View Full Version : Creative Assembly MP stats discussion.
MagyarKhans Cham
11-09-2002, 03:18
SOme posts from teh old forum....
CAV RUSH, HORSES OVERPOWERED
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/003468.html
GAZOZ ABOUT SUPPORT
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/003516.html
LEAKED PATCH http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/003458.html
OFFICIAL PATCH
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/003514.html
BUGGED GLORIOUS ACHIEVMENTS
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/003512.html
RTK PAUL on PATCH BALANCING
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000684.html
JROCKS OPINION
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/003178.html
PATCH SUPPORTED BY BETATESTERS?
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/003470.html
and there is more....
I noticed many things are still broken, the betapatch is official now, the moneycollecting party assumes that they are ready and can move on to their next project. they stated many times that their resources are low, their time short and SP rules the waves.
The multiplayers are fragmented in voice and power. its time to make a fist, is it?
thanks for the links Magyar,
i am sure those threads will be imported here as time permits, in the meantime those are very handy,
====
i checked .com before i went online,
the patch was not there then,
it is now - i am downloading it now and will run a bit/bit compare.
I had hoped the delay in release was due to the aggressive testing Magyar and others put the "beta" version through, Highlighting a few unexpected bugs, and thought the developers may be "tweaking" the patch.
It may be that Magyar is correct, and we have indeed been issued with a buggy patch.
I will post in about an hour when the download finishes.
====edit====
XX why do you say the beta is now the official version? XX
============
Magyar is 100% correct,
the code for the new patch is identical, http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
the only difference between the "beta" and "release" versions are the loc files http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
here is a link to the updated loc files
http://www.totalwar.org//Downloads/MTW/patches/Loc.zip
later today i will replace the 3dDownloads patch with the "release" patch
now we all need to keep a cool head,
detail precisely all the bugs in this patch,
clearly.
and begin the campaign for another patch
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Honestly man, I've given up on this game, multiplayer-wise.
Yeah mp got the raw end of the patch for sure. Figures. =\
All good - there will be better games to come; hopefully ones more thoroughly tested before release and incorporating more options for the players. Hopefully one of them is the next Total War game from CA.
Nobunaga0611
11-09-2002, 05:59
I really think we should make this work. I agree with people who say its early and we need to get used to the patch before criticizing it.
Well....I'm used to it, and I don't like it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Is it the stats that should be changed?? Can we change the spheres of influence ourselves, like Kocmoc said?
If we're gonna change the stats, I say we get started. I'll help if possible. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Play balance we can organise ourselves,
with a group of players testing and tweaking stats,
but there are definately bugs in the game.
Report Bugs you find Here.
http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....;t=2025 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=5;t=2025)
Before you post a bug report
Make Sure you have Read This
http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....;t=2024 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=5;t=2024)
i want to note again, that things linke the hillbonusses are too lowe, and this we cant change.
the flags and the colours are still not the best, by some colours its very hard to select ur own units...we cant this change.
some of the bonusses needs to fix, we cant do it nether...
just few ideas
koc
MagyarKhans Cham
11-09-2002, 13:22
flags we can change ourselves, even u can koc. so your favorite armies have a nice colour. but i agree some colours are really confusing. but battles at that tiome were confusing, maybe they wanted to simulate that.
Orda Khan
11-09-2002, 16:59
I haven't bothered with MTW it's too bug ridden
.......Orda
MagyarKhans Cham
11-09-2002, 20:04
well it has the potential in becoming very good ofcourse. sadly we must pull hard once again. seems that besides paying 49 euros u have work hard to get what u want.
most of the MP problems come from gamespy, find an alternate server, then tell CA, and then watch MP pick up and not crash
it would be nice if u could constructiv note what u want to change...wich unit... and so on.
plz feel free to go into detail
thx
ur juniorkoc
I just hope everybody will give u there full support
Anything i can do just ask.......I have a lan line and 2 copies of game.So i can do any test u may need...
1#Archers need more power in arrows..or reduce armour...
2#Cav Archers same as above..........
Guys, i am unsure if archers need more power,
it seems to me they do just fine as support troops,
in STW+WE/MI some people relied on muskets to win them the battle, and that got boring real quick.
During this period in history archery became largely irrelevant to medieval warfare, except for a FEW exceptional battles, (agincourt and the like).
Unless an army did something stupid archery was a nuisance, not a battle winner.
I would like to see a few more infantry types that excel at anti-cav, but not so hot vs infantry.
We already have a couple of all rounders. If we weaken cavalry too much then we risk making almost anything an all rounder.
Having only 3 choices means you can only get a null vote from me,
my thoughts are we need more time to evaluate,
the choices above don't give such an option.
MagyarKhans Cham
11-10-2002, 17:22
is it me or are the polls buggy, with every poll it says i have already voted, actually i can remember i voted once... is it just me?
Think archers and longbowmen should go down in price, same with horse archers. Arbalesters should perhaps only be a Late unit. Then all 3 eras will have their own missile units as crossbows are rarely used.
But cant see why archers should have increased power..yes give them more arrows, that will not hurt balance. But in general missileunits should not be able to stop a rush. Cavalry is great for flanking an enemy infantry rush as they now are better.
Other changes:
Make lancers a bit more expensive. They have 2 more in armor and defense iirc compared to chiv knights but only cost 150 more. Either reduce the defense down to the level of chiv knight or make them more expensive.
Halbardiers should be cheaper and have 2 more in morale. They are an important unit now with the better cavalry but have serious problems as they rout too easy and expensive to increase valour.
CBR
Erado San
11-10-2002, 21:16
Magy, if you look at the votes before you vote yourself you cast a Null vote. It says on the button. Would be unfair in a way if you could, wouldn't it?
Just changing the prices around is not going to be enough. We have seen that before.
Personally, I think the balance as it stands makes for serious battles between serious players. I agree that archers might be enhanced a bit. You have to be careful there. It's not easy to make them stronger without making them too strong.
For the rest, I would like the fatigue effect lowered just a bit for infantry, or upped a bit for cavalry. Also something that you have to be careful with, I know. Or otherwise Cavalry needs to be toned down a little to reduce the effect of the Cav rush.
For the rest, players should just select better armies than you see online. The game is not that bad, but some of the online players are awful.
u cant change the masses
they always went for a easy win, just a few will take less strong armys/units.....
it would be great if we had just players wich use balanced armys, but if we had we wouldnt need a patch http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
coz we could play (in MP) with the old and all guys would use "bad" units too...
this wont work for the masses...so we need a system wich works, coz u havnt an other choice.
the question is, We want historical correct game? or
we want a longlive challanging system? or
(this would be the best) a historical and longlive system...
imo its better to be not that historical correct and go for a challanging longlive system, (btw the crossbows couldnt fire 100 meters)...(and peasants couldnt win vs knights)
so its seems better to me, if we go and make it more balance and the rush less effectiv and the missles a bit stronger.
yes, we need to be carful ...the missles shouldnt be too strong...
1 pont where i agree with puzz (i beölieve) is a +2 moral to all units, the routs are sometimes awesome.
the moralsuppert is absolut to high, the influence circles are too big.
the hillbonus are too low
fatique, hmmm its a hard thing...i tent to say a bit, just a bit slower...
just a few points, i want to hear the opinion of guys like, spoon, frog, lunch, paolo, rath, amp, doc, jemasze, gazoz, rages, shades, kenchis...all the vets who know the game....i realy need some input other opinions....
thx for all upcoming posts...
koc
kyodai-britishbeef
11-10-2002, 22:15
imo the multi player balance is fine and was fine before the patch.The m.p will not be to every ones liking after 100 patches so where does it end ? people will always find a way to make the game easy for a win I.E monkrushing, the all spears and guns concept. so what should we do? keep patching until the game meets a certain selection of "elite" or "respected" players criteria ? no just leave it alone it cannot be done to all peoples wants and whims. I paid my money the same as the "elite" or "respected"players yet these people bang on about what they want. why cant u just play the game as it is and live with it and learn to love it , and stop crying I WANT A PATCH. I understand that there are ISSUES that need solving in a patch but not the essence of the gameplay .
MagyarKhans Cham
11-11-2002, 03:33
well seems someone else have to discover teh unbalances online.
btw fast i didnt vote here cuz i wasnt allowed, i pressed the view results button to early.
MizuKokami
11-11-2002, 08:01
i want to see a few changes as well, but not in the general stats of units, as much as potential penalties for missuse of troops. ie... spear units work best in ranks of four...or is it 3...which ever. i've seen people stretch them out so that they are a long line in ranks of 2, so that they can cover their range units with as few units as possible. imo, this would be constituted as a "missuse". not only should the spear unit not get it's rank bonus, but it should lose it's bonus against cav, and suffer massive penalties against wedge formation, as it would be much easier to break the ranks of units that have little behind them. i realize that in war, sometimes you do unorthodox things and take risks, as in useing your men in a way that they shouldn't be used. but that's what it should be, a "risk". that's a valid strategy, but dangerous for the potential destruction of the units.
Nobunaga0611
11-11-2002, 08:09
Quote[/b] (MizuKokami @ Nov. 11 2002,01:01)]i've seen people stretch them out so that they are a long line in ranks of 2, so that they can cover their range units with as few units as possible. imo, this would be constituted as a "missuse". not only should the spear unit not get it's rank bonus, but it should lose it's bonus against cav, and suffer massive penalties against wedge formation, as it would be much easier to break the ranks of units that have little behind them.
Ha, tell that to amp, or even Honestus http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif This type of strategy is a liability for people who don't know how to use it right. However, when its used right, it takes some doing to get rid of imo. I know its a liability for some, because it doesn't work for me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I voted for "I don't care."
I think it would be slightly more realistic if we did get some modifications, like normal spearmen not being cav killers and archers being a bit more accurate, but these are not essential to the game.
If this poll had asked whether we need more server stability however...:D
Ok, i voted as i don't care, simply because you didn't give an option for a "wait till we try the patch for a few weeks". Anyway here are a few of my opinions:
1. Hill bonuses.
Difficult one this one. Basically, according to Puzz, hill bonuses are there although they aren't as pronounced as in STW. IF you restore hill bonuses to STW levels then all that happens is everyone plays the flat maps only, anyone that picks a hilly map and defends is viewed as dishonourable.
Leave them as they are and people will freely use all the maps and defending up a hill is viewed as more acceptable.
There are still hill bonuses, one can shoot further from the top of a hill and there is a slight advantage to the troops attacking from with the height advantage ....+2 morale?
So, taking all these into account, i'd leave this as it is.
2. General +2 morale.
Yup, absolutely, i've been hoping for this to be added from the very beginning. Otherwise it becomes a necessity to play high florin games. AT the moment chain routing can be a problem and battles can become a bit of a "who can cause the first unit to rout wins" affair.
Only prblem with this could be if this were translated into SP meaning that the AI's high morale troops like knights may never flee. Enemy Kings, heirs and top generals will therefore always fight ot the death.... not a desirable outcome. We want to encourage the AI to look after is Kings, heirs and top generals.
3. Morale penalties.
Linked to 2 above, maybe the morale penalties are too pronounced or indeed their area of affect to large? Not sure on this though as i didn't program the game and don't delve into the game mechanics as much as many do here.
On this note i think some here have studied the game's mechanics to such an extent that they know exactly how to beat someone by manipulating these morale penalties. The average gamer won't understand these and therefore will always succumb to the pros using these tactics.
Nothing wrong with this, but it'll probably explain why you find it very hard to ever lose.
Play with people you know and like (and trust) and you'll enjoy most experiences, as long as you don't drop. Unfortunately, there will always be rushers and poor gamesmanship, plus with >100 units there will probably always be some imbalance.
Regards
One very vital addition would be to make the SP and MP stats set separate so as one could play and mod the SP to hearts content while the MP stats remained constant. THis would save the constant problem of restarting MTW and restoring the original stats every time many want to play online.
It would also enable the stats sets to be different so as to appease both SP and MP players. MP and SP stats should be different as in MP the units aren't governed by the same restraints of the tech tree.
Quote[/b] (Alrowan @ Nov. 10 2002,00:45)]most of the MP problems come from gamespy, find an alternate server, then tell CA, and then watch MP pick up and not crash
See you just don't get it - the whole idea of a centralized server is the problem.
Using Gamespy's browser is understandable, but using a centralized server for multiplayer just ensures that whenever that server is down or broken, everyone is screwed.
Leaving us without the option to directly connect to a person's game via IP address is the first hint that MTW multiplayer is a joke.
We have to suffer with their decision to use Gamespy as a centralized game server because that's how they want to run CD Key verification. Key verification is something that, if you look around at other games, can be easily done in less-restrictive manners.
It's simply just poor design from the beginning and another clear example of their narrow-minded approach to the game: Instead of looking around at how other REAL games handle multiplayer, or (god-forbid) asking the fanbase/customers how they would prefer multiplayer connectivity be handled, they just decided amongst themselves and left us no other options.
GilJaysmith
11-11-2002, 14:26
Next time, JRock, you can design it. And you can look at our mistakes and not repeat them, and that will be great. And we can look at all the mistakes you make for the first time, and we can sneer at them, and ridicule you for them, and assert that you're stupid and your game is a joke and you don't care about the community.
We don't ever plan to repeat mistakes. That doesn't mean we don't repeat them, but we try not to. That's the best anyone can ever promise.
I can only assume that you've never been constrained in your job by "the art of the possible", by deadlines, by the actions of third parties, by the inertia of existing structures and systems, by the dynamics of a large team working in several locations on a complex creative task, by the upheaval of people leaving and new people joining, and so forth. In short, you must have always worked in dream jobs.
This is the only reason I can imagine for how you simply refuse to believe that there could be any explanation for anything you don't like about Medieval, other that we did it deliberately to spite you because we're cynical and criminally incompetent.
And for making that assumption, thanks. There's nothing we like better than recovering from working our asses off for over a year on a game only to hear that we're stupid and arrogant. Do you ever wonder why I'm about the only person from CA who's still listening to what this forum has to say?
Grrrrrrrrr
Gil not CA
personal statement
Gil,
What JRock said is clearly wrong, and I understand this. I too am a poor, underpaid programmer who has to constantly battle with changing release dates, marketing requirements and members of the team coming and going all the time. I know it's a pain in the ass when some decision that was made years ago limits what you can do today. I appreciate that it sucks when it is a third party's fault that you cannot do what you want (the File System Object bug MS introduced in NT4 SP6 is my personal bugbear.)
However, what I will say is this: I don't think the multiplayer code was tested heavily enough, either pre or post patch. There are still problems there that took the community less than 10 minutes to discover. Bugs that were reported as fixed are not (player states not being updated after a game, for example...if anything this is now worse). New bugs have been introduced (a player dropping in deployment now means the game cannot start, for instance.)
Now, I know bugs like these can very easily get into the source code. BUT THAT CODE SHOULD NOT GET OUT OF QA These bugs are fundamental, and even the most casual of testing should have picked up some of these issues.
I worked in QA for about 18 months before moving into programming, so I can see the situation from both points of view. And as someone who has done both, I know that if the code is released buggy, it is QA's fault (unless the processes in your company are very different to mine!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
This is going to sound presumptuous and arrogant, but what the hell http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif If you would like me to write a detailed, in depth test plan for the multiplayer side of MTW, I would be happy to do so. You can get me on soxsexsax@ukonline.co.uk
MTW is probably the finest SP strategy game I have played. If the MP was brought up to scratch, The Settlers position at #1 on my greatest games list would be in danger. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Warm regards,
Inferno
GilJaysmith
11-11-2002, 15:47
We ran our internal postmortem on MTW last Thursday and Friday, and as I say, we're planning on not repeating the mistakes we made; this was one way of finding out what they were, and monitoring forum feedback is another. We're still discussing things and will be for quite some time (it was a fairly solid two days, which is why I was a bit quiet) but it's immediately pretty clear to us that we made a mistake in not having some kind of public beta test - for the MP game if nothing else.
It's probably fair to say that MP didn't get all the testing it needed (although it did get a lot of testing). Again, a mistake, and one which I hope we don't repeat.
Blaming QA for releasing buggy code is easy to do but it isn't the whole story; QA doesn't always have the ultimate say on go-nogo, although perhaps it should have.
I'm now off the Medieval project, by the way, and although I'll continue to read the forums, I myself won't be working on any new code.
Gil ~ CA
ToranagaSama
11-11-2002, 17:26
Even though, I'm not a Tactical MP freak, I just want to say to GilJaySmith and the CA crew,
THANK YOU for being a part of this forum
Despite seeming an ungrateful offending lot, we are truly MOST happy with the creation called Total War. It is a game which we LOVE. I don't believe love is too strong a word to describe the connection we TW fans have with the game.
I know it may be difficult to view our, often extreme, responses to the hits and misses of your creative efforts as anything but disparaging, but, please, be aware that, even though, there may be a few truly abrassive dolts among us (,one of which posted above; and perhaps myself may be included), the VAST majority of us, despite our whinnings, pleadings, demandings, and sometimes over-the-top admonishments, love you CA guys
Please don't view us as offensive, abrassive, idiots, but as whiny little children running and jumping around their mother's apron strings, begging, pleading, and demanding, more and better. It's not OUR fault that mom is such a good cook.
It is all a result of the LOVE we have for that which YOU created which makes us behave the way we do at times. JRock, is an extreme example of this. If he didn't love the game he "probably" wouldn't act in such a way (, though his case might be borderline and a good dose of gene therapy may be in order, hehehe).
Keep in mind that if you had created a piece of crap game, no one would care, but, CA, you didn't. You created something truly great.
We are not like "rock" fans who give their idols undying adulation (and blowjobs), but more like your "spoiled" children. We can be a Total PITA, but the bottom line is we Love TW and we Love CA. We are as much your creation as any line of TW code. So, just like any parent, admonish us when necessary, as you so amptly did above, reward us when we do the right thing, but whatever the case, DON'T stop talking to us
Our whinnings and beratements are just a part of TW love, Tough Love maybe, love nonetheless
Now, let's all make nice and keep posting. To the CA folks who've stopped, please come back.
------------
BTW, ToranagaSama WANTS HIS C-MP http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
hmm... im still getting used to the changes, but shock cav are almost unstopable, perhaps a slight tweak there, and also make archers 10% better
the main problem still remain for me: less armor or better arrows. I think that the better and the stronger units have to have less armour like monks in MI with the 1.03 (very strong unit but vulnerabile by missiles)
GilJaysmith
11-11-2002, 17:55
Quote[/b] (+DOC+ @ Nov. 11 2002,05:37)]One very vital addition would be to make the SP and MP stats set separate so as one could play and mod the SP to hearts content while the MP stats remained constant. THis would save the constant problem of restarting MTW and restoring the original stats every time many want to play online.
This reminds me: TosaInu (I think?) asked us to add some kind of option to allow the stats to be reloaded without having to restart the game. This is now in the patch: if you add -reload to the game command line, the unit and projectile stats will be reloaded each time you start or join an MP game, instead of just the once when you load MTW. So you should be able to play a game, muse over the results, edit the stats files, then play another game and pick up those changes instantly.
Gil ~ CA
Ithaskar Fëarindel
11-11-2002, 18:16
Well said Toranaga-Sama.
about CD key verification,
There are NO key generators for the Total War Series of games available from the underground,
Why?
because the code for the key verification is not in the executable.
If it was it would have been cracked and piracy of the TW series would be rampant,
No commercial encryption method is unbreakable.
Thus if you see someone online they have a legit' copy of the game, because you can't get past the verification without having a genuine key.
This is sound commercial sense especially for an emerging company like CA.
We cannot criticise them for having a centralised server, no key verification method is safe if it is part of the shipped code.
What we can do is point out any errors we find, and the more politely we do so, and the more effort we put into stating precisely what happens, when it happens and how to replicate what happens, the more likely we will get a fix for it.
Abusing CA and the staff from CA will get us nowhere.
To GilJay, Target, EatColdSteel, Longjohn and company
Guys, we love the game,
how many people play a game 2 years down the track?
Many of us here have been part of this community from day one, you don't get people hanging around and contributing week in week out for 2 years and then some if they don't enjoy the game.
They (and I) am here because we love playing these games, we enjoy the challenge you have given us of competing online in real time.
Many understand precisely why we use central servers, and accept that such a system has occasional risks, downtime and the like.
I have yet to see Gamespy down for 7 days straight, hell i haven't even seen Gamespy down for 24 hours.
Yet the EA servers would often fall over and be down for many days at a stretch, come back for a few days and then fold again.
I think some here do not appreciate the reliability of GameSpy in that regard.
GilJay, Target, EatColdSteel, Longjohn and company don't give up on some 4000(and growing) registered members of this forum just because a few, (and a very few at that), express their personal frustration with aspects of the game in a bitter and misguided manner.
The TW series is a great set of games, those who complain bitterly do so mainly because they want to see them perfect in every regard.
(( i make No apologies for them, merely state they say the things they do because they too love the game, if they didn't they would not bother to be here, they are just less patient and far less diplomatic than most ))
To All,
There is a time and a place to scream like spoilt children,
The Org is Not the place.
We have a patch forum (the dungeon) where you can raise issues with the patch,
BUT venting your spleen at the developers is not part of that process.
Barocca
Mithrandir
11-11-2002, 18:29
Quote[/b] (barocca @ Nov. 11 2002,11:17)]about CD key verification,
There are NO key generators for the Total War Series of games available from the underground,
Why?
because the code for the key verification is not in the executable.
If it was it would have been cracked and piracy of the TW series would be rampant,
No commercial encryption method is unbreakable.
Thus if you see someone online they have a legit' copy of the game, because you can't get past the verification without having a genuine key.
This is sound commercial sense especially for an emerging company like CA.
We cannot criticise them for having a centralised server, no key verification method is safe if it is part of the shipped code.
What we can do is point out any errors we find, and the more politely we do so, and the more effort we put into stating precisely what happens, when it happens and how to replicate what happens, the more likely we will get a fix for it.
Abusing CA and the staff from CA will get us nowhere.
To GilJay, Target, EatColdSteel, Longjohn and company
Guys, we love the game,
how many people play a game 2 years down the track?
Many of us here have been part of this community from day one, you don't get people hanging around and contributing week in week out for 2 years and then some if they don't enjoy the game.
They (and I) am here because we love playing these games, we enjoy the challenge you have given us of competing online in real time.
Many understand precisely why we use central servers, and accept that such a system has occasional risks, downtime and the like.
I have yet to see Gamespy down for 7 days straight, hell i haven't even seen Gamespy down for 24 hours.
Yet the EA servers would often fall over and be down for many days at a stretch, come back for a few days and then fold again.
I think some here do not appreciate the reliability of GameSpy in that regard.
GilJay, Target, EatColdSteel, Longjohn and company don't give up on some 4000(and growing) registered members of this forum just because a few, (and a very few at that), express their personal frustration with aspects of the game in a bitter and misguided manner.
The TW series is a great set of games, those who complain bitterly do so mainly because they want to see them perfect in every regard.
(( i make No apologies for them, merely state they say the things they do because they too love the game, if they didn't they would not bother to be here, they are just less patient and far less diplomatic than most ))
To All,
There is a time and a place to scream like spoilt children,
The Org is Not the place.
We have a patch forum (the dungeon) where you can raise issues with the patch,
BUT venting your spleen at the developers is not part of that process.
Barocca
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/Skin/SKIN-4/PostIcons/icon14.gif
Yes, I, and I know many with me appreciate it a lot that you guys are investing so much (spare) time into the community and helping out in all sorts of ways.
Thanks
-Mithrandir-
Orda Khan
11-11-2002, 18:30
At the end of the day CA admitted that MP was a minor part of the game as far as they were concerned. That been said is it any wonder the MP game is so bad? I bought the game mainly for MP, so where does that leave me? £29.99 worse off
But it says you can play this on the internet.......
Quote : "Epic multiplayer warfare with 8-player online battles" : Unquote.
Sorry but that tells me that I can take part in "epic" MP battles, which is not the case; which is why people complain. What on earth do you expect them to do, sit quietly in the corner until CA finally sorts it out? Remain loyal to a game that won't do what it says it will?
Come off it Gil you really sound like you got your heart on your sleeve. This is the 21st Century, wake up and smell the coffee. This is what you get today mate. If I work my nuts off I'm told I am just doing what I'm employed to do but drop a clanger and I know all about it. It's the same for us all mate don't take it so personally.
I am sure JRock was posting out of sheer frustration as have many others, he paid over the cash so as far as I'm concerned he has every right to an opinion.
Oh and from your closing remark are we to assume that CA has turned its back on this fansite?
You really can't expect to go through life without being criticised, that is something we all have to learn to live with
........Orda
Oh Boy Thanks for getting that -reload included GilJay This make a big difference in convenience of switching in alternate stats, and makes it much more likely that players would be willing to use an alternate stat.
I agree with DOC's points, and would add that raising morale will have the practical effect of making all the morale penalties, which are of a fixed magnitude, seem smaller. It's not really doing that, but moving everything further away from the rout point with make it seem like it is because you'll have to accumulate more penalties before you rout. Adding too much morale, as the +12 morale you get from the morale off option, essentially removes morale from the tactics because you can't accumulate enough penalties to rout until your unit is almost annihilated.
Valor cost is now 70%. This is good because it prevents cheap units from becoming stronger than more expensive units, and you can use the valor upgrade without causing major unit imbalances. I would suggest using the valor upgrade to overcome the low morale of the typical infantry unit which will make them better able to stand against cav. I've played a few 15K games and they played better than 10K games. I'm going to play more games in the 15K - 20K range and see how they go.
I would ask players who are going to quit to rout their units before they leave the battle. Otherwise, your units have to be routed one by one by the opponents before the game will end. Also, don't quit big battles before you're sure the game is lost. Very often you can rally a few units, link up with your allies and continue fighting.
Quote[/b] (+DOC+ @ Nov. 11 2002,05:26)]Ok, i voted as i don't care, simply because you didn't give an option for a "wait till we try the patch for a few weeks". Anyway here are a few of my opinions:
1. Hill bonuses.
Difficult one this one. Basically, according to Puzz, hill bonuses are there although they aren't as pronounced as in STW. IF you restore hill bonuses to STW levels then all that happens is everyone plays the flat maps only, anyone that picks a hilly map and defends is viewed as dishonourable.
Leave them as they are and people will freely use all the maps and defending up a hill is viewed as more acceptable.
There are still hill bonuses, one can shoot further from the top of a hill and there is a slight advantage to the troops attacking from with the height advantage ....+2 morale?
So, taking all these into account, i'd leave this as it is.
2. General +2 morale.
Yup, absolutely, i've been hoping for this to be added from the very beginning. Otherwise it becomes a necessity to play high florin games. AT the moment chain routing can be a problem and battles can become a bit of a "who can cause the first unit to rout wins" affair.
Only prblem with this could be if this were translated into SP meaning that the AI's high morale troops like knights may never flee. Enemy Kings, heirs and top generals will therefore always fight ot the death.... not a desirable outcome. We want to encourage the AI to look after is Kings, heirs and top generals.
3. Morale penalties.
Linked to 2 above, maybe the morale penalties are too pronounced or indeed their area of affect to large? Not sure on this though as i didn't program the game and don't delve into the game mechanics as much as many do here.
On this note i think some here have studied the game's mechanics to such an extent that they know exactly how to beat someone by manipulating these morale penalties. The average gamer won't understand these and therefore will always succumb to the pros using these tactics.
Nothing wrong with this, but it'll probably explain why you find it very hard to ever lose.
Play with people you know and like (and trust) and you'll enjoy most experiences, as long as you don't drop. Unfortunately, there will always be rushers and poor gamesmanship, plus with >100 units there will probably always be some imbalance.
Regards
Quote[/b] ]Ok, i voted as i don't care, simply because you didn't give an option for a "wait till we try the patch for a few weeks". Anyway here are a few of my opinions:
this is what i mean, some needs some weeks some just some days, tell me arrogant but i needed 2 days and i told u what we see now
and it come more and more player who agree with me (not at all but at the most points)
Quote[/b] ]On this note i think some here have studied the game's mechanics to such an extent that they know exactly how to beat someone by manipulating these morale penalties.
look, ofcourse some dont know how and why it exactly work this way, but they get a feeling, so they know they have to move "this" unit in this way and they get "this" result. so yes, they cant explain the mecanics but they know what to do, i can explain the mecanics and i can tell u that the circles are too big, i said this months ago already.
u can easy notice in battles that unit rout just coz some enemy units are around, u dont need to fight this unit. U can rout full units without charging
a +2 moral would help, maybe it would solve the whole problem (this we gonna test this week)
still the cirlces exist and will cause routs where u will ask urself "why the hell my army run away?".
i disagree with this hillbonusses and it just show again, that someone has an opinion and many agree without thinking.
Yes, now we can play some higher hill and u dont get a big penalty if u figh uphill, well...so we can say we have an 2D game now, its not important to use hills in this game anymore.
but it was the greatest point in this game, it was 3D now this point got reduced to near zero http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
ofcourse, we had some problems in stw, but it was a hell of fun to "work" about 1 hour to kick a camper from his hill
i absolut agree, that u cant balance 100 units.
if we go and make missles stronger (this is the only way) than some units will get hard penaltys, think about the fanatics with 1 armour....
we ccant lower the armour of some units, just coze some of this special units who get bonusses vs armoured units wont get bonusses if the armour of the enemy units isnt about 5.
so we are in a dilemma,....what we gonna do?
its a nice option this bonusses vs armoured units
and i wont destroy it, so we can lower the armour of the units, it just go about themissles.....they need more power/reloadtime/accuracy.....
so i go and give the fanatics more armour so they dont get so hard slaughtered by the missles....its just an example what we need to think about.
an nice example is, helbardiers or gallowglasses vs this lancers....ther u can very good see what happens if a unit with bonusses fight vs high armoured units.
this things make this game fun, counter units wich are worth the money if u can use them wise....
i posted many many ideas at this forum, and i dont got some good reaction, where i would say..."ha nice, someone agree with me" ...mostly i just faced ignorance and the most didnta greed with me, i think the problem is, that i exploit the system very fast and many others need just more time....but now we face many disapointed players and they gets more and more, so went to work for a "fast solution" and i hope that i get some support ....ofcourse i do mistakes too and many of this post are very usefull, coz they show me other opinions and at this way i can change my opinion and think again about several ideas.
@gil
i respect ur work and the work of the other devs and if im disapointed i tell my opinion i dont kiss asses
if i see john post about missles and that they can shoot cav, thatswhy they did cav more valuable....so i just can laugh and say.... "this shows u dont know the unit well" (this post/tread got deleted, or i dont can find it)
so what we need is more support from u devs, and concret statments what u could change in what a time. i know ur bussy i know we are just 90%, but we dont want so many changes....the stats we can change our own....jsut this circles and the fatique ..... im not a programmer but i doubt this cause many problems.
so it would be very helpfull if u could give us some more support at this matter
mag and me offer already to come to london to meet u if it could help or whatever, we want to make this game more fun.
lets give it a longlivity.
thx for any effort
ur juniorKoc
Dionysus9
11-11-2002, 18:57
Hill bonuses need to be increased. If people want to play without hill bonuses, then they can play on flat maps. If defending on a hill is seen as dishonorable then give the attacker less florins. I like to attack up hills and against decent hill bonuses, esp. against new players.
Morale-- I don't know what the patch changed, but now my Valor 3 spears run as soon as an enemy unit rounds the flank. Never mind that I have 2 units to counter it, the spears still run before the flanker can even get at them. This is frustrating. If you pay for good troops they should fight until they are actually struck by flanking units.
As far as spears/cav goes, I don't have too much opinion. I've had some sucess killing lots of cavalry with cav/spear combos.
Bacchus
Kraellin
11-11-2002, 18:58
gil,
very nice. but one question on these command line options. we've seen several of these listed now; is it possible to use more than one of these command line options at a time and if so, what is the format for putting in more than one at a time?
K.
OrdaKhan,
Are you still unable to play MTW MP after installing the v1.1 patch? Most people are able to play. I know your ISP connection is below par. It's true that some people won't be able to get it to work. There is no way GilJaysmith and company can make the game work with every possible computer configuration and ISP connection. At some point the user has to take action to correct their end of things.
Quote[/b] ]posted by Orda Khan
At the end of the day CA admitted that MP was a minor part of the game as far as they were concerned
Less than 10% of people who buy the game play online,
that's a fact. That is not caused by bugs or "faults",
thats the way people play. I have numerous MP/Internet games, i ONLY play TW online. You can't expect any company to spend a fortune for less than 10% of the audience.
Quote[/b] ]posted by Orda Khan
Quote : "Epic multiplayer warfare with 8-player online battles" : Unquote.
Sorry but that tells me that I can take part in "epic" MP battles, which is not the case
Then I suggest you check your system configuration, because i have a lousy system, below the minimum listed specs for the game, and I can play online just fine.
Quote[/b] ]posted by Orda Khan
What on earth do you expect them to do, sit quietly in the corner until CA finally sorts it out?
If there is a problem list it in the proper place and in the proper manner.
Calling decisions a "joke" and "narrow minded" without knowing why the decision was made is designed to cause offence.
Quote[/b] ]posted by Orda Khan
Oh and from your closing remark are we to assume that CA has turned its back on this fansite?
Perhaps the developers are just weary of the endless bitching, especially as much of it insulting.
Would you continue to work at your company if everything you tried to solve a problem was criticised in such an insulting and rude manner?
The Developers work their butts off to fix as many problems as they can, to bring us new features and capabilities, no beta testing program on the planet will find all the bugs in any piece of software, live testing finds the bugs, and patches rectify them.
But if insult those who make the patches...well, why should they bother?
I have seen plenty of mission critical software which performed flawlessy in testing, fail in the real world.
The best we can do is list and define the bugs as precisely as possible,
The worst thing we can do is piss the developers off so much they just will not be interested in hearing about them.
Barocca
Kocmoc,
As far as I can see, the range of the morale influence circles is the same as it was in STW. How can it be a problem in MTW and not in STW? Do you want the circles to be smaller as a way of compensating for penalties that you think are too large? I don't see how flanking can be the problem. It's only -2 morale points on a scale of over -20 points you need to rout a unit of level 6 morale.
If you want a suggestion on archers, try making the accurracy a little better and maybe more arrows. You won't get the effectiveness you want on the first try. First you get it in the ballpark, and then fine tune it. However, if you are going to make a change to overall morale level, get that in there early in the testing since it affects everything.
thx puzz,
i said it in my post, maybe the +2moral will already fix the circle problem.
Thanks for ur input it realy helps me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
koc
Orda Khan
11-11-2002, 19:53
Ok guys first off I was stating facts as have been posted in these forums. I did not say that CA should spend more on multiplay Barocca because I realise the facts you pointed out, I was simply repeating what we've been told by CA.
As for my system specs, they are just fine thanks. I'm not one of those lucky enough to be on cable or ADSL, I'm on 56k, but I believe the majority of us are? I have enquired about my connection, which currently averages 46.6. It seems there are a lot of people with slower connections. As for my ISP, the only problem I have here is that I will time out after 2 hours. No problem so long as you don't forget the time and get dropped mid battle.
And talking of 4v4 battles, funny enough I took part in three of these on Shogun Mongol Invasion last night.
Yes some of us are criticised, abused, call it what you like regularly. Have you ever been made to feel that you are totally worthless, that you have nothing to offer, yet at the same time your experience was being called on to train up new people? Been there guys but unfortunately for some of us, alternative employment is not that easy to find so yes I am still there taking the crap on a regular basis. People are selfish these days and they want their demands met (not me personally I don't really care) and they will criticise when they are not and criticism generally tends towards offense. I'm just surprised at the reaction.
My post was not meant to cause offense but yet it has..??
There you go
........Orda
Jemasze Toda
11-11-2002, 20:34
My greetings to all
A problem for me to respond to this very interesting topic is simply that i -unlike Koc and some other vets- still have not exploited the system after the release of the patch very well if at all
From my point of view the patch and the changes which resulted from it need still more practice, but that may be only because i am a bit slower to grasp things than others.
Secondly i am more of an intuitive player. Believe it or not: I almost never look at the stats or the logfiles or anything else of that sort.
I field an army which i deem worth the try and watch how it works in battle, i know nothing about morale-penalties -2 or areas in which the penalties occur.
When i find a unit and/or army shows some nice strenghtes and some less desired weaknesses i choose it ( or leave it) according to my own observations and those of my friends. I see my opponents use interesting tactics and adapt to them or fail to do so.
But i don't want to bore you more than necessary with my own little doings http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif so i return to the subject of the patch now:
As i see it there are indeed a couple of bugs, mistakes, misbalances and shortcomings of the game, even after the patch, so much is plain even to a statistical and technical illiterate as me.... as they are:
1. The relative weakness of the archers and especially the
horse-archers. It would be nice and a major boost to the
tactical aspect of the game if they were a bit stronger
aka have a improved accuracy/ power against armour and a
better price/value balance.
From my point of view the cav-archer should be
A LOT cheaper than they are, maybe only 100 or 150 That
may sound too cheap but with current effectivness this
low costs would make them more of a bargain...no need for
such drastic changes in price when the horse-archers
increase in effectiveness though.
2. The still ( although improved a bit) extreme fatigue of
light cav. While it is fine that heavy cav tire quite
fast light cav should be able for a longer time to run
around and annoy the enemy. Maybe fatique as a whole
should be lessened a bit for the sake of smoother end-
games in 3v3 or 4v4.
3. In order to improve the ability to counter rushes some
units like handgunners, arquebusiers and maybe even
crossbows/ arbas or certain archers should have a
devastating effect on a very(!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif short range so that
those units could be used as counter against ill-led
head-on rushes. I am not sure about this but it may at
least be worth a try.
I do not have any answers to issues as too low hill-bonusses, too large morale-impact areas and so on due to the fact that i for one cannot see the need of an urgent fix of them.
For example if you get heavily flanked by your enemy it seems ok for me that even whole units who have had no fighting so far run like hell because of the morale impact on them.
In MTW you are most of the times able to rally at least some units again so the battle doesn't necessarily need to be over when your line breaks. I admit that this might not work in games below 10.000 Florins but i hardly play them anyway so again i can't comment on that.
Too often i hear people complain about their units routing out of nowwhere while its crystal clear that their opponent brought his cav in their back and/or has a general major advantage due to flanking and similar battlesituations.
To come to a conclusion, i personally would still advise to wait a bit more and play some more battles before we claim the patch a total failure. Of course it is NOT perfect but did anybody expect it to be?
As many others said we won't ever have a fully balanced game but on the other hand nothing should stop us from trying to get one
So feel free to complain, whine, moan and argue but be aware that when it comes to the core of any game its mostly up to ourselfes to get a wonderful gameplay despite all the undeniable shortcomings of the system.
Yesterday my good friend ELITEofManstein ( http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ) played a 1v1 against Paolai and he might agree with me that this WAS a very enjoyable tactical battle... Why? Because we both wanted to have one
Understand what i mean?
yours Jemasze alias TheFool
MagyarKhans Cham
11-11-2002, 20:38
GilJay may i point out that in previous versions developers have come here telling us that things will improve in the future.
The only thing i see is that it aint worse, neither better than in previous releases. so your words here do fine but u and your buddies have to proof them yet.
no further comments from me between the bOrganised people...
Keep up the good work i think we just maybe be gettin somewhere.......
I just hope the Dev's will give u that little bit more supportand this matter................ http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Dionysus9
11-11-2002, 22:04
Yuuki,
Are you sure the morale system hasn't been changed in the patch (beyond the obvious effects of more costly troops). My men just seem to run faster... Is it a boost to morale penalties from being charged by cav? Or am I just imagining things?
Horsearchers-- I agree they need to be made more effective. At this point I could care less about historic accuracy-- as many MP'ers would agree-- rich and well developed tactical opportunities are more important than slavish devotion to what we "think" is historically accurate. I would imagine that for every historical scholar who says horsearchers had no effectiveness in medieval times, we could find one who says they ruled the battlefield.
As the Horsearcher stands now, they can safely be ignored. I just let them plink away until they are out of ammo. Horsearchers shouldn't be able to stand up to arb/crossbow fire (and they cant), but they should be able to cause some serious damage if they are flank-firing on a stationary unit without fullplate armor (which they cant). At the very least horsearchers should be decimating light cav (cav w/o heavy barding), and they arent. An arrow or two should stop a horse, if not the rider.
ToranagaSama
11-11-2002, 22:06
MagyarKhans Cham,
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but English is not your primary language, correct?
In that light, let me say that while your ability to write and communicate in English is VERY good considering its not your primary language; BUT even considering such achievement, it must be pointed out to you that to communicate in another language precisely AND to convey your intention accurately, in addition, to doing so diplomatically takes an extreme degree of expertise.
Your post have NOT exhibited such expertise.
It that respect, I'd like to point out to you that your post often come across as, short, abrassive and insulting.
This may or may not be your intention, but if it is not, then I suggest that you take MUCH greater care in formulating your future posts. If you are not sure or may think that a sentence you formulate does not "accurately" convey your intention, I suggest you state just that Ask for guidence in conveying your point(s) accurately. I'm sure most everyone here and especially the mods will be happy to aid you.
Your posts, as they are now, are NOT "inviting" for CA to respond to and as such, I don't believe, are helpful to the community.
OrdaKhan,
I see a lot of 5 to 10 second pauses in WE/MI battles with you. Something it going on there that is outside of the game. Your connection speed may be ok, but there are interruptions on that connection. I still don't understand if you can connect to the MTW server and play a battle. Can you?
longjohn2
11-11-2002, 22:25
I haven't had a chance to play the patched version on line yet, but I'll make a few general observations.
I'm a bit surprised by the complaints about hill bonuses, as I didn't deliberately change anything. As far as I know they're the same as before, and the same as the original STW. The terrain's generally a bit flatter in MTW though. It's always a possibility that a bug crept through testing though http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif. If that's the case I apologise.
I also don't think I changed anything to do with morale ( except the cost of valour upgrades ). It is possible to rout full strength units without engaging them but they have to be in pretty bad situation for this to occur. For instance unsupported and surrounded by large enemy forces. Frankly this doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
On the subject of archers, I should point out that they're an early period unit. If you want a game with effective archers, play in the early period. Complaining about their effectiveness vs Lancers is unreasonable.
It is maybe true that horse archer armies aren't as effective as some of them were historically this. I think this is because the limited size of the battlefield doesn't reflect the limitless open terrains where horse archer armies were effective. This may disappoint some of you Mongol Fetishists, but I'm not too worried by this. I don't think playing against hordes of horse archers you can't catch would be that much fun for the average (ie casual) player.
I'm a little surprised to hear the game has become about cav rushes. I didn't think the changes I made were that dramatic. Just shows that these things are finely balanced. Still even so, I think it's an improvement on the pre patch game. Better for a game called Medieval to be dominated by Knights than by upgraded spearmen.
I think the game needs to reflect the history of the game to a fair extent. If we try to make it into some sort of hyperthetical perfectly balanced game where all arms are equal, then we can only ever make one game. There'd have been no point to MTW because it would just have been STW with different sprites.
Anyway I'll try to get online sometime this week, and see for myself.
Jemasze Toda
11-11-2002, 22:42
Longjohn,
concerning the horsearcher:
Its not about getting ALL horsearcher armies running around on MTW-battlefields. As it is now you almost NEVER see a single horsie or if you see them they are near useless (even for flanking) I understand your point of view but in actual online-gaming reality it would be very nice to have somewhat effective cav-archers in order to increase the tactical aspect.
In good old STW there was a simple solution to prevent horsearchers from dominating the battlefields on their own:
The Yari-cav
So balancing of speed of certain light cav would make that problem rather easily a non-existent one...hehe
And by the way: Fielding a strong horsearcher army is one of the most difficult things you can try ( even in STW!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
If you don't believe me...check it out yourself
Thanks for posting, Longjohn
yours Jemasze alias TheFool
Longjohn a lot of what you say here i agree with wholeheartedly.
"Better to have a game called Medieval dominated by cavalry than poumped up spear units"
Absolutely, these knights now induce the fear that they should. On battlefield they are my main concern, whereas previously they'd been little more than an irritation and an enemy army full of spears was scary.
About horse archers:
I have to admit i do find these guys very irritating, partly because no cav can catch them and my idea of a medieval battle is not about chasing horse archers about a map. Horse crossbows are more useful, but i like them how they are.
The only thing i'd maybe do with the longbow, shortbow and mounted bow from the projectiles.txt file is to increase the lethality of these a little. I now have the longbow at 0.8, shortbow and mounted bow at 0.7. Previously they used to be 0.63 for all three.
But frankly the crux of the matter is some STW vets want MTW to be a bigger better version of STW with the same principles and same game mechanics. MTW is not STW and therefore should stand out as being different. IMHO it does just that.
MagyarKhans Cham
11-11-2002, 23:31
Well written Toranaga, I must apologise. i am a simple messenger, loyal to our Great Khan, Khan of Khans but i am allowed to express my own ideas as well.
I also dont see why people care so much how i write things, i represent only myself. 1 single sole in this massive online experience. but i am willingly to learn from u, i am open minded.
And as long i stay within the bOrg rules i expect being able to post here. I am just balancing some of the posts here. If people post teh game totally suck than i will reply it doesnt and vice versa. I criticize posts if needed i will stimulate others.
I expect the bOrg representatives to warn me when i step out of line. And i dont believe that thsi place is made only for nice people with a continous happy view on things that are going on.
(looks around for his horse....)
Konnichiwa,
I wouldn't care about bORG rules, just read the ORG Forum Rules which you agreed to when signing up. The link to those rules is on top of every page.
Agree with longjohn and doc. I enjoyed 1.0, and I enjoy 1.1 now. Although there are a few things that needs a little tweaking, but the main combat system is fine as it is. We bought the game designed by the devs, so we play the game how the devs wanted it to be. This is a whole new game, not a shogun mod.
The cavalry rush problem is not because cavalry are too strong, it's due too the spear's low moral can't stand cavalry's charge bonus and moral penalty. If the the spear units dont run in the first few seconds, they will beat the cavs, it just takes longer in the patch. Playing at higher florin like 15k-20k will solve most of the moral problems. Also dont expect too much from the basic spearmen, they SHOULD lose to elite knights.
LongJohn,
Spears suffer more pushback from cav, spears are more expensive, valor upgrades are more expensive and mounted knights are less expensive. All these factors are combining to affect spear/cav balance dramatically. A v2 Order Foot costs a little less than a v0 mounted knight in v1.0. However in v1.1, a v1 Order Foot costs a little more than a v0 mounted knight. So in v1.1 MP, the Order Foot has essentially lost 2 combat points, lost 2 morale points and suffers the pushback. The Order Foot would still beat the mounted knight if it would stand and fight, but it routs due to increased casualties which lowers an already lowered morale since you are fielding them at v1 rather than v2 in 10K florin games. While I think we are better this way than we were in v1.0 with the spear dominating the battles, it's possible that the spear/cav balance was shifted more than necessary. The original base cost of spears could be reinstated, and the cost of the knights raised slightly. This wouldn't affect SP at all.
That's not saying that 16 cav will beat 8 spears, 4 cav and 4 ranged in 1v1 at 10K florins because I have been able to beat 16 late period, Spanish cav with that army. However, in big 3v3 and 4v4 battles a cav army can swiftly move to effect a double team. A slow infantry ally of the player getting double teamed can't respond quickly enough at the current morale levels because his double teamed ally routs too quickly. Basically, it means you have to take a lot of cav yourself to respond to this threat.
I don't see any alternative now except to play the big MP games at 15K to 20K florins each to avoid these quick routs and make a predominately infantry army a viable alternative to a cav dominated army. The 70% cost of the valor upgrade will prevent cheap units from becoming stronger than more expensive units, so balance should be retained at this higher florin level. All non-knight infantry units will stand and fight longer with the valor upgrades that you can afford at the higher florins. You can combine this with playing early period to get rid of the heavy cav completely if desired. I think it's worth a try. The few battles I've have at 15K played better to my mind.
Unfortunatly, playing with morale off adds +12 morale to all units which basically removes morale as a consideration in battle. It would have been nice if the boost had been made a more modest +6 which would then allow playing at lower florins without the easy routing. When units stand and fight longer, maneuver and advantageous unit matchups become more important in determining victory. Even though the spears in v1.0 were very predominant, they were a slow killing unit which allowed plenty of time for maneuver. The cav isn't like that. Cav kills fast, and a 10K v1.1 battle is usually over fast as a result of that.
Small changes can have big consequences on the battles because of the complicated way all of the factors interact and the ability of human players to take advantage of those changes and emphasis their effect.
i agree with some of ur points but i also disagree with some.... i try to explain.
john, u said that this game should be played at valour 0.
the blance at least was made for valour 0(thats how i udnerstood it)
but we can truely say, that the game is not playable with valour 0 units, well, with a few yes, but not many...jsut this pumped moralunits will stay a bit and fight.
i dont think that it is a good way to take the less problem...
We are in a little dilemma here, because we speake sometimes about the historical aspects and sometimes about the tactical aspects, what we do now?
if we go and have a look at the historical correct range of the crossbows and arbas u should reconcider the 100 and 120 meters for this units, and ofcourse historical spears wopuld beat cav and knight would beat spears ....so somehow many things seems wrong to me
what we gonna do now?
i personal think we are far away from a historical correct game, its nice to use some knights and see special units like the napthas, but at the end....what we realy want?
we want a challanging game, we want a loglivity of this game....we want fun for the next years again
if someone not agree with me at this point, he will leave soon anyway....
so yes, IMO the cav are not thats trong that they are a very big problem, but the moralsupport they bring are a bit hard sometimes and i can show u how easy u can spoil every online game by using this units in a "correct" way.
but ok, i think we could live with this
some months ago i mentioned already that we need to change the missles and the cavarcher for the tactical spects, noone did care and some who did it didnt understood it.
now more and more peoples start to speak the same word like me, not coz i told them or they listened, jsut coz they coem to the same conlusion like me.
and in a few weeks they will agree with some of my other points too
we need more than jsut some cav and some spears ...with wich we jsut rush...we need counter units wich have other counter units, like i mention in a upper post already, gallowglasses vs lancers....and lancers vs cmaa...this is the correct way
but we need some mroe improvements, missles have to be stronger, not too much and not jsut the cavarcher, we need some damage if u have an blanced army and a rusher comes to kick u. this means not losses like in MI where u lost maybe 70% in a fronal rush, but maybe 30% losses if he comes frontal. u can still win with 30% losses but this 30% losses gives the guy with the balanced army the money back for his missles and dont give him a too big diadvance for using a balanced army.
plz read my upper post i wrote already about the changes we could do...
the hillbonus are different from STW, i dont ahve the number but me feeling never left me
and i believe tosa did a test some time ago, or puzz (not sure)
in my custome test i could notice that the +2 moral boost already works pretty good (btw this points i spoke long time ago already and im happy now that some mizus agree with me at leat at this 1 point)
all what i try to say its a big difference to know the stats pretty good,and bring this knowledge on the battlefield.
now i started to work very hard with the stats and combinate my knowledge from the field with the knowledge of the numbers and i think we can make this game more challanginh without to destroy the "current historicla interpretation".
i try start at this point to say sorry for my sometimes a bit fast and harsh words, but its very annoying if i speak since months about the problems wich many guys now first realize. im not happy with this patch but i dont just say that im not happy, NO i go and try to chage it and make it better.
one disadvance i have too is my english, so sometimes i sound maybe handicaped or it seems im rude ot arrogant...this isnt not what iwant to be
plz longjonh; jil; puzz; kraell and all the other feel free to meet me online or to mail me. lets work together and let us create a patch in a shorter time to make the many unhappy online players happy.
i dont change it like i want, i go and speak with many players i create polls to see other opinion, to see what the majority wants and if all think the hillbonusses are fine, well ok sure let be like it is now, but i ask u..
Did u tested it?
sometimes i think some just go and try different units but dont test the mecanics and dont look at some of the points i mentined...but many start to speak about it as did they know it all, but if i see them playing or speaking about it i can easy say they didnt tested and they cant know it
thx for ur time again
ur juniorKoc
longjohn2
11-12-2002, 01:40
I rather expected people to start playing with 12-15k florins after the patch. Personally I like playing with tricky morale ( probably because that's the way I've got used to it during development ), but if some other people like it a bit more solid, that's fine by me. Now that the upgrades are better priced people can use the florin level to tune the morale to the way they like it.
Kocmoc: Are you saying that the hill bonueses are the same as before the patch ?. Possibly they aren't the same as STW, although I don't recall changing them. No-ones complained until now though.
I didn't change missile fire in the patch. Mainly because it seems to work fine for 90% of our customers ( the SP ones :-)) and partly because I wanted to see how introducing more cavalry to the gaem would affect the balance. I'm also not convinced its as broken as some of you clain. Possibly for those who have played hundreds of games, but I think that most players can pick some missile troops and have fun with them. Anyway I'll think about whether anything can/should be done for the future.
A quick note about missile ranges. The ranges in the game obviously don't represent the realstic maximum ranges for the weapons. Instead they represent a good compromise range at which it is worth the unit expending ammo in volley fire. Allowing longer ranges would also allow too much concentration of fire in one place, and lessen the big battle feel of the game.
Anyway for the moment you'll have to live with the game as it stands. However I do appreciate your feedback, even if I can't always change things the way you wish.
Kocmoc,
What do you mean "now some mizu's agree with you"? When exactly did you ask for more morale? I asked for +2 morale on Sept 9th:
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000171.html
Orda Khan
11-12-2002, 02:20
Yuuki, The games I have joined have gone a number of ways.
Mostly the game starts and I wait for everyone to get to 100 someone sticks on 92 and it drops or freezes. Other times it works ok even a 4v4 before the patch that we both fought in.
Generally the whole experience is frustrating and time consuming. As I stated, when you read the spec required and the other aspects, theoretically, if your system matches or exceeds these requirements the game should run perfectly in both SP and MP, regardless of a patch.
Ok it doesn't or didn't, that's not the point. I just found Giljays reply to be a bit paranoic. As a representative of CA I don't think he should air personal views in such a way. He is after all representing CA and should be above all this as none of it is personal. There is a professional way of dealing with things. If I told a waiter there's a fly in my soup and he said tough, I'd complain to the management. Just as if I told a customer to fix it themselves, I'd expect to get some comeback.
My whole point was for him to lighten up. He's not the only guy who gets this crap, we all do
.........Orda
MagyarKhans Cham
11-12-2002, 02:23
Hmmm, good topic. I wonder how we let teh sp players out http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
---------------------------------------------------
Koc is convinced about teh hillbonusses, our Khan cant comment on that cuz he is like TheFool, and doesnt do unitstatterrain testing. Kocmoc is our most beloved clan researcher so i have no reason not to believe him.
Perhaps its just that teh hills in twm are lower on average than in stw.
----------------------------------------------------
horsearchers are too weak, nonsense it just takes much more skill now to beat someone with it, or a skilless enemy. Well i asked our clans Moving Art Director to make some movies of our khans latest horsearchers battles... played last 2 days. I warn people, it may look like ego-tripping here...
http://home.cable4u.nl/%7Epaszl-p2/horsearchers1.mrp
http://home.cable4u.nl/%7Epaszl-p2/horsearchers2.mrp
if u have seen them, read further...
well horsearchers are far too weak, but ofcourse more units are. i never saw a spanish horsejavelin thrower do any good but teh lancers make up for that.
an horsearcher is so easily shot up by arbas, it really gives my khan headaches. he thinks that for increased improving of the diversity of units on teh field, teh arbas should be strong but a bit shorter in range than archers. just enuf to give horsearcher time to retreat when shot at.
longbows must stay superior in range.
although i cant wait for the comments online that teh horsearchers are improved to please our Khan so perhaps we can shove The-slow-Fool forward for some "tomato-catching".
btw i still cant see how a shooting weapon which shoots straightforward outshoot almost all bows. gravity should play a role.
other cav could be more divers like in old stw. and there have to be a cav type that could match the spead of teh horsearchers. perhaps not available for all factions but alas.
so there have to be some testing done...
0 morale 2 up and see what it does (15000-20000 battles "feel" actually much, much better)
00 improvement of overall shooting, and perhaps more arrows. 28 is still terribly low.
perhaps lowering range of arba just below range of horsearchers and horsearchers just below normal archers and longbow range to be superior.
000 after this lets see what have to be improved next. little steps first. cavalry? ballistas?
I know our Khan prevails gameplay over historical battling (perhaps someone can start a poll about it). since the game online is dominated by people who just play games and are bored easily if things get repetetive.
The feel of gameplay ensures longelivity of teh game. Perhaps someone is interested in making historicall stats, feel free to do so. Most fansites are willingly to upload them for u.
Jemasze, ur right as -almost- ever but u people will allways misuse the tools given to them. but that doesnt mean we cant help them limiting their options and increasing our options to beat them by improving balancing.
Well Kocmoc is busy with testing how to increase fun in teh game. and volunteers are in line to help him. Your name is not on teh list yet Jemasze..... can he add u?
DISCLAIMER
This post is not intended to upper-ego our Khans skills or push Kocmoc on an higher cloud. Nor has it the intention to piss noobs of or take any fun from historical purists.
(still looking for my horse, perhaps TheFool framed it, godbamn u fool http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif)
MagyarKhans Cham
11-12-2002, 02:25
ha puzz now i remember that post yes. ur surely fast.
Like LJ said, you really shouldn't be using Early period units against good High-Late units.
Arbs are High period and therefore are better than archers and horse archers. If you want to use horse archers effectively you really should be playing in the Early period. Plus you shouldn't be having a shoot out between horse archers and arbs.
What about horse crossbows, wouldn't they be better in the the other periods?
Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ Nov. 11 2002,07:26)]Next time, JRock, you can design it. And you can look at our mistakes and not repeat them, and that will be great. And we can look at all the mistakes you make for the first time, and we can sneer at them, and ridicule you for them, and assert that you're stupid and your game is a joke and you don't care about the community.
Nah, I would just design the game with player input from the beginning and offer more options for the player to choose from instead of forcing them to play the way I want to make the game. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Also, I never insulted you or your game, so pretend to be offended by someone else because I won't bear the blame for something I didn't do. I don't know how you managed to pull all that garbage out of what I posted. I have stated numerous times (but clearly not enough if you still can't comprehend such a simple and oft-stated point) that my biggest issue with MTW is the lack of options for the player to choose from - too many things are forced on the player. Options are not impossible things or things that require inordinant amounts of extra time to code. They're simple things that I've listed to many times in the past. I feel it's a waste of my time to list them all again for you to just ignore them and focus on the other, smaller issues I have with MTW like how multiplayer was done.
Options:
*25%, 50%, 75%, Full, Double Fatigue
*7 digit limit for florin count, not 6 digit limit.
*Ability to set "Unlimited Ammo" and "Free Camera" on/off from inside the multiplayer game creation screen instead of using the person's singleplayer settings back out at the game's main screen Options menu - settings which the player may well want to be different between sp and mp.
*More range of motion for the in-game camera.
And there are tons of other examples of options that have been listed in past threads. As you can see, they are not bigger, more complicated issues that would require more time or a less-archaic game engine to implement (like placeable spawn areas in the map editor, or selectable levels of graphic detail on the units).
Now I know it's easier for you to just put me down and claim I don't know the woes and agony of coding a game, but I'm sorry to say I do know a lot more about the game industry than you would hope. I've never had a problem with you, Gil, and I've defended CA in several threads where people wrongly attack or complain about you guys.
Let's face it though, the issue here is making a game that takes into the account the players who will be playing it and that they will be a very varied group of people with different preferences and styles of play. This is what creates the need for OPTIONS. Options are the easiest way to satisfy the largest number of people.
It's important to properly play-test a game before it's finished so player input can be useful and not an afterthought. It's a learning process and I guess now is the time you either learn that or refuse to. The choice is yours.
You say you've learned that lesson, and I am thankful for that. But don't hate me for being one of the vocal ones about it all.
Quote[/b] (JRock @ Nov. 12 2002,00:52)]
Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ Nov. 11 2002,07:26)]Next time, JRock, you can design it. And you can look at our mistakes and not repeat them, and that will be great. And we can look at all the mistakes you make for the first time, and we can sneer at them, and ridicule you for them, and assert that you're stupid and your game is a joke and you don't care about the community.
Nah, I would just design the game with player input from the beginning and offer more options for the player to choose from instead of forcing them to play the way I want to make the game. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Also, I never insulted you or your game, so pretend to be offended by someone else because I won't bear the blame for something I didn't do.
JRock, why don't you go away and learn some common courtesy and manners.
There are ways and methods of getting points and issues across and if done in a polite and informative manner the chances of getting listened to are far greater.
Your posts are simple mindless rants from a bitter fanatical gamer. I take no pleasure in reading your posts. I look forward to critically demeaning your supposed gaming masterpiece if you can even produce one? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Orda Khan
my apologies, i was not concise,
what i mean by system configuration is not the specs of your system, but the configuration of your devices.
It sounds like you have a glitch in there somewhere,
Have you installed the copy of directX from GAME CD#2?
That copy provides the most compatible drivers for sound and video,
The version available from microsoft on the web causes errors with both of my video cards (a GeForce and a RivaTNT)
(the web version may work fine on your system - on mine it does not)
I know only too well finding a glitch is a time consuming and frustrating practice.
Perhaps you have "supposedly" compatible devices sharing an IRQ, meaning if the IRQ is in use by one device the other must wait for the IRQ. Some devices are supposed to be quite happy sharing IRQ's, in my experience that is seldom the case.
Perhaps you have a driver file missing - Windows is renowned for doing this, go to
http://www.geocities.com/shade571/tech/Forgot.htm
this is for shogun and windows 98 - But the principle remains the same - check all files required DO exist as instructed there.
My PC is below the MP specs. Yet I have no trouble online.
(other than almost always ghosted when i return from battle)
One of my clanmates barely makes the SP specs - he also has no trouble online.
This leads me to think one of your devices is misbehaving.
====edit====
I forgot,
try following the advice here to improve performance
http://www.geocities.com/shade571/tech/performance-main.htm
if you cannot turn off a device/loader etc.
look for instructions here
http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_content.htm
Quote[/b] ]Do you ever wonder why I'm about the only person from CA who's still listening to what this forum has to say?
Well now. Thats a bit of a insight in the "not so implied threat" department.
Aside from the flotsam of rants and raves and general junvenile posts do you think the well thought out, frustrated posts do not bear any weight?
It's easy to point to the more, how shall we say, tenacious posts to excuse members of CA not wanting to post but the fact of the matter is many of the posts of customers have been well reasoned and accurate as affirmed by your subsequent "post mortem" post.
Now that everybody has learned all these important lessons, what is to be done? Any roadmap discussed for M:TW? Will we be so fortunate as to recive antoher patch or the much rumored add-on? Will we continue to be frustrated with the problem of not being able to see one anothers game in MP after having played one or two rounds with the same person just minutes earlier? Will Italin infantry be a part of the revolts in Livonia and far off places as a rule? Or, will we be subjected to a infomation blackout until such things are negoiated? If in fact any negoiations are even taking place?
I'm glad that we are all a part of your learning process but in the long run we, the customers, paid the price of tuition. Literally. Glad to be of service. I don't blame you for being a bit "Grrrr" about he more ravenous posts but what about those that have been around and paid for your learning process? Is that much to ask for some answers, good or bad, about the product we all paid money for?
-Apeboy
Apeboy
One
Quote[/b] ]Will we continue to be frustrated with the problem of not being able to see one anothers game in MP after having played one or two rounds with the same person just minutes earlier?
I have noticed that if I log in through gamespy outside the game there are a number of "hosts" with very high ping's, through the external gamespy login i am unable to join these games.
These high ping games are NOT displayed by the In Game Foyer.
Two
Quote[/b] ]Will Itlain infantry be a part of the revolts in Livonia and far off places as a rule?
It seems, although unconfirmed, that,
with rebellions no longer able to access technologies above the controlling player,
the rebellion AI can now hire mercenary units - as can the human player.
Such was historically common.
Three
Quote[/b] ]Will we be so fortunate as to recive another patch or the much rumored add-on?
Good Question - Will we see another patch?
===edit====
(added rebellion above to clarify point)
As I see it by having 3 eras to play in we have 3 different games or at least 3 slightly different. New units/weapons means the balance/tactics change a bit. Dont like the idea that horse archers should have better range than arbs. They should be most powerful in early.
If anything make arbs a late unit. Then we have archers for early, crossbows for high and arbalesters for late.
No question that archer units in general should be a lot cheaper, both foot and horse archers. And that is both from a historical and game balance point of view http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
When a 60 man archer unit (both pure archer and semi h2h) cost more then a good h2h only unit they are not really worth buying. If Hobilars cost 150 or Saharan Cavalry 125 why should a horse archer cost 250 and even be worse at melee? That I think is a main reason for the problems. If cheaper you can buy them more upgrades or buy better h2h. Now its more a waste of money and an important slot.
There is also a huge difference in playing 1v1 compared to 3v3 or bigger. More room for maneuver in a 1v1 so horse archers are better there... plus a horse archer is not much good if you bring lots of foot that will be forced to fight. They are a special unit that requires special army tactics, mostly all cav armies.
CBR
What I don't understand is why all these stupid bugs are where they are. 80% of the MP bugs are in the LOBBY and not in the actual battle interface. This strikes me as extremely strange, because you would think that the lobby would be easier to fix than the actual game. It just seems that with the patch, sure some big bugs were fixed, but lots of little annoying ones were added. Just today, I was trying to play with some friends and half the time half the people could not even see the game when it was put up We only got all the people seeing it when the person that was on dialup hosted. Don't give me stuff about firewalls, we were playing it fine before the patch(Except that someone would always get recurring crashes when they tried to join a game, I'm glad that bug is fixed). I just don't understand how the lobby can possibly be as buggy as it is compared to the main game.
MP players,
I understand and empathise with the frustration you feel. Not to harp on but I actually thought JRock had a valid point - why do we have to have a central server if they care so little about the MP side of the game as to make virtually no changes since the original STW - CD KEY Verification? No We already heard that MP is less than 10% of their sales so why give a damn about that 10% duping games - so you see the paradox here - on one hand we dont care enough to write new code - on the other we care so much that we have to get every cent out of every one of you - because this method certainly does not affect SP copying only MP people cant copy. The so called unimportant 10% or less. Why dont they give TCP/IP options and remote hosting. I am not surprised in the least that this 10% are extremely dark - they are the only ones with verified legitimate copies of the game and their voices are ignored.
Gil, please dont let all the whinning get you down - your voice and cander are greatly appreciated by all the TW community. As with most forums once the initial novelty of the game wheres off peoples attention turns to wanting more, better and their personal griping, but this is all human nature and I dont think it is an uncommon thing on game forums - if the game was perfect - there wouldnt be any posts cause everyone would be playing. Certainly it is never personally directed at you or your colleagues.
So why are people complaining so vehemently probably (my opinion) due to frustration - having the whole TW collection on my shelf I feel I can comment on my own frustration trying to get my friends to play it MP with me but problems mostly associated with online play and the lack of flexibility and options in MP generally cause people to switch off what I know is a fantastic game and am frustrated that I cant be playing it all the time with my buds. This combined with other games like CIV3, D2, NWN, having such huge support and such a multitude of patches, with huge community support for multiplayer.
In summary to anyone whos still reading the reason your MP market is only 10% is because your multiplay is unsupported and antiquated poo relative to other games. You guys got it so right with MTW that if you had just taken one more little step and really worked up the MP this game could have been a MP GIANT and then MP would have represented more like 60-70% of what would have been a much larger sales cheque.
And this is why we are frustrated because we are cursed with this vision of what could be. I walked away from multiplay after MITW and now rather than being angry I can be philisophical about it - to those of u venting - may I suggest a similar path - just walk away and consider MTW as a SP only game - and be happy again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
hi puzz,
the problem with this is, many of the old treads got closed, and how u see again this 1 got cutted or filled in another 1
this is the problem, we see many other treads wich arent closed ot filled in other, but someohow my treads are http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
the poll is lost anyway http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
so whats the problem with this and why this happend?
this was a constructive tread i tryed to clear things and hear opinions from other players and i had the feeling we had a nice discussion with different opinions.
so why the tread got filled in an other and now i cant decied wich post belongs to wich tread.
if this is the politic of the org to make it harder for me to find a way to increase the fun of the gameplay, or to make everything loks good, than im very dissapointed
again puzz, if u want ...ok, i dont care i, somehow many of my posts got closed.......btw, who do this?
ur juniorkoc
GilJaysmith
11-12-2002, 11:45
To those who suspect that I took some of the comments in this thread personally: well, I did, and that's why I signed my message "Gil not CA, personal opinion" - to distinguish those personal feelings from my professional feelings. I have both, and because the alternative would be going home and punching the dog (not that I have a dog, but it sounds like a handy thing to have) I sometimes vent right back at the people who have just vented at me, to make it clear that if you go too far I'm not going to sit still for it.
It's dangerous to look for wisdom from the mouth of a muppet, but it's quite true that anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering. I made that point to do with how you should talk to Activision customer support, and now I'm making it about us. We have no professional obligation to monitor the forums, but we do it because we think it's useful to know what people think. When what people *think* is being outweighed by what people *feel*, it gets difficult to listen.
Bluntly, a complaint, no matter how accurate, had better be expressed politely. You all have freedom of speech in what you say; I'm asking for restraint in how some of you say it. There are a lot of you posting on this forum, and unless there's some kind of tacit agreement about how you express opinions about us, we'll just break down under the pressure, as individuals, and leave. It isn't our paid job to listen to customer support, so if the noise or abuse level gets too high, the obvious way to shut it out is to stop listening for a while. I have no qualms about rating humanity (and sanity) above professionalism on those occasions.
If you think that your desires for the game are sufficiently at odds with ours that we'll never do what you'd prefer, then that still doesn't make you right, and endlessly reiterating what you believe and denigrating our choice not to do it is fruitless. We clearly think differently, and if we're wrong we'll learn our lesson. It's this endless reiteration which really gets to me; seeing the same people raise the same point as if they believe that there's a magic number of posts which will make us change our minds, when all it does is poison people's minds against us, as each reiteration gets more vitriolic, more personal, more abusive about CA's "inflexibility" and "refusal to listen to the fans" (i.e. a handful of people).
But you never know, perhaps I am taking it all too personally, in which case I'm sorry for being paranoid and overreacting and all that. Perhaps I should take a few months off ;-)
Gil not CA
MagyarKhans Cham
11-12-2002, 12:13
well before i am ordered to make a topic about it, GIl can we expect a patch, or will everything fixed in the add on?
Gil, you have my sympathies, i would hate to have something that i'd worked tirelessly on for years disparaged and demeaned by tactless, impolite spoilt bastards. You know who you are. I'll probably get flamed for being a fanboy or brown nosing but in writing this i've already taken that on board.
You see, like many others here, i've had my frustrations about MTW, about certain bugs and failings they may or may not have been avoided. The Glorious Achievements bug and the dropouts from the foyer being two such examples. But lets face it, MTW from a SP perspective and a little from a MP perspective was always playable and therefore doesn't deserve the slander and callous name calling that the developers and some patrons have suffered.
Take Civ3 as another game for example:
-MTW required 3 months and one patch to make the SP game into a masterpiece, Civ3 required 1 year and 4 patches.
-Civ3 didn't even ship with its promised MP, MTW did. A whole year later the Civ3 players finally got their MP game and like MTW is having its teething problems with stability, etc.
So where are we at now, 3 months after release of MTW? Well, we have an excellent SP game bar one or two bugs. Polite asking and prompt action has fianlly lead to me sending the devs a saved game of one of these bugs (Glorious Achievements one). That is what's called successful communication between fans and a developer, with the hopeful outcome of a fixed end product, all of which took a matter of a few days to achieve.
Now one point i agree could have been done better, a release of a public beta would have certainly helped with the MP stability side of things.... i never understand why more and more companies do not follow this procedure? Still, what's done is done and flaming them for it serves little purpose. It's also very easy to forget the major plus points that have been incorporated already into the MP game since the first patch:
-The ability to use the same faction online, only with different colours.
-The new foyer changes, albeit some are still requiring a little work.
-Increase in stability for some.
-Slightly better play balance, maybe more to follow.
Granted some more work is probably required and hopefully this will be suppoerted, however, we must remain polite and constructive if we're to get any of the support which we as customers rightfully deserve. Like Gil says, it is not part of his job description to come to our fora, so lets make it worth his while and encourage the excellent developer support we currently have here. I personally do not know of any other game that has the degree of developer participation at their fan's fora as this one does. So, to the mindless rabble out there, think before you post otherwise you may ruin it for all concerned, including yourself.
Lastly, Gil, try not to let the mindless and rude actions of some ruin it for the majority? What we need on this fora is an ignore feature for the likes of JRock et al.
Regards
Quote[/b] ]Bluntly, a complaint, no matter how accurate, had better be expressed politely.
I understand what you're saying Gil, and in a perfect world we'd all know how to phrase our complaints and recommendations in a way that couldn't possibly frustrate you. Alas, we can't read each others' minds nor can we know how others will interpret what we write. Many times people get things out of posts that were never in there to begin with. That's not the poster's fault, but the reader's.
And then you throw in the fact that we paid you ~$50USD for your product and it sort of balances out the "you must always be nice to us" argument. When people pay for something they sort of buy the right to complain however they wish (within reason).
I deal with all types of customers every day - in person no less - and you learn how to deal with unsatisfied customers because there will always be some, no matter how much you try to satisfy them. That doesn't mean you give up trying to satisfy all your customers because each customer is different. If you decide trying to satisfy them isn't worthwhile (because of one customer's negative reaction to even your best efforts) you end up with many more unsatisfied customers because some of them would have been satisfied by the very efforts that you no longer effect.
I think I'm being quite an understanding customer to realize that certain items I've brought up, for example placeable spawns, are not a realistic patch item. And really, aside from bug/crash fixes, I can't say I actually expected any additions to the game via the patch.
My main point has only been to comment on how proper play-testing and offering the players more options would help satisfy a greater number of customers. You've learned this lesson now I think, and I look forward to a Total War game that takes the lessons learned from MTW into account while it is being developed:
*Separate sp and mp unit stats - sp should be more reality-based, mp more focused on balance and what is fun. (This has the added effect of creating a larger multiplayer fanbase because a focus on balance and fun are what attract multiplayers versus the singleplayer fanbase with a focus on reality (and where AI having certain advantages is necessary to make up for their lack of a human brain).)
*Proper mp connectivity options (TCP/IP direct connect to a server)
*More options available to the game host during the create game phase (fatigue levels, ammo levels, camera freedom, etc)
*A true map creator program that allows placement of spawn areas, water features that can flow any direction, etc)
*More game options for players in multiplayer - king of the hill, improved siege battle options
*Ability to play faction vs faction (something patched in yay!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I think one thing that frustrated me the most about MTW multiplayer is that most if not all of the above-listed items are things many RTS games have featured for years now. To me MTW multiplayer was a big step backwards for multiplayer strategy games in general. I guess you guys just don't have much personal experience playing multiplayer computer games or else these issues would have been done right from the beginning even without the test player input that should have been there.
MTW is still an amazing singleplayer game. A Total War game with a more balanced focus on sp and mp would totally blow it away though - on the whole and on the store shelf. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Btw, I'm ignoring +Doc+'s posts because he's off in his own little world ranting about things that aren't even true. Anyway, I'm off to work.
Quote[/b] (JRock @ Nov. 12 2002,11:27)]Alas, we can't read each others' minds nor can we know how others will interpret what we write. Many times people get things out of posts that were never in there to begin with. That's not the poster's fault, but the reader's.
*Separate sp and mp unit stats - sp should be more reality-based, mp more focused on balance and what is fun. (This has the added effect of creating a larger multiplayer fanbase because a focus on balance and fun are what attract multiplayers versus the singleplayer fanbase with a focus on reality (and where AI having certain advantages is necessary to make up for their lack of a human brain).)
I guess you guys just don't have much personal experience playing multiplayer computer games or else these issues would have been done right from the beginning even without the test player input that should have been there.
MTW is still an amazing singleplayer game. A Total War game with a more balanced focus on sp and mp would totally blow it away though - on the whole and on the store shelf. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
JRock,
1st paragrapgh.
I totally disagree, it's the responsibility of the writer to make sure what he has written is understood in the way it was intended. If it isn't then the writer has written it badly. FOr instance sarcasm has to be made clear becasue it's not always possible to interpret simply through writing alone. In my opinion, sarcasm is one form of homour that is clearly better avoiding on any forum for obvious reasons. The only other reasons for justifying misunderstanding is through language difficulties on behalf of the reader and writer.
2nd paragraph
Completely agree, two sets of stats is probably one of the most important additions.
3rd paragraph
An assumption made by you here on a person (developer) that you've never met or know nothing about. This is a confrontationary remark and could be interpreted as an insult.
4th paragraph
Agreed and about time you said something complimentary about a game you obviously enjoy and spend a lot of time particpating in its community.
hey in this TRead is a tread wich i started, it was about the multiplayer aspects and what we should/could change....
i still dont understand why this tread got implent in this the other tread and now i just see posts about someone else but not about the topic i started
thx to the admins
good deciciions
go and close every contructive tread wich could solve some Mp plroblems...
ur juniorkoc
Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ Nov. 11 2002,10:55)]This reminds me: TosaInu (I think?) asked us to add some kind of option to allow the stats to be reloaded without having to restart the game. This is now in the patch: if you add -reload to the game command line, the unit and projectile stats will be reloaded each time you start or join an MP game, instead of just the once when you load MTW. So you should be able to play a game, muse over the results, edit the stats files, then play another game and pick up those changes instantly.
Gil ~ CA
Konnichiwa Giljaysmith sama,
Thank you very much, this is certainly going to help in tweaking the units.
Just my opinion: battles are great in SP (I'm actually losing a couple which I should win).
MP may need a custom stat.
It might actually reveil my incompetence, but it's certainly not easy to achieve a balance for MP games. It wasn't easy for the 10 or so units in STW, it certainly won't be for the 100 in MTW. Even if you achieve something, then there'll still be opinions that things are both too slow and too fast, too strong and too weak: personal taste.
I do know that you're professionals, that customers pay a 'whopping' $40,- for every copy and that it should be good. It's hardly realistic to expect to get a perfect stat for online battles. I know we need it and you want to give it.
The stats are very good for SP, and I dare even say pretty good for MP. Perhaps not perfect for MP in the long (short for some) run; thank you very much for adding the tools to customize it to our needs. I especially appreciate that CA was willing to expand this tool by adding 'hotswap'. I hope that it's possible to make this tool even more powerful.
The org hosts the original excel files made by CA to produce the stat texts. Would you please provide the 1.1 ones too?
Konnichiwa Kocmoc san,
You may have missed a few things.
Quote[/b] ]
Konnichiwa,
The forums were running on UBB 5.45a for two years.
The org staff has searched for a new version/entirly new forum application since early september 2002. The choice was Ikonboard 3.1.1 by Jarvis (one of the first choices).
It took a while to decide that this software was good, some reasons:
-MySQL database: everything is stored in one of the fastest databases around, is password protected and not stored in the root of the org server.
-Encrypted passwords.
-Sticky threads.
-Small in size.
-Free, UBB license is $199
-Great support, both from Jarvis and 'fan'sites.
-Customizable (the badgesystem isn't standard in Ikonboard).
-Different userlevels.
-Polls.
-Skins.
-Supports multiple language interfaces. I haven't found Spanish yet, I'm sorry.
-Extensive user control panel.
-Tools to help patrons keeping track of discussions.
A real problem for using a new board was that, the old UBB topics would be lost, combined with the user database.
Allow me to refresh some memories and explain to new members: the only reason that the totalwar.org forum has password protected accounts is that a minority of internet users (not necessarily a member) used the nick of a member to post bad messages. Allowing the public to re register established nicks was not desirable.
Yet another reason for choosing Ikonboard 3.1.1 was that there was a converter that allowed to import the UBB forum into this new board: topics would be saved and I wouldn't have to register 2400 (I prunned the old userdatabase, members with 0 posts were considered mis-registers) manually.
The import had some problems and the UBB forum was down for some 5 hours, while it could have been done within 30 minutes. The UBB is running for 2 years, and it's getting bugged.
This new forum could have been running modaynight, but there was a problem with the converter. It could import into a DBM database (stored in the root and not password protected) but it refused to import into MySQL. Importing UBB into DBM, backing-up that database and importing into MySQL like is supposed to work failed as well. That should work. The Ikonboard 'fan' support helped us out, but I live in The Netherlands and he in the USA. It was also a complex problem. The entire UBB board would be down for a long while (some 4 days). I posted an announcement that the conversion was at least 99% successfull (some UBB topics were technically corrupt), told that new topics/post couldn't and wouldn't be imported (it's an 'all' or nothing converter), that new posts could be manually copied and pasted when this new forum was running and that the old board could be used like usual until this one was ready.
It took 4 days: support had to made a customized import file, a new SQL table scheme and another small edit to allow me to import into MySQL.
I could have done a new import, there was a risk that it would fail (the UBB board is still wacky), some of the topics saved in the monday import were lost (UBB is wacky).
No posts from this discussions are deleted, not by me and I don't think the moderators have deleted any either.
The UBB forum is still open as read only, all topics and post are still there. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000667.html
Enjoy the new forums.
There's another reason for missing threads than just moderator action. Could you please specify which topic you're referring to? 'All' topics started between last monday and friday are still here: http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/ubb/Ultimate.cgi. Please feel free to copy and paste contents. If you do not find the relevant topic, please tell me and I'll search the backups I have (back-ups in UBB are so big and take so much time to make -read +6 hours- that it is possible that topics are really lost).
thx tosa,
i started a poll about if the players are happy with MP.
after this i asked them to psot theyr opinion and what should changed and how...
it was a realy nice discussion, no offence...no bitching...no attacks, just a constructiv tread.
this tread is now in this tread here.
its now impossible to decide wich post is from wich tread and the lsat post wasnt contructive and not in any way the direetion my tread was.
i understand that this forum is new i dont complain about it i just want that such important treads for us all not get deleted or moved.
thx for any help
koc
Quote[/b] (+DOC+ @ Nov. 12 2002,06:42)]
I'll respond this time to you DOC, since it addresses issues that affect us all.
Quote[/b] ]it's the responsibility of the writer to make sure what he has written is understood in the way it was intended.
No it isn't - that's a physical impossibility. The writer can only do his best to write clearly and to a point. After that it's up to the reader to be competent enough to understand what is being said and to read it properly.
To say otherwise is illogical.
Quote[/b] ]3rd paragraph
An assumption made by you here on a person (developer) that you've never met or know nothing about. This is a confrontationary remark and could be interpreted as an insult.
No more than what Gil said about me could be taken as the same. I am responding here, not initiating. Please take off your one-sided blinders here and consider who talked to whom in this manner first. I am only responding to Gil.
Also consider taking my post as a whole, rather than in pieces.
Konnichiwa Kocmoc san,
I didn't say you were complaining, I apologize if you felt that way.
I think that the moderator of this forum merged related discussions into one. That might be confusing on one hand, it also puts related posts together, making sure no relevant point is missed.
It's a pity that the poll is lost, but it might be an idea to discuss this topic first and then create a new poll?
You might add to that, that the poll feature wasn't fully understood by every member who should have voted in it and a re-poll is necessary anyway.
I'm not the moderator in this forum, but I acknowledge that this is a fairly important issue. I'll pin this topic, rename the title to something more inviting and ask Doc and JRock to discuss the details of their topic somewhere else.
Would 'MP STATS discussions' be a good topic title Kocmoc?
Thanks.
MagyarKhans Cham
11-12-2002, 15:24
its a good platform to taste the overall feelings but its a bit hard to control all posts. All valid info will be collected by Kocmoc and i have no doubt that there will be eventually a forum to discuss every topic. Open to all.
Quote[/b] (JRock @ Nov. 12 2002,12:42)]No it isn't - that's a physical impossibility. The writer can only do his best to write clearly and to a point. After that it's up to the reader to be competent enough to understand what is being said and to read it properly.
...and if the writer writes clearly then any competent reader should understand his point exactly. From Gil's obvious literary competence, i'd assume he is a very able reader and so in this case i assume he read your first post as disparaging and tactless, much in the way i did.
Anyway enough on semantics, apologies to Koc and co for going off-topic. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Back to MP stats:
I think the best way for the immediate future would be to test extensively the effect of a generalised +2 morale, which seems to have been accepted by a few so far....
However, whether simply playing at higher florin levels will simply nullify this will also have to be determined.
I'd also suggest trying out the following modifications that i use in my projectiles.txt file. These will help out all missile troops a little except crossbows and arbalesters, which imho don't need any help.
Accuracy
Short bow 0.60 to 0.65
Longbow 0.60 to 0.65
Mounted bow 0.40 to 0.50
Javelin 0.15 to 0.20
Handgunner 0.05 to 0.08
Arquebusier 0.07 to 0.10
Grenade 0.03 to 0.05
Ballista 0.9 to 1.0
Lethality
Short now 0.63 to 0.75
Longbow 0.63 to 0.8
Mounted bow 0.63 to 0.75
These work very well in my SP and i think they'd make subtle but desirable changes for archers and mounted archers in MP.
What do you reckon...?
I'd also consider increasing the range of the handgunner from 2000 to 3000, which would then only be 1000 shorter the arquebusier. At the moment the handgunner's range of 2000 means they will simply spend most of their time skirmishing rather than shooting.
i tested wit ha general +2 moral and it works very well so far for me.
to the missles agree that they need to be raise but a bit more power is needed as well
i miss the arba, if i want to balance the missles all together/at all, i look back at the STW----- archer vs missle fight.
andi if i see the arba as the musk now (plz dont laugh) i think the arbas has too many accuracy compared to a normal archer (dont want a historical discussion plz).
i think we have to lower the armour for the arba or at least the power compared to the archers.
this is jsut a view intern between al lthe missles not a extern vier vs other units like h2h or cav.
as far all the units got more armour i raised the power of my archers a bit.
example: the mounted bow has a accuracy of 0,65 and a reload time of 3 the power i raised to 1,5.
i would give them all 40 arrows.
i see this compared to other h2h or cav units, if we raise the cav from 40 of 60 men i would agree with ur accuracy.
but the cavarcher has already disadvance as they are just 40 men.
the arba range i lowered to 5000 as well.
koc
but remember the arbalester is a High period unit and therefore supposed to be better than the archer?
For the mounted bow you could consider a 0.40 to 0.55 increase, which is quite substantial (37.5% increase) compared to what it is now. The increased mobility easily compensates for its other failings.
Koc, if i remember correctly, power only affects the amount of hit points of damage done on a successful "kill". All men apart from the general and King have 1 hit popint, so increasing power should have very little to no effect. Therefore it is lethality you want to mod, not power, and i made suggestions in the earlier post towards possible mods.
Koc, i'd also try modding a little at first otherwise you'll end up in a quagmire of stats and probably a complete mess. I feel only slight mods to the "bow" units are required, while leaving the melee stats of all missile units alone.
More ammo for the archers...? Sure, i currently have mine at 30 which is an increase of 2 from the original 28. This translates into an extra 120 arrows for a 60 man unit, no?
ToranagaSama
11-12-2002, 19:01
Quote[/b] (JRock @ Nov. 12 2002,08:42)]
I'll respond this time to you DOC, since it addresses issues that affect us all.
Quote[/b] ]it's the responsibility of the writer to make sure what he has written is understood in the way it was intended.
No it isn't - that's a physical impossibility. The writer can only do his best to write clearly and to a point. After that it's up to the reader to be competent enough to understand what is being said and to read it properly.
To say otherwise is illogical.
Quote[/b] ]3rd paragraph
An assumption made by you here on a person (developer) that you've never met or know nothing about. This is a confrontationary remark and could be interpreted as an insult.
No more than what Gil said about me could be taken as the same. I am responding here, not initiating. Please take off your one-sided blinders here and consider who talked to whom in this manner first. I am only responding to Gil.
Also consider taking my post as a whole, rather than in pieces.
Komoc, is right:
In order to keep this thread from being hijacked, I'm going to start a new thread entitled "Reading and Writing Comprehension" subtitled, English incompetent impolite twits who should be banned. Haha, half sarcasm.
Why banned, because they are screwing it up for the rest of the community. If you cannot post with the interest of the overall community ALWAYS in mind then you shouldn't be allowed to post. PERIOD
Those whose primary language is not English s/b given some leeway, in addition to guidence.
For those whose primary language IS English, let the hammer fall, preferably after fair warning.
I believe this is something to be discussed by the community and then action taken. This is the second such similar situation that has arisen. We need to come to a "dictated" consensus and move on.
Any comments or responses regarding the tone and/or tenor of "posts" put in the thread.
Give me a minute, after posting this to create the new thread.
Mods, if you believe the thread s/b in another forum please move it, thanks.
MagyarKhans Cham
11-12-2002, 19:04
i dont want to interfer in this cosy chitchat about stats,
but whats wroing in lowering teh range of teh arba to a bit below of that of the archers?
if someone chooses arba vs archers he must come a bit closer to enemy.
its wise for him to defend his arbas against incomming horses.
the enemyarcher may, cuz of his bigger range, being able to target the defending troops.
and so on
whit this in a game u add a lot of dynamics in the shooting phase. players may tend to buy archers AND arba to keep the range advantage but also want the power of the arba....
DOC whats your view on this?
i can imagine that a projectile like an arba that shoots straigth outshoots a bow and equals a longbow....
anyone have any comments on this?
ToranagaSama
11-12-2002, 19:57
Quote[/b] (MagyarKhans Cham @ Nov. 11 2002,17:31)]Well written Toranaga, I must apologise. i am a simple messenger, loyal to our Great Khan, Khan of Khans but i am allowed to express my own ideas as well.
I also dont see why people care so much how i write things, i represent only myself. 1 single sole in this massive online experience. but i am willingly to learn from u, i am open minded.
And as long i stay within the bOrg rules i expect being able to post here. I am just balancing some of the posts here. If people post teh game totally suck than i will reply it doesnt and vice versa. I criticize posts if needed i will stimulate others.
I expect the bOrg representatives to warn me when i step out of line. And i dont believe that thsi place is made only for nice people with a continous happy view on things that are going on.
(looks around for his horse....)
Quote[/b] ]I also dont see why people care so much how i write things, i represent only myself. 1 single sole in this massive online experience.
People may not "care" what you write, BUT you MUST realize that there are those who WILL follow your lead.
YOU whether you realize it or not have a position of "responsibility" in the .org.
Magyar,
A short range weapon should probably be compensated by greater kills/volley. However, if the kills/volley are increased too much, then premature routing of the target becomes a problem.
If horse archers are made 62% more accurate, 50% more powerful, 42% more ammo, greater range, are dirt cheap to upgrade the hth capability and are the fastest unit, then where is the weakness of this unit? It's a super unit with no anti-unit. These proposed changes to horse archers are dramatic to say the least.
Here are my ideas on MP balance:
Archers: I agree with longjohn, if you want strong archers then play early games. Don't expect archers to be competitive in late games.
Arbalasters: I agree with CBR, it would be nice if arbs would be restricted to the late era. This would increase the importance of x-bow units.
Horse Archers: Hm, I agree that these guys could be somewhat stronger but I disagree that they are useless. If there is one thing they are good for is to chase down routed units. I know this is not the role the mongol fans were expecting http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif but it is still more than nothing. Especially in the light of the fact that units can be rallied pretty easily, so it is of great importance to finish off routed units. Accuracy and ammo could be increased but what is more important IMHO is an increase of moral. I mean these guys are supposed to be a kind of elite soldiers, at least battle hardened troops, and not peasants with a pitchfork, moreover they have the fastest horses, so why should they fear from anyone? Currently, with their shitty morale (-1 or something for an ordinary HA) you can hardly send a v0 HA behind enemy lines (or perhaps just I am not skilled enough http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif ). These guys should be able to operate on their own (even at v0), so their base morale should be around 2 or 4 depending on the type of HA.
Cavalry: I am very happy with the changes that were made in the patch. Cavalry rules the field as it should in any medieval game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Cav rushes can be countered but you should be sure that your spear unit meats the cav charge head on preferably in hold-hold formation. Note, that what we have got is exactly what we asked for We asked for spears to be pushed back by the force of the charge, we asked for spears to rout when flanked, we asked for spears to rout when hit during move, and we got all these nice changes In essence we asked for more vulnerable spear and we got it You cannot roam around freely any longer with your spear units. Also elite cavalry can be beaten, but as Polar remarked don't expect your average spearmen to do this job. You need elite spears (for example v3 -or at least v2- orderfoot or saracens) to beat the elite cavalry, and IMHO this is how it should be. All in all, I love the changes it makes the game much more fun for me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Halberdiers I like the fact that they have low morale http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I mean it would be too easy to use them if they had a higher morale. Currently you have a trade off: either you buy a few halberdiers with good morale or buy tons of halberdiers with poor morale. IMHO this is good.
Rout bug: It is not a bug it is a feature http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Some folks talk about chain routs as if it were a kind of an accident or chance event. It is neither, IMHO it is a question of skill and planning. Play AMP if you don't believe me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif and I am sure that Koc knows this very well. I don't find anything wrong with the fact that you can rout full units provided that they are surrounded or disorganised by routed allies, etc. Again it is a question of planning and skill, protect your flanks, protect your allies http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif, don't send in your weakest troops first, etc. Moreover, on solution have been suggested several times: play higher florin games, around the 15000-20000 level. Though I prefer 11000-12000 florin games http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Height bonuses: I can say little (nothing) about it since I usualy play flat maps.
All in all I would like to propose the following changes:
- restrict arbs to the late era
- increase horse archer morale and perhaps accuracy and ammo
further proposals (of somewhat experimantal nature):
- Restrict orderfoot and saracens to high/late games. This should increase the importance of archers in early games since both units are heavily armoured.
- Increase the anti-cavalry bonus of pikemen. Currently this unit is good for nothing. They are no good against infanatry, and high valour orderfoot or chiv.srg are just as good against cavalry as pikes (hm, I have to admit that I have not made any experiments so I could be wrong, please correct me if so). The idea is that pikes should be the pinacle of anit-cav units, so even though they would be still useles vs infantry they should be the ultimate choice when someone expects a cav heavy opponent.
ElmarkOFear
11-12-2002, 21:00
I believe the best way to make changes to stat files would be to pick a unit to change (just one unit). Make small changes then release it to the public. Let the public play the game for a week and give input if it is successful or not. Once it is deemed acceptable by most, move on to another unit doing the same thing. It seems that there are few units that need changing, so this process should not take long to get a really good final patch. Maybe we could start out with the Arbs, then move on to archer units, then to knights.
PS. Just for the record, I agree with Kocmoc that the "zones of influence" for morale are too large. I have seen allied units, in great position to flank an enemy, rout because another enemy player was approaching the allies flank from a distance. If the zones of influence were smaller, then you could get units in gaps of the enemy and actually use them the way they were intended. So Kocmoc has some very valid points, his method of presenting them needs some work and he needs to go into more detail, but you can believe that there is some validity to what he states.
TO MAGYA: We know you want the best for the game, but you and everyone else, need to stop pointing out the short comings of MP (since the developers have moved on to something else and it falls upon deaf ears) and try to come up with a public beta testing that will work for the majority of the MP community. I have noticed your last few posts these past few days have improved and I am very greatful for this, since many of us look up to you as one of the leaders of the community. Thank you dear friend; UglyElmo
i did a few test on the crossbows and find them very inafective http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
I know i dont know the game very well or have the feelin some of u do,but i did notice they dont kill very well for there price etc...
Tell me if i wrong...or maybe i testin them wrong?
MagyarKhans Cham
11-12-2002, 21:59
Well i predicted it would take time for most to see the shortcommings of teh game. before polishing my Khans ego I grant some time to all.
Furthermore I keep encouraging Kocmoc making some chances to teh stats.
To elmo, "our" statsmod updating process is one of small steps, step by steps. dont touch whats ok, just improve a bit whats wrong. an open process which will soon be viewable and interruptable at the totalwar assembly clan society forums.
to cheetah, if 15k-20k florins reflect the "old feeling" than why not upgrade the morale and play at 10k or even less. the many level 4 units dont leave room for highering and lowering valour in your same army.
concerning chainrouts, when i rout i want to know where what when. if i cant understand why units rout, over and over again than i cant speak of aa feature, i do speak of a bug (something wrong with the system that is). I have seen armies rout without a real reason. ofcourse there were enemy present and ofcourse units of an ally were routing and even perhaps its close to historical feeling BUT i play for tactical challenging battles, longlasting battles month after month.
to puzz3d, i agree with u that horsearchers shouldnt be overpowered. in teh end it must stay an art to use them wisely. how do we else divide the men from the boys?
imo whats wrong with this:
arba range A
horserachers range A + 1 bit
archers range A + 2 bit
longbows range A + 3 bit
but in any highly competetive games between equal highly skilled opponents the horearchers are close to useless. i think that they as well deserve an upgrade.
longjohn2
11-12-2002, 22:06
Hi Cheetah.
It's nice to see a post from someone who likes the changes :-).
I just thought I'd point out that the way upgrades for missile troops has been changed, so they upgrade based on a cheaper base than other units. ( basically the price of the missile weapon is removed before costing the upgrade ). So base horse archers are fairly scummy, but you can upgrade them cheapily.
BTW I rather agree with you about the availability of some of the troops in certain periods. Unfortunately at the moment period availability is determined by the needs of the SP game.
Konnichiwa,
A MP only stat, could of course, if wanted, disable early units from the late era. That's listed in the unitstat.
About anything regarding availability can be edited, exceptions are swiss pike units. For some reason this unit doesn't listen to what's said in the stats. Hardcoded in the exe? The swisspike unit is available to Late HRE, but not in custom games and also not when HRE with a different color is used.
You could for example enable the napthathrower in early english armies and have it disabled for any other era/faction.
Disabling units from an era is divide et impera: 10 units are much easier to balance than 20. Just something that crossed my minds: lightly armoured and thus faster units in early and heavy armoured and slower units in late. The 'pro' of this is that you can make 3 games in one: Fast paced for those who love action and 'rush', medium speed and slower for those who want to outthink the enemy.
(This is of course already partly the case). It may be recommendable to shift a melee point to defense if you make a late era slow army in order to slow down the killing a bit too (a bit extra morale might also be useful). If you don't, it may be impossible to set up flankattacks.
I don't know if it has any impact here, but I drastically changed bow units.
First off I gave Longbows more range (7500) but that forced me to give them more velocity or else they would not fire (too high angle I guess). Then I upped their accuracy to 0.75 and lethality to 0.95 (after having run several tests the lower angle of the arrows caused lower killrates). Also, I noticed that Longbows have a reaload cycle of 4 as all other archers (changed to 3 so they would fire fast again). Given 56 arrows.
Then I changed mounted and sbows to 5500 in range and 48 arrows (but only to dedicated archers, in MP it should be all). Their accuracy is now 0.6 and 0.7 respectively and both lethality is at 0.75.
Also did various changes to javelins.
I have found that the increased range and losses (did tests and it only increased slightly, about 6% for sbows and mounted bows and 8% for Longbows) have forced me to actually fear many archers rather than think of them as easy pray. Though I hate how cavalry can run under the arrows.
What about Jannisaries they are High and not worth it... Fitting if archers are not supposed to be good outside Early but the Turks are supposed to be good with bows, so the changes make them viable in High if not Late.
What I wanted to say is this:
It might not be balanced but it is much better.
lol, LJ, i actually very much like the changes you implemented in the patch. The SP game is awesome and the cav are now the feared units they should have been. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
As far as changes go, i couldn't really care that much. The things i've suggested regarding the projectiles.txt file are simply things i've subsequently implemented into my SP game. These are for my own personal flavour and whether they make it into MP or not i don't really care as for me MP is very much playable as it stands.
Sure it could do with a few adjustments, but is it worth it? Personally, while the GAs are bugged that to me is far more important a task to remedy.
Some of the others here are serious STW players who kind of hope that they can make MTW into a more advanced version of STW. MTW is not STW and i'm glad of that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
And by the way i hate those pesky horse archers .... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
DthB4Dishonour
11-13-2002, 02:04
Hail everyone,
I do like most changes in patch http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif . However with the quick routs it's hard to see many of the changes done to range units. I played a few games at around 12-15k in order for all to have a relatively decent army and not routers. IMHO I think:
Range: units did well and are nicely balanced when they have a chance to shoot with 10k quick routs they are easily caught up in the chain routs.
Cav Archers: I agree that they should have elite level morale which would allow them to be used as intended. (Lone units which harass enemy units from rear and flank). They should also be given better accuracy and some more ammo.
To those asking what is cav range anit unit......its other range units...with low armour cav range should lose every time to equal valor infantry range.
Regular Cav: I like the changes done to them....they are finally the elite units they are suppose to be. However they are not the uber units and still take skill to use well. I would not change them.
Artilery: They are what they are deadly weapons...however all skilled players know how to conter them. I wouldnt change them either.
Infantry: I like the balancing and the only problem I have is there peasant morale and quick routs.
Someone said something about a general +2 morale. I'm not experienced with stats. However if someone would email me directions on how to change them I would happily test this out. Or if someone (only vets that know me) would send me an exe.statswapper file I would also test it.
Also I would like to see a slightly more important height advantage...especially for range units. This would make the game more dynamic and fun. (like fighting for the hill on right in STW totomi map....how fun was that and how important was that hill and ridge.)
Like I said I'm not experienced with computers but I'm and smart and I'm dedicated to this game. I would happily learn from anyone who wishes to teach (I learn well from text also.....so I dont need someone holding my hand. If you guys point out sites where I can read on how to do it I will be appreciative, however I would need someone for occasional questions and periodic clarification.
Addy.......Paul_Cruz2001@yahoo
RTKPaul
"You dont win silver, you lose gold"
DOC, i love STW and i love MTW
yes, sometiems we jsut speak about problems and not about the great things and the nice ideas which the devs implented.
like the units who has bonusses vs the armoured units or catapults more than 5 rows ......
i just go along and see that compared to STW we have less tactical possibilitys
i dont want make MTW to a better STW, but we can easy see that some balancing need to be done, we jsut have to look for a way which we all can live with.
this game has the big base to offer us so many ways so many different setups and a lot of special use of this.
but now we ahve jsut strong cav and a bit less strong h2h units and very weak missleunits so we search for the strongest army and we can easy say the best is, if u dont buy shooters, maybe jsut 15 or 14 units but this untis are all cav and h2h. thats it ....this isnt fun no tactics just fast forward moving attacking and join the next game and after some games u lose interest....
we need counter units and units wich can counter the counter units. we need missles wich can hurt but not spoil the fun or turn the game into a misslewar.
u dont like cavarcher, np just use some couterunits and kill them....u need time and patience to kill cavarcher but if u know how they are lessdangerous.
koc
paul, u can email me or u can dl some stats wich already relfect the +2moral.
here is my email
mike.friedrich@primacom.net
koc
Vinsitor
11-13-2002, 03:11
Yes finally the patch made the game very good, very good job, I'm happy for the changes
I like to play it at 12000 Florins, because it impose a choise about what troop has to be best upgraded.
I agree to don't make Madieval "a Shogun with different sprites": arbalests aren't muskets, medieval soldiers are heavier armuored than samurais and cav ruled in medieval...
If some changes can be done, I sugges to lower longbows cost or improve their stats, they ruled in the middle age or I'm wrong?
Dionysus9
11-13-2002, 03:23
The greatest thing about cav-archers is that they are hard to kill. If you can sneak a Alan (or YariCav!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif around their rear (about 135+ degrees) and then charge them, they will skirmish right toward your main force. Youch.
Otherwise, you can come at them from two 180 degree angles and they skirmish right into your other unit. Again, youch.
And so there is always this flank manuevering that goes on with cav-archers. Sometimes the main conflict starts because of an attempt to outflank a single pesky cav-archer. This dynamic is almost totally missing from MTW because cav-archers can safely be ignored. Plink Plink. Their arrows just bounce off of armor.
Cav-archers need to be improved in MTW-- I'm pretty sure of it. At least in MP. They should be given a lethality bonus for flank-firing on a stationary unit (or inflict large morale penalties when doing so). Imagine you are standing facing forward with shield and chainmail armor. You are presenting your right side to horsearchers who are no more than 30 yards away. They are raining arrows down upon you, yet you have been ordered to stand there facing forward and ignore them. Do you think you could just ignore volley after volley of arrow, without using your shield or otherwise even acknoledging their presence? I suppose....maybe... if you knew the arrows couldnt hurt you, you might stand as ordered and ignore them. But at the very least you'd think you would be tempted to dodge some arrows or at least pay attention to them (i.e. morale penalty). I for one would be worried...
And if the answer is --bah pesky horsearchers, I can ignore them. Then I think we do have a problem with their lethality.
MagyarKhans Cham
11-13-2002, 13:35
morale +2 feels a lot better, almost like STW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
DOC,
ur correct with the power
the accuracy for my mounted bows are 0,6 and i changed the reloadtime to 3 now. i will give every mountedbow 40 arrows.
i changed after some tests the range of units like arba, they have 5000 now, we testes in a longbow vs arba fight and at the start the longbows kill a lot and bring the arba down to around 40 men, after they are out of ammo, the arba will win (ofcourse).
so i took some power from the arba and u are able now to use the stronger cavarcher without to fear any longhits from the arba units.
the longbow was a strong unit as this time, they are now the longrange unit and refkect the power of the historical times
i thougth about a strong shortrange unit wich could defend u better vs an upcoming rush.
its jsut an idea till now and im not sure if i use a current unit, like the crossbow or if i give every faction the handgunners and use this unit...still not sure
but if i use the crossbow, (problem here is the speed of the bullets and the following velocity) i maybe take to many friendly kills myself...but if i take them i lower the range too 3000, give them less ammo, increase the reload time and accuracy, the lethality as well.
this means a fast, shortrangekiller with less ammo, if u will use this unit to rush with them, i wont work, coz they will be very weak themself....
so if someone cant face a rush and fear it and want a "slow" battle he take this unit and can easy create a hotspot by the rusher
the handgunner could do this job as well....
koc
TenkiWarPRIEST
11-14-2002, 05:05
Quote[/b] ]Yup, absolutely, i've been hoping for this to be added from the very beginning. Otherwise it becomes a necessity to play high florin games. AT the moment chain routing can be a problem and battles can become a bit of a "who can cause the first unit to rout wins" affair.
I agree X3 2 years. When Mongol Invasion came out Army's fought almost to their entire units were dead. Now that was a battle. Then "some winers" screamed I can't chain route anymore, this game is not realistic, I wanna chain route or not play. The patch that followed totally gave them their wish. It was STW all over again.. slight flank to one unit the whole army heads for the hills screaming in panic... Give the Priest a break.
I WANT WAR Battles fought out to the end not Booo and Run episodes that caused alot of my Clan to leave. It got too easy. WAR FIght you Run YOur family will pay for it when you get home Give us Moral
I mean look at the situition an opposing force wants to take possession of your home, family, lands, cows, and you think they wouldn't Stand to the last to defend that, then your either brought up from a weak heritage, or you want a easy game.
i full agree with u priest, plz mail me ur email or step by the forum, so i can send u info and input about our changes and i hope u give ur input as well.
my email
mike.friedrich@primacom.net
koc
TenkiWarPRIEST,
Turning morale "off" in MTW gives exactly same morale as WE/MI v1.0 had with morale "on". You don't need a new stat for that.
Lethal DRB
11-14-2002, 15:56
Guys:
I will gonna play fully from now on but I didnt have the time this week http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Hope I can help u next week
DRB
MagyarKhans Cham
11-14-2002, 16:43
DRB als iemand vraagt of je Khan je hier gestuurd hebt, zeg dan maar ja. want als je nee zegt wordt je niet vertrouwd.
vraag wel eerst aan je broertje hoe je nieuwe stats, in welke directory moet gooien
HooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWLL
Orda Khan
11-14-2002, 17:17
Quite right Bacchus
........Orda
I wish we had an online unit stat swapper. Which would transfer from the host to the joining players any new stats. The host would name his stats and the players joining the game could choose to have them transfered or leave the game. So when you host a game you also get to pick which stats you want to use. Maybe the regular stats, your custom made stats, or someone elses that have been transfered to you.
Just something that would be really helpful with this, but it's not likely to happen. Oh well http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
MagyarKhans Cham
11-14-2002, 18:48
well thats funny Amp, i just adviced that in an other ythread and yes it is most likely it would not happen. but we have been surprised by the devs before. u never know.
on that point though, we can change stats while online without reloading MTW, so just use a batch file like in STW...
isn't that what you are asking for?
Gregoshi
11-16-2002, 05:55
The stat swapper program was nice, but even nicer would be a stat swapper built into the MTW so the host could select the stat set, the hosted stat set would be selected for all players and the stat set would download to any players who joined the game but didn't have them. It would be automatic with no thought required except by the host of the game.
For Starcraft, Battle.net would download the map to any players who didn't have the hosted map on their PC. Nice feature.
LittleGrizzly
11-18-2002, 01:25
well the only problem is some loony created stats which made his 16 italian inf unbeatable
Orda Khan
11-18-2002, 12:55
Any new stats used in MP depend on the community. If people won't use them they will soon be forgotten. WE/MI 103 MOD is an example of this, too many could not be bothered to try it no matter how easy it was to swap. From my experience there were a handful of players only who played 103 everyone else carried on their '4 max no ashi' games. 103 did not require game rules because it was so well balanced but still only that handful played it.
The way I see it v1.1 is a huge improvement but there are still issues, mainly the weak archer type units. If these are addressed then I will be very happy as the scissors, paper, stone effect would be reintroduced.
In other words if you can make stats with the flawless balance of STW WE/MI 103 then this game will be truly superb.
.......Orda http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
MagyarKhans Cham
11-18-2002, 13:24
u look like our Khan Orda, do u wear glasses in real life? If so maybe we can paint them on your avatar http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
well Orda is correct, so far we changed archery and morale (+2) and actually i cant think of anything more (besides ballistas) or u move onto slippy ice and u risk having to chance more than we ever been able to handle correct.
If we are going for balance lets not forget about Byzantine Infantry. I have yet to see a unit at the same cost beat them 1on1. 100 unit size of Byzantine Infantry is just to much for any one unit to eat up. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Magyar Khan
11-19-2002, 01:10
i dont think that will be fixed for the first version amp, so far its +2 morale and archery improvments and a bit arba degrading.
cant we enlist u for some testing?
hi aaron i ful lagree with u, but some problems are that many guys want some of the "historical correct" feeling.
so we search for compromise at this points.
but ofcourse ur right
here is my email, plz mail mail.
mike.friedrich@primacom.net
thx
mike
That "historical correct" feeling is also making many units online useless. The only time I see them being used are by newbies. When you become a vet to MTW online I guess they are just for show. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Anyway, I tried your stats and missiles seem fine, I might bring a few to battle now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif The +2 to moral is alright I guess, but it makes it harder to create chain routs. I love chain routs, I even get called a cheater sometimes because of it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif
DthB4Dishonour
11-19-2002, 21:37
Hi all,
I respectfully disagree with Amp. I feel we should generalize our changes to the game. If we start changing every factions special units then we will have no one happy and no one will use the stats. I like the +2 morale and changes done to the range units.
Only thing left is to tweak all the cav range (camel range too) a bit. I think maybe an additional increase in morale since they are supposedly trained to harrass enemy at rear and flanks I think they should have a higher morale. As it is now with v1.1 they waver to quickly when shooting enemy flanks and going to enemy rear is impossible. Maybe increase there accuracy or ammo a bit more too.
I say this to make cav range a useful unit (if you want them) and feel that they would give all of us the possibilty of developing and fighting with yet another style.
Paul http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Quote[/b] (AMPage @ Nov. 18 2002,18:05)]If we are going for balance lets not forget about Byzantine Infantry. I have yet to see a unit at the same cost beat them 1on1. 100 unit size of Byzantine Infantry is just to much for any one unit to eat up. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Dont forget the terrible morale they have. I wouldnt take them for a 4v4 game. You can probably win the first battle but not the second and lets not talk about the third. Unless, of course, you can create a chain rout http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
LittleGrizzly
11-20-2002, 06:59
i agree with cheetah there they may be good but have a low morale which can be thier downfall
I know a lot of people online use them, that's cool, i'm not complaining or anything. I was just saying that they can beat anything 1on1, which means, mainly the only way to beat them is flanking/rear attacks.
My personal opinion i'd rather face 16 cavalry then 6+ byzantine infantry. It's harder for me to find ways to break a 100unit size byz inf that dosn't need to be on hold formation then a 40unit size cav that has a few counters. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Nobunaga0611
11-20-2002, 09:44
I agree with Amp. Maybe a slightly higher unit cost for the Byz. Infantry, but not too much The Byzantines don't have many other units in terms of spear or even shock that are currently as effective as other factions. True, you've got the Varangians, but they aren't in the late period. You could always take some Spearmen, which I have done, but due to the increase in prices recently, taking a v4 spearmen unit costs just over 1000 florins, and this is one of the only choices you have in a late period game since they would get torn up vs. most other units on EQUAL STANDING (either same valour, or close to the same price) during the late period.
You could argue the same thing for Russia, but I feel this is why the Byz. Inf. only need a slight price adjustment imo. I don't know what to say in reguards to Russia, their obvious strong point is the Boyars, and possibly other units I haven't thought about but don't really care to right now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
As far as horse archers are concerned...their morale is a problem, but I believe they should stay that way. Any added power/amount of arrows you add to them will far outweigh an increase in morale. I might be wrong, but I always figured that their basic use was to simply harass units. If they get into a missle battle, back them off. That way you save your horses, arrows, and their morale when re-engaging...due to not losing horses and making them worried about casualties. Some of them w/2 or even 1 valour upgrades can be used on an enemies flank under the right conditions. If you make it so they can simply charge a unit like a regular cav, then I think they start having more uses than they should. Their range is fine, and with the new stats, might have a *few* more arrows than maybe they should. What is it w/the new stats, 40? when it was maybe 28 or so before. I think something like 35 would be good....if these are the correct numbers. Just an opinion though.
with reference to the current discussion and the one in this threadbyz thread (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=2534)
could someone put the stats for byz inf and order foot in this thread for all to see the comparison? maybe jan heavy inf also?
ShadeHonestus
11-21-2002, 09:04
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Unit stats are now available at the War Academy (http://www.totalwarassembly.com/waracademy.cfm) for everyone's viewing.
v1.0, v1.1, and the Clan Society Version are all presented there.
Top 20 rankings are now per version, minimum 3 posts for a unit to be ranked... along with many many other changes.
Nobunaga0611
11-21-2002, 10:20
Very nice Honestus http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I just have a few questions, not criticisms, just things I'm curious about:
1) Was the Janissary Archers reload time changed to 10 for a reason?
2) Would it be better to give all foot archers the same amount of ammo as Horse Archers? I noticed that H.A. have 2 arrows more, and a quicker reload time. Were these meant to offset each other?
3) Do we want units like Bulgarian Brigands and Longbowmen to continue to be the ones who reload faster than other units, like they did originally? As it is now, they're the same as other foot archers.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
ShadeHonestus
11-21-2002, 16:45
Good questions nobunaga. However, at this point I am merely the messenger as I've been too busy programming to get too deep into stat-adjusting.
This question is probably best asked at the "Clan Society" council link...then stats discussion...
MagyarKhans Cham
11-21-2002, 16:47
Clan Society version? for what i know off Kocmoc just finished his version 1.15 after the test version 1.12.
in short
morale +2 for all units
archers do more kills, slightly more arrows
arbalesters moved to late era
is that right Orlok Kocmoc?
its right, but we did 1 more major change
as some gyus started moaning about the longbows where to weak now.... i raised the accuracy for the longbows....
+0,05 accuracy. this wont change something but well, i hope ur happy now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
koc
ShadeHonestus
11-21-2002, 22:39
Any future changes within the clan society stats can be updated at the war academy withing 10 seconds...no problem in further changes, make all you want. Its completely dynamic and we just have to change the stat in one place and the entire site has that stat updated....
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Michael the Great
11-22-2002, 16:16
Maan,I try 2 access the waracademy but it alwayz sez that the server is down or is not reponding..what could be the problem here??? Plz help. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
ShadeHonestus
11-23-2002, 16:32
Odd, I never have that problem. Anybody else experiencing it?
Make sure javascripting is on...
Only other thing I can think of is if the SQL Server was too busy, but I don't think that would happen...
Michael the Great
11-23-2002, 17:24
Quote[/b] (ShadeHonestus @ Nov. 23 2002,09:32)]Odd, I never have that problem. Anybody else experiencing it?
Make sure javascripting is on...
Only other thing I can think of is if the SQL Server was too busy, but I don't think that would happen...
Hmmm..well it still doesn't work,but u know what's odd?....that some time ago it worked http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Ahhh,and it was such a fine site... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
ShadeHonestus
11-23-2002, 18:12
what link are typing in and or going to?
Michael the Great
11-23-2002, 19:20
www.totalwarassembly.com/waracademy.cfm
Orda Khan
11-24-2002, 14:48
Well I can't find my post on Byzantines so I will moan here about their stats. I have seen an army online containing 10 Byzantine infantry http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif Is this what we want to see? how boring is that? If winning means so much to ppl that they ruin the fun of the game then the only thing to do is kick them from your games http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
.......Orda http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
MagyarKhans Cham
11-24-2002, 16:36
come here junior khan http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif @ http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Katasaki Hirojima
11-25-2002, 22:35
Well, Byzantine infantry are the ONLY decent unit the Byzantines have. Varangians cost to much. I'd probably use less though, just to escape the price hike after four units..liiike 4 Byz Inf, 4 Byz Cav and 8 Kataphaktoi..
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.