View Full Version : Historical correct vs Challenging
MagyarKhans Cham
11-12-2002, 02:37
So teh question is are u willingly to leave the historicall rightness of teh units to improve gameplay if thats necessarry to improve OR would u stick to the historical correctness of things.
Well, for me this is obvious. We need two sets of stats, one for MP and one for SP. SP needs very little tuning if any, most of which can be done by ourselves through modding anyway.
Separate MP stats would allow the MP'ers a good deal of freedom from the SP constraints.
Dionysus9
11-12-2002, 03:09
We are playing a game that can only approximate history, even at its best. When we play multiplayer we are leaving the realm of history altogether-- When was the last time 8 balanced armies clashed 4v4 with identical amounts spent on units?
Never.
So why not increase the tactical aspects of the game? Who cares if history suffers a bit. This is a multiplayer tactical game.
Leave history for singelplayer.
Hosakawa Tito
11-12-2002, 03:23
I think the rub is really defining what "historical" is. Even the history experts can't agree on that. Many of the texts written over the centuries about the make up of medieval armies, tactics, etc were based on flawed and or religiously biased accounts. One of the better books,in my opinion, on the subject," The Art of Warfare In Western Europe During the Middle Ages " by J.F. Verbruggen is one of the best attempts to break through the myths of warfare in that time period. I haven't gotten all the way through the book yet, but the authors logic and investigative techniques have convinced me he is probably closer to explaining how it really was than anyone will ever get.
I think as this game stands now, sp is pretty darn good. Some things like diplomacy etc could be better, but the actual battles themselves are the best in the TW series yet.
I don't play multiplayer, but from what I've been reading on this board mp has issues such as unit balance, terrain bonus problems, unit fatigue, etc that need to be addressed.
I say change what has to be changed to improve gameplay.
KukriKhan
11-12-2002, 04:15
Just my 2 florins:
IF it can be split out in a future release, go historical for SP, because the fun of that part of the game is the "what-if" factor playing out ("what if the Germans had been docile and the Danes went land-based warring?"). .
MP limited only by the real-world physics of the men, animals and weapons (arrows shouldn't travel 2000 meters, etc). Any future release with 'fantasy' weapons and non-earth physics (tho' desired by some here) ain't my personal cup of tea. Tactics (terrain, men, equipment, location, etc) rule the MP experience, for me.
Again, just my couple o'koku. Glad you got the hang of this poll thing, Magy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Well I actually think historical correct also means challenging. Dont know why some people are scared of it. They seem to think it must be boring or too detailed to be fun.
This is still a computer game, it can always only be semi historical and some things has to be adjusted for that reason.
But when I play MTW I want to play medieval warfare not fantasy warfare with fantasy tactics.
We have more than 350 years of development in technology and tactics although represented in only 3 eras in MP. We can fight in terrain from big mountains to flat steppes we can do it in deserts or in a blizzard. We can play big 8 player battles or 1v1 duels. Some factions work better in deserts than other factions. Sometimes an all out attack is the best thing to do, sometimes its a more careful approach that is important all because of terrain and what the opponent(s) does.
The patch is not perfect. But it made it better compared to what we had before and these changes also made the game more historical. And it can get even better.
I have been looking forward to this game ever since I read that next game would be medieval. Not just another game but medieval warfare wow Now I didnt have to buy and paint all those miniatures lol
We all want this to be a good game, a game that we play for many months hell years and still think it is fun. Most miniature wargames are both fun and historical so I cannot really see why we cant get the same thing for MTW. It might not be easy... a few changes made and suddenly something else is wrong but I always try and look at it from a historical point of view.
History can actually be fun.
CBR
ITS A GAME
your never going to acurately mimic real medieval battles and why would you want to. Its a game and its nothing like reality thats why its fun. Keep it fun 1st, I like the units and the SP campaign having a historical flavour to them but as far as this unit firing x arrows x distance or these spears stopping these guys only if they had beans for lunch - GET A LIFE - ITS A GAME - so keep the fun in it and let the history buffs go and bore people on the Inane facts about history channel.
ofcourse we need at least in MP challanging battles.
@CBR: i saw this post and some other too and ofcourse i saw u playing online, if u could notice the most guys pick the strong units and move to u and rush u some slower some faster....so whwats the tactics by doin this?
its maybe 1 tactic, the rush...nothing else
this game istn historical correct anyway, so why care about it?
ofcourse we shouldnt change the face of this game and this noone want to do. but if i see the very limited option of tactics i say, for a more challanging gameplay for game wich give us fun about 2 years again, we need a change
we dont need "phatasie" units, but we need units who can play tactical part in the game. Ur cavarcher wich are cheaper wouldnt solve problems, ofcurse they could be better for the money but, they still wouldnt hit something.
the games got too fast, because we dont have enought good defensiv positions, and we dont have any real good missleunits wich could hurt u enought, so that u dont rush that easy.
koc
Nobunaga0611
11-12-2002, 12:36
I have agreed with Kocmoc in pretty much every post about this subject I have seen. But about the length of battles....just tonight I have two 4v4's and one 3v3 that all went over 1/2 hr in length. At some points, I had no clue what was going on, and it was alright with me....kind of fun. I really believe the routing effect is too great on nearby units. This is why I was so suprised when not only one, but two straight 4v4's went so long. There were even 2 cav-only armies involved, so there was a definite rush...and about 5-6 minutes of craziness. The part that amazed me was that, out of this chaos, about 5 armies emerged, not having routed when their allies did. Of course some units did....but there was an actual tactical battle that took place at this point. This has lead me to believe, that it can be done. The type of game that we want...one that is open to the rush, and capable of being tactical, is possible.
At this point though, I think some things (many things actually) can be improved upon to make more battles like these. You never want to 'force' anyone to participate in a type of battle they don't want to take place in. That having been said, if we can make the game support any type of playing style, without one or the other being dominant...or in effect a 'balanced' game (NOT A BALANCED ARMY, OR BALANCED STATS) then this will be the very best in my opinion. A majority of us have agreed that one of the really good aspects of this game, and Shogun, is your ability to choose. You can choose your tactics, your army, etc, and create a whole strategy around it. If the MP side of this game supports this, then it has done its job.
So the real question is, can we create this? Well I have noticed that Kocmoc, and probably other Wolves are working on some new stats. I say we all focus on testing these when they're introduced through the H.C.S. and CONSTRUCTIVELY critique them. Don't dismiss them as wrong, or even worse, but give your ideas. Lets make this game what we want it to be.
The Creative Assembly laid down the foundations of a very good game. They are to be praised for this. Now, the work of making it better can't be left to them, as the work isn't necessarily approved for those who could do something about it. The time it would take for them to do what we could do ourselves is much longer, due to hang ups beyond their control. So I say we build on what they've done, and not criticize them for it.
well personally, its a game, historical content adds to the flavour, but in truth have you learnt anything from this game?
if its history you want, read a text book
thx nobunag,
i have a question in this 3v3 and 4v4 wich amount of florin u used?
in game above 10k each, u get more stability...
and yes, we work on stats and we want to involve EVERY player who is interested and want to change something,
we dont go and want to create "a complet new" stats
we just want to have some important tactical points back, how we had in STW.
i know this isnt STW and the knight can be stronger and the missles can be less effectiv as it was in STW but we need units wich gives u more tacitcal possibility.
we need counter units and units which can counter the counter units...
again, i personal dont change the stats for my favor i just use my knowledge from about 10000 online games to bring all of us a longlive fungame.
about the lenght of battles, well everyone can decide by his own, some like it lng some shorter, but with new stats u can do both of it (ofcourse it always depend on the guys wich play in such games)
im sure if we get a 4v4 with 4 vets at 1 side they can easy steamroll the other in a short time with the use of balanced
armys, so ofcourse it depends on the skill of the players as well.
Again, all players are welcome to test the stats to tel ltehyr opinion in a contructive way so we can change and reconcider if its needed. We need all of us M-player to get this working and im sure we can do it
dont see it as stats of someone, see it plz as our all stats. soon we have an M-player forum where everything is open nothing will be secret, all can look and dl the stats at every time they want.
koc
Quote[/b] (Kocmoc @ Nov. 12 2002,09:45)]ofcourse we need at least in MP challanging battles.
@CBR: i saw this post and some other too and ofcourse i saw u playing online, if u could notice the most guys pick the strong units and move to u and rush u some slower some faster....so whwats the tactics by doin this?
its maybe 1 tactic, the rush...nothing else
this game istn historical correct anyway, so why care about it?
ofcourse we shouldnt change the face of this game and this noone want to do. but if i see the very limited option of tactics i say, for a more challanging gameplay for game wich give us fun about 2 years again, we need a change
we dont need "phatasie" units, but we need units who can play tactical part in the game. Ur cavarcher wich are cheaper wouldnt solve problems, ofcurse they could be better for the money but, they still wouldnt hit something.
the games got too fast, because we dont have enought good defensiv positions, and we dont have any real good missleunits wich could hurt u enought, so that u dont rush that easy.
koc
Well first of all I find battles being different when fighting on a steppe compared to some hilly map. I dont know the numbers so I dont know if hills means less in MTW than in STW. I love terrain so if hillbonuses are too weak now by all means make them stronger.
Think we both want archers to become better. Its more a question of how. When you talk about making them stronger and being able to hurt/stop a rush I fear battles will just turn into missile battles. Maybe Im not right.
One thing that I feel is important is to get the costs right first. An archer should be cheaper compared to an armoured foot soldier, same thing with horsearchers. Will that make them stronger? indirectly yes. You can play battles with less florins and still have the same firepower while the melee units are weaker: less upgrades or just cheaper units.
I still remember a 3v3 (long time ago now) where I had my all archer turk army both horse and foot, somehow the italians in front of me disintegrated when his first line tried to charge and started running, next line came in and only one unit got throught and entered my line but soon routed. I have seen my own line against Amp's cornerwall, on a steppe, having trouble and started to rout just out of sheer firepower from arbs and archers. It can be done now, yes its rare ofc, but the power of missiles is already in the combat/morale system.
That why I fear the all missile battle as a result if we change them too much and prefer making them cheaper to see the overall effect first.
Horse archers..hm well I still see them as a unit that works best in Early era. Just checked the projectile stats..they have a shitty accuracy so that can be increased to the same as foot archers, that doesnt hurt my historical feeling http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
CBR
heh.. my 8 units of arbs can wipe out an enemy, not sure post patch, but pre-patch it was a riot
i dont want to turn it in a misslewar.
but look...
where is the skill to take all cav and rush over a player, by select all units and hit doubleclick behind the enemy units?
hmmm, thats no skill but some of this players win battles and spoil the fun of others.
so we need in basic that ur skill decide about a victory, well mostly at least....some luck is always there
thatswhy i say, as long u can rush the enemy with a balanced army and u cant hurt him at least a bit, the missles are useless and we all tent to use them less and less. but this game is just great because the many different units and the combination of them.
so if u could hurt a rushing guy with ur missles, at lest enought to get ur money back for the missles and give u a good chance to beat the rusher with ur balanced army we have the point i want to reach.
change costs is the last what i would do, first balance it and make some units worth the money and give them some power
to make them interesting. i wont see cavarcher who rule the battlefield but with some skill u should be able to use them and hurt ur enemy.
example: this means the arba have a range of 6000 the cavacher just 5000, before u even get close and hit something the cavarcher is already dead. u can also just let u shoot by the cavarcher, they dont hurt u anyway. some units like the fanatics a will be hurt by the archer but the most other not.
the problem is, that this unitstats are stats wich relfect the gameplay in the SP-campain. U payed for buildings and want that money back in form of better units....
in MP it isnt important because u dont buy buildings.
i know i repied myself many times, but i see always the same questions and answers....
if u make cavarcher stronger(with different changes) they still near useless, as long there are arbas wich can shoot 6000 and move around 1000/2000 from the units u should hit, this means u have a range of maybe 8000 to shoot, thi measn if u go closer to shoto some important units, u are 3000 close to the arbas, this means 2 shoots or 3 and the cavarcher is dead
its jsut an example but it shows that u cant just change the costs or just 1 unit. all untis work together thatshwhy we have to change many to come to just 1 result.
and sometimes u should just believe others, coz some know it earlyer and maybe a bit more....
koc
Quote[/b] (Kocmoc @ Nov. 12 2002,13:42)]example: this means the arba have a range of 6000 the cavacher just 5000, before u even get close and hit something the cavarcher is already dead. u can also just let u shoot by the cavarcher, they dont hurt u anyway. some units like the fanatics a will be hurt by the archer but the most other not.
First of all the arbs are not in the early era. I cant see why horsearchers should be good in all eras, thats the reason we have 3 of them so we can have different units/tactics.
And I have also said that arbs should be late units so we use crossbows more.
And I think increasing the accuracy to the level of foot archers will improve them a lot
CBR
Quote[/b] (Kocmoc @ Nov. 12 2002,13:42)]the problem is, that this unitstats are stats wich relfect the gameplay in the SP-campain. U payed for buildings and want that money back in form of better units....
in MP it isnt important because u dont buy buildings.
Perhaps but in SP support cost for units is also important and we have a 960 men limit for an army. That will make changes to prefered army choice compared to MP.
CBR
Quote[/b] (Kocmoc @ Nov. 12 2002,13:42)]where is the skill to take all cav and rush over a player, by select all units and hit doubleclick behind the enemy units?
hmmm, thats no skill but some of this players win battles and spoil the fun of others.
Tactics, terrain and teamwork means a lot. Cavalry is by definition meant for rushes. Ive won with all cav armies or 12 cav and some foot and also lost. Ive won with a balanced army and also lost. I see more lack of skill and teamwork when winning with cav heavy armies than cav being all too poverful. Not that we might need some changes but the things Ive seen so far is more about people not used to the patch and the power of teamwork and terrain more than anything else.
When in a 3v3 Amp brings 4 cav and 12 serps and I bring 8 serps and 8 cav and we win. When playing a 4v4 and the guy on the left flank deploys too far forward and then get rushed both from the front and by an all cav army in the flank and starts complaining about cavalry. When people sends in urban militia and swordsmen and is surprised about the power of heavy cavalry etc etc. Thats what ive seen so far.
I did lose a 1v1 test against Elmo and his 16 cav units.. that was a 8k battle which now I feel is on the low side so its difficult to get good enough morale. But I dont normally play 1v1 but prefer 3v3 and bigger and there cavalry can be powerful but still terrain and tactics etc means a lot.
CBR
LordKhaine
11-12-2002, 19:46
Balance is most important for mp.
SP is a totally different thing. It can be realistic and balanced in single player, since it takes many factors into account. But in MP the system is a lot simplier, and must be treated differently.
Quote[/b] (Kocmoc @ Nov. 12 2002,17:17)]i miss ur point CBR.
Well as I dont think I can explain it in another way we can only agree to disagree.
CBR
CBR,
I was able beat Elmo's all cav rush in a 1v1 with 8 anti-cav infantry, 4 arb's and 4 cav on flat map, fine day, 12K. I beat the same all cav rush in a 4v4. I got a bit of help on my left flank in the 4v4 from an ally who stopped one enemy cav from circling around my left flank. That gave me a cav which I had nothing better to do with than run straight ahead into the line.
You are definitely not forced to take all cav just because your opponent does. However, the speed advantage of cav over infantry is a big factor in 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 games. Players with slower infantry based armies must support each other or else a cav heavy enemy army will effect a devastating doubleteam with one of his allies. Teamwork is by far the most important factor in doing well in big games.
Magyar Khan
11-17-2002, 15:37
well with the new stats (version 1.12) inf hold longer so are less likely to break from a mass-cav-weak-point-in-battle-line-rush
Orda Khan
11-17-2002, 18:54
I like the idea of historical accuracy for the reason of re creating mediaeval warfare. I can also see the inaccuracy of multi faction multi games. What disappoints me is that the factions do not all have the same strength. I don't have a clue about stats, I am more interested in strategy, tactics and team work, which is why I like 'big' games but I still think each faction should have the same strength overall. At least this way the outcome depends more on what you do and less on what you pick.
The bow is a weapon that was used for thousands of years and used effectively as late as the Crimean war, this leads me to believe it was a better weapon than we currently see. The scissors, paper, stone of Shogun seems to be missing because although armour was heavier in Europe, not all could afford it. Regarding historical accuracy, the horse archer must have been an effective unit. In the Middle East the Crusaders lost. Russia, Poland, Hungary, Georgia and many others were crushed by the Mongols. They had other units I know but the Turko/Mongol tactics were based around the bow
I would prefer to see their kills closer to the Cav/Archer of Shogun....the unit size too
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
Quote[/b] (Orda Khan @ Nov. 17 2002,17:54)]Regarding historical accuracy, the horse archer must have been an effective unit. In the Middle East the Crusaders lost. Russia, Poland, Hungary, Georgia and many others were crushed by the Mongols. They had other units I know but the Turko/Mongol tactics were based around the bow
Yes the horse archer were a powerful unit especially fighting against infantry without proper cavalry/missile support. The Roman defeat in the battle of Carrhae (53 BC) against the Parthians is a good example.
The crusaders had problems with them as all they could do was to try and charge with the heavy knights. But whenever they had their crossbows with them they could keep the horse archers away. But they even hired muslim mercenaries so they could have some of them too. But not really the reason why the crusades failed in the end, that was more about pure numbers.
The Mongols had a great organisation compared to their western counterparts both strategical and on the battlefield. And that meant a lot to their success too as well as having a general superiority in numbers of missile troops.
CBR
MizuKokami
11-18-2002, 23:12
historical accuracy is nice to a point. personnaly, i would like to see the mongols appear on ponies instead of heavy cav. at any rate, the game isn't supposed to be historically accurate, it's supposed to be historically simulated. what i mean by this, is that it's a "what if" scenario. if you, playing poland, were to rise up and conquer the known world, you win. but we all know that that never happened. as for horse archers not being available to the polish or the danes, that's not because they couldn't, but because they wouldn't. so if i were the king of poland back then, and i wanted horse archers, i would have made them. therefore the limitations of this game as to what units you can get doesn't jibe for me. same thing goes for nafta throwers. if you are allied with a muslim nation, and conducting trade with them, you can get the stuff to make them. maybe if the game was made on an availability basis, as opposed to so called realism basis....hmmm http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
still gil said, that this game isnt historical correct
yes kokami, i agree with u
i dont belive someone want to fight many historical correct battles, he would get tired of this battles.
thatswhy this game has some changes already to make it more fun and challanging. now we have to ask is it enought?
koc
Orda Khan
11-19-2002, 13:45
Quote[/b] (CBR @ Nov. 18 2002,08:56)]
Quote[/b] (Orda Khan @ Nov. 17 2002,17:54)]Regarding historical accuracy, the horse archer must have been an effective unit. In the Middle East the Crusaders lost. Russia, Poland, Hungary, Georgia and many others were crushed by the Mongols. They had other units I know but the Turko/Mongol tactics were based around the bow
Yes the horse archer were a powerful unit especially fighting against infantry without proper cavalry/missile support. The Roman defeat in the battle of Carrhae (53 BC) against the Parthians is a good example.
The crusaders had problems with them as all they could do was to try and charge with the heavy knights. But whenever they had their crossbows with them they could keep the horse archers away. But they even hired muslim mercenaries so they could have some of them too. But not really the reason why the crusades failed in the end, that was more about pure numbers.
The Mongols had a great organisation compared to their western counterparts both strategical and on the battlefield. And that meant a lot to their success too as well as having a general superiority in numbers of missile troops.
CBR
More missile units maybe but take Kalkha for example. Mongols outnumbered 4 to 1 win a resounding victory. Imagine that scenario in a battle on MTW how many would you be able to kill?
'Parthian shot' .... We have this phrase in our language today due to their (Parthians) nasty habit of firing at the enemy while running away.
The crusaders however were beaten by their inability to form an allegiance with the Ilkhanate. As always they were
aloof and thought they would 'let the dogs fight among themselves' and then clean up what was left. That was a mistake that cost them dear. The Golden Horde allied with Mamluk Egypt, Christian Europe plotted and schemed and the chance was lost to rid the world of Islam. How different a history would that have been?
........Orda http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
sorry orda u mix some important points wich shouldnt be mixed.
this isnt an historical correct game
if u wanna implent old battles in this game, u should also change the speed and the info u can get
u need scouts to see whats goin on ...now u see it all and can react very fast, so the communication and the speed of this was the big advance in this old days....
it is impossible to bring this in this game
we wanna have some fun and we want this fun for a long time.
thatswhy we need it, that all this "wonderful" over 100 units are useable. now this game is reduced to the STW times with more power to the h2h units.
i miss the use of all this nice units, but this u never can field if u want to win
so u see maybe 4 til l6 different units wich are used now, maybe some simmiliar units...but they have mostly the same stats...so not realy something new...
i miss some of the community lover who help to change something, but they dont http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
koc
Orda Khan
11-20-2002, 16:37
Sorry Kocmoc I may have rambled a bit and not clearly stated my point, which is.......Horse Archers were not historically a unit of low morale with little or no effect. For the sake of historical accuracy I would like to see them able to do their job.
I agree with you entirely about the many different units, so many nice units that are not used. I don't want to see the battlefields end up with lots of 'same' armies. For the sake of game variety and enjoyment I would like to see the archer type units behave more like those in Shogun. The Cavalry Archer was no 'hard case' but You could not just ignore him either. Likewise the Samurai Archer was very effective. As you have said, who buys crossbows when they can buy arbs?
If all the units in all the factions could do a reasonable job then it would be possible to field some very nice armies with great variety which has to be more enjoyable than the 'standard army'. At the moment a 4v4 battle resembles a huge riot ( Is it me or does there appear to be no space on the maps? ) in Shogun I still marched quite a way to engage the enemy. Now he is in your face.
OK I know nothing about stats but I would just like to see all the units be effective enough to consider buying, at the moment there are lots that we don't see on the battlefield. I think it's more enjoyable to see nice tactics than brute strength
.......Orda http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
Magyar Khan
11-20-2002, 19:00
Orda, sometimes i think ur a wolf http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Orda,
You would have to balance the units to within 5% to get what you're asking. It's a daunting task. The warrior monk of STW was out of balance by less than 15%, and yet it dominated the game. The muskets of WE/MI v102 were out of balance by about 25%, and dominated there.
One of the reasons for lots of units not being used is cost. An army like 4 pav arbs, 4 order foot, 4 chiv maa and 4 Lancers cost 7k iirc and then I have anywhere between 6-8k for upgrades for most games I see and play. But we do really need the money to get the upgrades so units dont rout that easily. And with upgrades costing 70% we need so much money that the basic cost of units is nothing. We are never really forced to make compromises. There are lots of units with less armor than we normally see on the battlefield but we simply dont need to buy them.
The basic horsearcher with -1 morale..even with 2 valour upgrades it still feels a bit weak or maybe thats just my playstyle http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
But I expect a basic unit without upgrades to be able to do its job without big problems. And instead of all the money for upgrades it would be better if you were thinking about what units to buy and perhaps a few upgrades compared to now where you think more about if all units can get 2 or 3 valour upgrades.. more or less.
If lets say all units get a +4 morale boost so we dont need all the upgrades and we only play with 5k florins or maybe less, just an example Im no expert on the numbers. But it will force people to buy some of the lesser units. If you are able to buy 16 knights (Lancers, Chiv knight etc) then IMO something is wrong.
The whole idea is just that if you only want to buy the best units you can get, then you wont be able to have 16 units. Ofc people can play with more money but what will change the tactics as you suddenly will have only the best units with the better morale/armour.. just like we have right now really.
Earlier on I have given examples of how its done in miniature wargaming regarding unitcosts and also troop wages for the English army in the hundred years war and for the French army before that war just to put a historical aspect into it. If these are used as guidelines for unitcost in MTW it will IMO be easier to balance it.
Yes we cant make this game 100% historical correct as Kocmoc says. But that doesnt mean that the basic relations between units and types of weapons suddenly should be changed. We have 3 eras which represents the improvements in technology and tactics through the Middleages. The ideal thing would be to have 3 different games in one game. I love the horsearcher but I dont expect it to be good in all 3 eras, same thing with longbows/normal archers, spears and heavy cavalry. We shouldnt even expect all factions to be good in all eras: the Russians cant be played in early anyway.
CBR
well, puzz imo u reduce it ...mostly to a single unit vs a single unit.
if u look at mi with the 1,02, u could clearly say, that 2 guns and 1 archer was better as 3 guns
this exactly show what we need to speak about, if we go and test 1unit vs 1unit, u will maybe have some best units, some good, some average .....and so on....
but mostly the combination decide it.
but i wont look back to STW, i full concentrate at the current MTW, and if i see arbas everywhere i dont need to cahnge 5 or 15%, and this is just reduce to power (in stw) ...there are so many different things wich effect each other, thats the most problem.
What i have seen so far, in my online games is that many guys dont know al the units they just copy where they lsot too. to the cavarcher, most guys didnt liked them, coz they couldnt control (just this says it all, they wasnt able to control and they hadnt the skill and they dont have the skill now). now this guys speak about this units and try to "test" or to arg, how to fix it....
so what u do?
u dont test vs the best players u test vs average players, who cant bring 100% of this units. so u decide with a exploiting of maybe 60% over several units. or count kills by shooting all ammo in a standing unit....
i remember, when u was moaning about guns wich could kill more than 100 men
well, the arba can kill around 150 till 200 (and this was made in a real battle)
I tried to be nice and stoped to shoot back if i got attacked....i tried very hard to help and implent u guys as well but i missed some real input and some testbattles
so where are u? u wanna help the community? or just live push some ego?
what ever, u could notice that the 1,03 didnt worked the way u did it now we have the chance to do it better and what u do? ....nothing yet
This i wouldnt tell, helping the community or improve the gameplay
To the compromises well, if im not able to search for compromises, what u do than? hehe.... u have ur point and dont look left or right or draw back, u just say what u want to have changed and after 300 online battles u should realy know that the balance is not "very good"....
koc
MagyarKhans Cham
11-21-2002, 17:07
well i remember some people complaining that we are trying to make it like old shog. well give my Khan any version of this game and he will beat 80% of the players 2 minutes after he got a new version... why? cuz he has better plans and execute them better.
now many got teh feeling that with about 15k florin they get a nice battle, why? not that it feels like old shog but that 15k divided amongst esp the fighting units gives u the feeling u have -close to- enuf time to get around your enemy before a point in the battle line breaks. the tension increases.
in old shog, u were sitting a few minutes on the point of your chair "waiting" what will happen in the hand to hand combat phase. even the shootingphase were longlasting and maybe boring for some but still worth playing.
the moments of exciting in twm have reduced which have made place for a micromanaging maddness when running enemy down all over the place.
+2 in morale in our stats 1.15 shows that units hold longer, u can reduce the florin amount and there is a bit more interaction when u select units on where to put the money.
i dont know what effect a next +2 morale will have, but if a further +2 result in lowering to 5-7k then i agree with CBR that spending flroins on units becomes more important. u cant simply buy that much high rated units.
Kocmoc,
Total kills is not used to balance a ranged unit. You always use battles to determine the overall balance. Total kills is just a way of quantifying the effect of a parameter change on kills per volley. It tells you how much the kills will change when accuracy, power or target armor is changed. We plotted curves for each one of these parameters. Those tests showed that the WE/MI v1.02 power 5 muskets were going to be too strong. They also indicated that power 4, which was the final compromise choice, were going to be too strong. I could see that because the kills per volley were the same as the muskets in v1.01, and just about everyone who posted here said the muskets were too strong in v1.01. After a couple of months, they were saying the same thing about the muskets in v1.02. We're not talking about "more than 100 men" Kocmoc. We're talking about over 300 kills for a musket with 20 ammo. So, get your facts straight.
When going from v102 to v103, many musket parameters were changed to reduce the effectiveness of the unit. Power was only reduced by 10%, but other parameters were also changed, and some wouldn't affect total kills anyway such as reload. In total, those changes amount to something like a 25% to 30% reduction in parameter values. I don't know how much total kills came down since we didn't need more tests like that at that point. We knew we were close. I remember you participating in a v103 battle test designed to check friendly kill ratio of muskets. You approved of the friendly kills of those muskets. We got the parameters to give that ratio using static testing on a LAN.
You're saying that the muskets in v102 are ok? It appears that is what you are saying as a way of invalidating what I do, but my static tests are not the reason the muskets are what they are in v102. The battletests are the reason. There wasn't enough battle testing done. You know as well as I do that the v102 got botched because we wasted a lot of time trying to get rid of the back kills by guns, and I remember this was an important thing to you.
How is my post answering Orda and attack on you? If you're not trying to balance the game, stop saying that's what your doing. And, have the courtesy to answer GilJaysmith and stop calling what your doing a patch which it is not.
i just dont understand what u want
i asked some wuestion but u didntanswered it
u speak a lot of STW, again thats not my intention im here in MTW and wont speak about STW. so well, u may be rigth in all ur points,....no prob with this.
if we are not trying to balance the game???
jeez how i should understand this? plz help me a bit....
something wrong with the stats? any problems? well i asked many times for ur opinion u was up to date But sadly no input from u so who isnt balancing the game? who isnt helping the Mplayer?
i asked some question and u wrote a nice long text, but about something wich i didnt asked so plz take ur time and answer maybe some of the questions.
i never wrote at the org that this is a new patch
plz read it again and dont say something i didnt said.
If u look again u can maybe notice that i wrote, "unOfficial".....this makes a descent difference.
and about gil, jeez plz let me free and use my words, like u guys all do as well. im nice i dont complain about ur pretty good patch, i just try to help to improve...
Im not the best with english words but i can easy see that u guys never give a real answer, u always start to speak about something else but not about that what we ask u.
Koc
Magyar Khan
11-22-2002, 02:33
If i was wellinformed it was clear the betatest team was happy with the patch.
I will not be happy with Koc's unOfficial patch, but at least its better than 1.1. Well to be gentle, it "feels" to me better.
If i am wellinformed and if i can rely on what my eyes see there are still some big hidden bugs and we (Koc and me) are in a dilemma:
or we tell anyone in here, guided with examples (replay-files, sofar we can trust a replay battle), which will destroy teh MPgame soon for those who use it as well, or read this forums. so only a next patch can save us.
or we keep it quiet and i will collect names of people who have shown it in battle they know it until it results in the "or" above.
or we tell all our wolves just before some major tourneys/leagues so we can get full benefit of these legal knowledge.
or i am mistaken, that would be the best thing for all, even for me.
but if it turns out to be right what i have seen and if teh devs are willingly to listen, and willingly to patch than i want some other things to be solved as well like the logfilesbugs and foyer bugs.
Well maybe its better to forget this all, let u have your games and wait for the next version. we will see how it turns out.
-----------------------------------------
Question to all:
If 40 knights charge into 60 arbalesters how long should it take in a real battle to break teh arbalesters?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.