh yeah Maggy i'd completely forgotten about that thread in all this patch hysteria!!
Now regarding this, i actually full heartedly agree with you!! I think increasing the size of peasants and archer units is very necessary indeed!
In fact that will be incorporated into my SP campaign immediately, man, i can't believe i forgot about that!
Ok, i like the 80 man archer units. What about horse archers, horse crossbows, handgunners and arquebusiers, size wise?
Horse archers and horse crossbows 60 man?
Not really sure what to do with handgunners and arquebusiers. They both stink as missile troops as it rains too often. Their only salvation is their possible value in melee as their combat stats aren't too bad.
------------------
=MizuDoc=
MagyarKhans Cham
11-08-2002, 17:59
u will never hera me suggest horsearchers should be 60 cuz i can hear the voices already "that has been changed cuz magyar wanted it"
but hey doc yeah man its really a cool idea. i wonder why that never crossed my mind.
crossbow 60 horsearchers 60
I'm thinking 75 might be better actually because you need 3 rows for unaffected accuracy and 75 men would give 3 rows of 25.
So, a 1.25 increase to horse archer and archer numbers?
Archers 75
Desert archers 75
Trebizond archers 75
Bulgarian Brigands 75
Genoese Sailors 75
Golden Horde Warriors 75?
Longbows 75 (might be quite good now!)
Crossbows 60
Arbalesters 60
Handgunners 60?
Arquebusiers 60?
Horse archers 50?
Horse crossbows 50?
The only problem we'd have is with the specialised units and many Turkish units, mainly because these are archer/infantry hybrids?
Futuwwa 75?
Janissary Bows 75?
Janissary Inf 60?
TurcomanFoot 75?
Ottoman Inf 75?
Nizari 75?
TurcomanHorse 50?
Byzantine Cav 50?
Mamluke Horse Arch 50?
Turcopole 50?
Golden Horde Arch 50?
Boyar?
Siphai of the Porte?
And javelin units, napthas?
Thoughts on sizes?
------------------
=MizuDoc=
[This message has been edited by +DOC+ (edited 11-08-2002).]
[This message has been edited by +DOC+ (edited 11-08-2002).]
youssof_Toda
11-08-2002, 18:26
2 suggestions from my own experience:
1. make heightdiff more important.
2. increase power of crossbows/arbs when troops get close; a larger penalty for rushing straight into the wall of arrows. maybe make em less effective for long distance i dunno bout that.
Quote Originally posted by Grifman:
Wrong, it's not even a matter of testing. Some people - if you've bothered to follow the threads - thought pre-patch it was just fine that cav had trouble with spears. Others thought the opposite. Now that post-patch things are a bit different, everyone is now screaming the opposite.
Which is right - I really don't know. Point is, CA can't please everyone no matter what they do or how hard they try.
Grifman
[/QUOTE]
Yes you are right that there will always be people complaining about the changes made in a game. Ive always seen it in the games I played which were under constant development: new version/patch and lots of whining/noise on the forum. Always difficult to find out if there really is any problems.
The patch is still new so we have to get used it first to see if there are any solutions to the all cav army which now seems to be a very/too strong combo.
CBR
[This message has been edited by CBR (edited 11-08-2002).]
CeltiberoSkullXIII
11-08-2002, 18:50
lol
------------------
"It's better to let the enemy alive as to kill it ... To TORTURE it!" http://gifanimados.ya.com/terror/calaveras_banderas/flag_wht_blkbns_clr.gif
CeltiberoSkullXIII
11-08-2002, 18:53
roflolmao
------------------
"It's better to let the enemy alive as to kill it ... To TORTURE it!" http://gifanimados.ya.com/terror/calaveras_banderas/flag_wht_blkbns_clr.gif
MagyarKhans Cham
11-08-2002, 19:01
why not 80 doc? its more easier scalable and 3 rows of 25 and 5 in reserve... archers get killed fast
Like i said Maggy it's not so much whether you'd make them 75 or 80 but which units you increase the size of?
Furthermore, it'll be impossible to make peasants >100 for the default setting because one couldn't then scale them since i think 200 is the size limit.
Shame, but >100 peasants for the default setting will only ever be possible in mods.
Someone feed CeltiberoSkull his medicine.
------------------
=MizuDoc=
[This message has been edited by +DOC+ (edited 11-08-2002).]
Ok...
LJ said that cav now have a better chance to push back spears... Well how does Pikes work now?
Perhaps they are the magic we need. Anybody actually tried them?
Magy, koc, have you faced them?
But in all cases, I think we should wait at least another week before we make a clear decision. Until then, give it the benefit of the doubt, it is not unlikely that you are simply that much better...
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
make unitssize bigger isnt the solution, i thinks a smart thing wich should be done too but it wont solve the problem.
60 ca are 50% more mens but they wont kill much more than the 40 ca!
they are more worth the money yes, but this could be easyer done buy make the archer cheaper!
the solution is, give the missle more power, a bit more power not too much, just enougth to hurt and lower the effectivness of a rush.
my stats model is like this:
(plz see it as example)
we need a unit (i choosed the crossbow) wich has a short range but fast reload and much power, this unit should be able to create a lot of damage if u get rushed!
on the other hand this could mean they are overpowered and could rush themself.... alltogether the missles has to be raise in the power and in the reloadtimes.
1 of the mainproblems, the moralcirlces are the more important thing.
like puzz said 75 meters are the circle, to understand it i read that 5000range = 100 meters. if this is true, than 75 meters is a lot!
koc
MagyarKhans Cham
11-08-2002, 19:49
boyars are fine on 40
porte guys are weak with thier missiles for what i have seen. maybe keep them 40 and increase their power.
btw doc can u change the units in a faction? so in theory all unittypes in one faction?
I think the issue is that there are two distinct camps here.
SP and MP.
MP want ballanced units in the paper/scisors/rock vein.
SP want semi-historically accurate units.
And never the twain shall meet:
History was not ballanced.
It is impossible to fully ballance a game this complex.
Historically most battles (in all periods) have surprisingly few actual deaths compared to the numbers at the start. That is because most people run away when the going gets tough.
You can't ballance against a person who knows the stats/game mechanics and takes maximum advantage of loop holes.
High quality soldiers had excellent armour that was capable of deflecting arrows.
Sharp pointy things on long poles are great for stopping cavalry. (if the people stand their ground, which should be expected of pros but not cheap units)
[/list]
[This message has been edited by arrrse (edited 11-08-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by arrrse:
I think the issue is that there are two distinct camps here.
SP and MP.
MP want ballanced units in the paper/scisors/rock vein.
SP want semi-historically accurate units.
And never the twain shall meet:
History was not ballanced.
It is impossible to fully ballance a game this complex.
Historically most battles (in all periods) have surprisingly few actual deaths compared to the numbers at the start. That is because most people run away when the going gets tough.
You can't ballance against a person who knows the stats/game mechanics and takes maximum advantage of loop holes.
High quality soldiers had excellent armour that was capable of deflecting arrows.
Sharp pointy things on long poles are great for stopping cavalry. (if the people stand their ground, which should be expected of pros but not cheap units)
[/list]
[This message has been edited by arrrse (edited 11-08-2002).][/QUOTE]
Well.. making it historical or semi-historical whatever.. will make it balanced.
There is always some kind of balance through history..sometimes there are several trooptypes sometimes not so many.
Medieval warfare was under a constant development but you rarely see just one type of unit on the battlefield.
CBR
Soapyfrog
11-08-2002, 23:33
I had precisely the same idea, changing unit size.
Peasants/Fanatics/Ghazi: 200 (base 100)
Militia types (urban,sergeants, etc): 120 (base 60)
Basic Spears, Nubian Spears: 120 (base 60)
Other Spear units: 100 (base 50)
Pure archer units: 80 (base 40)
Hybrid archer units: 60 (base 30)
Xbows: 60 (base 30)
Arbs: 40 (base 20)
Light cav: 60 (base 30)
Medium/Heavy cav: 40 (base 20)
Royals: 20 (base 20 - no scaling)
Obviously you need to play on huge units size to do this so in SP, at least build times and costs are doubled (Not really a bad thing IMHO), but I think the proportions at least make the cheaper units a little more palatable (they still suck, really...).
I tested this a fair bit in v1.0 (I also changed the unit spacing for a lot of units to make peasants, militia, and cheap spears look a little more rabble-like, had a very pleasing effect), and I generally liked the way it felt, then. I'll have to test it out again with 1.1.
Soapyfrog
11-08-2002, 23:35
Has anyone written, or is writing, a stats tool? i.e. one in which you can modify the stats through a GUI or spreadsheet interface and have the stats file save in the proper format?
Dionysus9
11-08-2002, 23:56
If there was no form of balance historically, then there would have been no point in showing up to fight.
Why field your troops if you will get run over?
There was most certainly balance, but as someone above said, battles were generally over quickly because once a battle line was flanked everyone ran like hell. Looking at some of Alexanders battles, he used cavalry to great advantage-- as soon as they round the enemy battle line ----ZWOOOP--- the enemy all runs away.
This is realistic and historical, but how many SP players want a 2 minute battle between thousands of troops? I mean, this is a game afterall. The timeframe of MTW battles is much accelerated compared to a real historical battle that might have involved 30 minutes of actual fighting and 2 days of maneuvering. Edit: If we make MTW too realistic we will be maneuvering units for 8 hours and fighting for only 2 minutes.
Realism is very important, to an extent, but it isn't necessarily that much fun.
[This message has been edited by Dionysus9 (edited 11-08-2002).]
Dionysus9
11-08-2002, 23:58
Unintentional repost
[This message has been edited by Dionysus9 (edited 11-08-2002).]
Kocmoc,
Yes I would agree 5000 range = 2.5 tiles = 100 meters. Infantry of marching speed = 6 is 1.68 m/s from the Strat Guide, and I timed them covering 2 tiles in about 48 seconds. Also, Order Foot are spaced at 35 men = 1 tile = 40 meters or about 1.2 meters between men.
I believe the morale penalty due to flanking has a range of 1.5 tiles from the center of the flanked unit. That would be 60 meters and not 75 as I said earlier. FOr unikts stretched out in a very wide formation, that number changes.
I'm having a lot of trouble with my men running away, especially if friendly units near me rout. The increased cost of valor means my infantry is carrying one less valor point now. I thought a slight (+2) morale boost in v1.0 would improve the gameplay, and now in v1.1 I still have that feeling and it might have to be even more or a boost.
Kraxis,
I tried two v3 pikemen to protect my flanks in a battle against Bacchus, and I couldn't do anything with them. I think they got about 5 kills each. It strikes me as a defensive unit and I was attacking. There is an infantry unit that nobody has mentioned that is very difficult to beat in v1.1. I'm sure someone will mention it soon.
I'm trying to use archers now in MP, but I'm loosing almost every game with them against heavily armored Christian armies. I may have to go back to arbalesters. It makes sense that archers are not particularly good against heavily armored units, but I would agree that a bit of improvement to archer would help the MP gameplay. I had some nice success with Turks and all their ranged units in the desert.
Spears took a big hit relative to heavy cav with higher base cost, higher upgrade cost (they depend on valor upgrades to work well), greater chance of being pushed back, and heavy cav's lower base cost. Since balance is an iterative process, I wouldn't be surprised if thigs were shifted a bit too much. That the nature of iterative processes.
That was sad... Pikes should stay at the value they had at v1.0. We only argued that spears were too much, but all agreed that pikes were fine. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
But the battles I have had in SP are great, and rom that I can clearly see the problem in MP. I'm not afraid to send big cavalry armies against spearmen. Even light cavalry is nice.
Maybe that pushback should be lowered a good deal for spearmen standing still, and should be not be there for pikes.
Something else I have noticed that did not happen in v1.0. I have seen heavy cav actually chrash through the front ranks of spears. Granted this happened only when they were countercharging the cav. So perhaps we should try and let the cavalry charge us, rather than meeting them halfway.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
thx puzz, i thougth about exact the same!!!
+2 moral would solve some problems, but the bonusscircel must be reduced a bit as well, at least we have to lwoer the morasupport by cavs at all.
i have the feeling, its like in mi before we had the first patch, if i remember well the moral got raised by +2 as well....
the cav is abolut overpowered now, they was fine before!!! cav would be the last units wich i had changed.... and the point, that cav is better now that ur missles can shoot them is a laught!! plz try the lancers with armour of 9 and shoot them with ur archers!!!
back to the point, a +2 moral of all units is a very good step in a good direction, puzz u have my full support at this point !!!!!!
if we could lower the morabonusses and the circles, not much...just a bit.... and rise the missle power, we had the first step of a balanced gameplay. ofcourse, andi said this 1 year ago, about 100 units u cant fix. but im sure we can fix 70% of the important useable units.....
thx again puzz, this was 1 of the best posts i saw for a long time!!!
koc
Kraxis,
We have our signals crossed regarding Pikemen. I don't think Pikemen have been changed at all. I tried them as an alternative to Order Foot in that MP battle with Bacchus, and didn't do well with them probably because I didn't use them correctly and Bacchus outplayed me anyway.
There were what seemed to me strong arguments, both historical and gameplay, being made here for mounted knights doing better against spearmen. If you do some custom battle tests at v0 you'll see that mounted knights do beat the regular Spearmen in frontal assault, but do not beat the Chiv Sergents and Order Foot. It's very close for Feudal Sergents. As I recall, this is just about exactly what the historically oriented SP players wanted. You'll also find that swords do better against spears in v1.1, and that too was the subject of a very long thread here with lots of interesting points of view being presented.
Dionysus9
11-09-2002, 02:42
Quote Originally posted by Puzz3D:
Kraxis,
. . . I tried them as an alternative to Order Foot in that MP battle with Bacchus, and didn't do well with them probably because I didn't use them correctly and Bacchus outplayed me anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Edit: I think Swiss pikes have been increased by 4 men per unit (to 100), with no other change.
well, thank you for the compliment Yuuki-- coming from you it does mean a lot. I don't think I necessarily outplayed you, as much as my artillery forced you into an attacking role which you had not prepared for. Your longbow volleys were devastating, but as with all archer units they cannot sustain sustain the casualty rate because of low ammunition.
If you are referring to Byz Inf. as the tough to beat infantry in v1.1, I agree. With the new sword enhancement and all the old benefits of Byz Infantry, the cost increase has kept them at about the same effectiveness level as before the patch (i.e. very deadly).
Question for Yuuki:
You mention that long strings of men change the morale-circle. I have been wondering about this effect for a great while. I notice [a certain wellknown player] will often string his shocktroops out in long lines (he did this in STW with Nodachi). I've been trying to figure out what mechanics make this tactic so succeesfful-- I've come up with several factors (how am I doing? Miss anything?):
1) Arrows tend to fall beyond the front rank, so men in a line are harder to hit with high-trajectory projectiles.
2) I've a sneeking hunch that the morale-circle (penalty and bonus) is extended by stringing the men out in a single or double line (i.e. the penalty/bonus radiates out from the edge of the unit, not from the unit flag)--as you indicate above. This allows the strung-out unit to cause more fear across the battlefield and also to extend its moral bonus to more freindly units.
3) When a long string hits a square/rectangular unit they tend to wrap around the unit more (quiet a bit more--I've seen this player use a loose formation and then change it to close [or maybe wedge] in the last second to increase the wrap effect). This effectively automatically flanks a unit (with x number of men) unless it is in very tight formation with other units.
4) Since 2v1 is the highest ratio capable in individual hand to hand combat, a square unit fighting a square unit normally causes the first two ranks to squash into the fray. No point in bringing in another unit, because the 2v1 max is likely already reached and anyway the "crush" is too extreme to allow new men to come to the fighting. However, if you string out your men in 1 line (loose form?) you can bring in another similarly stretched line behind it-- and both units will get charge bonuses. This can be esp. devastating with shocktroops, rear flanks, or cav charges.
So when you add up all of the above factors you wonder--why dont I use my men in a single line? Well, they are a bit unweildly. They are good for attacking in a straight line but make wheeling and turning slow. I they should suffer from a morale-penalty for not being tightly grouped, but I have yet to see this effect in the game. They arent necessarily any easier to flank because you have to go a long way around.
All in all, I'm considering adapting some of my fighting techniques to include 4 high valor swords in line formation. (2 for each flank). What is your opinion on my analysis, and do you have any input?
Thanks Yuuks!
Bacchus
[This message has been edited by Dionysus9 (edited 11-08-2002).]
Kongamato
11-09-2002, 02:57
I do not know about the statistical differences in the MP sector, but I would like to share a finding with you.
I made a custom battle with 16 Alans VS 16 Bedouin Camel Warriors. Unfortunately the terrain was Arid. The camels made the Alans rout so easily I was amazed. Now, the problem exists that Alans are not the most armoured or have the highest morale, I am not asking for you to try an all-camel army, but if one of you could at least try a camel/spear combo, you might discover some good results.
------------------
Did they differentiate? They do not keep you distinctive. We do not have the necessity of differentiated you. I may of it no i prove differentiated between you at you that you feel you!
Soapyfrog
11-09-2002, 04:11
I said NO CAMELS!!!
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Dionysus9
11-09-2002, 04:20
Camels? We don't need no stinkin' Camels!
(Good idea! I'll consider takin' some camels...too bad Byz dont have 'em, or I'd be laughing all the way to world conquest.)
Kongamato
11-09-2002, 04:34
Dion, please tell me how the camels did. Remember, a penalty is incurred if you are on Lush or Temperate terrain. Make sure it is Arid, as I do not think that anyone would go into battle in the desert.
------------------
Did they differentiate? They do not keep you distinctive. We do not have the necessity of differentiated you. I may of it no i prove differentiated between you at you that you feel you!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.