View Full Version : MP topic at the .com forum
ElmarkOFear
08-18-2003, 23:02
Hi guys, I have posted an MP discussion at the .com forum in the RTW section. It has been sticky-ed so that it will always appear at the top section. This is your chance to let the developers know what you want for RTW multiplayer. It also gives us some insight into why a lot of SP players will not play MP. Please be nice in your criticisms so the topic stays sticky-ed where it deserves to be and so that the developers will actually take notice of our ideas. Thanks, UglyElmo
Well its nice to see MP related threads (and even a sticky) But I actually think it was a mistake to invite hardcore multiplayers to participate.
Your original question was "What changes to RTW multiplay would have you playing online?" From the basic things that people want (and most of us can agree with) it has already turned into detailed stuff that lots of SP people dont know/care about.
I dont agree with a few of your points..I'm tempted to write something but dont want to turn it into long discussion about game mechanics that has nothing to do with the original idea of your post.
IMO the main reason why we dont have more people playing MP is because of things like cd-keys, gamespy(even misconceptions about gamespy), not enough chatrooms, user interface, MP basically a hidden feature etc ect.
Things like what the max valour should be, ladder, more patches needed etc is not what potiential players are thinking about. And I think its better to focus on the basic things. All the advanced stuff and discussions about it will turn them away...maybe even some developers.
But thats just me ranting..
CBR
ElmarkOFear
08-19-2003, 01:56
You are right, you are just ranting hehe :P
My likes/dislikes were in response to Rahvin's statement that; "all armies are beginning to look alike", and that players are playing the same armies over and over again. All of that is true, and I pointed out ways I thought would eliminate this. If you haven't been online lately or noticed, there are not too many people playing the MP game now. Something is wrong, and something needs to change.
Of course, I also stated that; "Some would rather not have any surprises . . " of which you seem to be one of those individuals. If I am correct, you enjoy a more historical and less "gamey" type of online game. I, on the other hand, enjoy a more "gamey" online experience. That is why I asked, later in that post, for more options for the host. If the host has the option to set a lot of these factors, then all will be happy, since they can play the type of game they enjoy and not the type some veterans' do. Do not just focus on one part of my statement to the neglect of others. The key, I believe is: "options, options, options."
Please do go there and talk about the important features to you. That is what the thread is for. I will make sure it doesn't digress into a stats discussion.
Duke John
08-19-2003, 07:21
More options might be great for some, but you will "scare" away others. At the moment if there are 5 games online, I may want to participate in all except the high Florins ones; for example 3 games are left to pick.
With more options there are let's say still 5 games online; 2 with high Florins, 1 with only cavalry and 1 with only Barbarians. Since I like to play with Romans there's only one game left for me. Hooray for the options
Instead of having the ability to choose between games that are mostly alike, I am in a position where I can only hope that a game is online that I like. More options will certainly lessen my online time. Options will be fun for the die-hard multi-players to change their playing style once in a while, but it will certainly not attract new players since the basic game is already hard enough.
Cheers, Duke John
Duke John
08-19-2003, 09:00
And another thing that I don't like about multi-play is the atmosphere in the lobby. There's not many talk, people don't greet you back, if there's talk it's trash, people are not talking about used tactics (I get back to that point). Also there are the more veteran players who have an air around them that really smells. When playing with them, they make you feel you should be "honoured" playing with them. Just because they spend endless hours on MP doesn't mean they're better persons.
The option to create rooms is probably a good idea since now few people actually talk to each other, because once chatting commences it's hard to follow the conversation. Especially with the occasional spammer.
But in the end I think the MP-community is just too small. When I'm online there are at most 6 games online, most of them are high Florins, then there are a few passworded ones for the "elites" and one or two left for the normal gamer. Then there are clanmembers who yell at each other for whatever trivial matter, or some funny guy saying the same idiot word 20 times and we then have a very nice place to welcome any new player, which from then is called n00b and gets nasty comments all over him since he dares to use Pavise Arbalesters and isn't performing up to the elite standard.
Ah, the MP community http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif let the flame-wars begin
Cheers, Duke John
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Aug. 19 2003,13:58)]There are vets in that VI foyer actually trying to drive players away from the game.
Yes it feels like that sometimes. More busy whining about MTW than playing..
CBR
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Aug. 19 2003,02:56)]If I am correct, you enjoy a more historical and less "gamey" type of online game. I, on the other hand, enjoy a more "gamey" online experience.
Just explain to me what precisely you mean by "gamey" and I'll answer that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
CBR
ElmarkOFear
08-19-2003, 18:45
CBR: I do not mean smelly when I use the word "gamey", if that is what you mean hehe By "Gamey" I mean the ability to upgrade units that normally would be slaughtered by another type of unit to where they could fight evenly with them. Ex. Handgunners vs cavalry. :0 Yuuki's favorite Or in the old STW, yari samurai, which could take on a monk unit and win. But in STW it was easy to see the upgrade since it was only one and it was shown by the number of flags on the unit.
Duke: There are only 5 games or less up currently, because of past problems with STW and MTW. If more options were allowed, there would be many more games to choose from and you would most likely find one to your liking. As stated earlier the MP community is very dead now. A few clans playing, most with passwords, a few more "noisy" players who seem to enjoy ruining the few games that do get played, and a select group that seems to enjoy running off any new players who want to learn to play, are a big problem also.
I have been hosting small unit size games, just to try something different, and you should hear all of the complaints from a lot of veteran players Most of the new players and a few of the vets who have tried it several times now have come to enjoy it. Less lag, the opening up of small maps, and increased manueverability are some of the good things with the small unit size, but a lot of the vets playing now, are only comfortable playing the exact same armies, the exact same maps, the exact same opponents and strategies, since they are not creative enough to find new ways to win.
This "sameness" is what has led to the decrease in the number of players, along with the many connection issues.
Quote[/b] (Duke John @ Aug. 19 2003,08:21)]Options will be fun for the die-hard multi-players to change their playing style once in a while, but it will certainly not attract new players since the basic game is already hard enough.
hmm sure feels like a rant coming http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I have seen other people wanting more options for MP and I im very sure now that it is actually a very bad idea to have a lot of options for this game. It sounds nice but...
We already have one "slider" in MP and that is florin level and Im sorry to say that the community managed to f... that up. They didnt like the low morale in 5k games so 15k is now the standard. Somehow a lot of people simply dont realise how much balance is ruined if you dont play at the florin level it was made for.
I see lots of people constantly bashing CA because lots of units are not used and that it is unbalanced...well duh no surprise there when you have money enough to buy only the best and still give them several upgrades.
I find it strange how 15k was the standard in 1.1 and apparently still is the standard in VI even with +2 morale for all units. Guess that means 15k was not good enough in 1.1 but it was still a standard for what...5-6 months?
Therefore I dont really think the community always can figure out what is best for the game... always pointing the finger at someone else for the problems and cant even figure out the problems caused by just one "slider"
Things like a morale, ammo and fatigue slider.. no I really cant see how it will improve things..the chances for more problems has just increased.
The MP community is simply not big enough for all these options. At one point some setting will be considered the standard anyway and there is not much room for games hosted using other than "standard" settings. And I really dont trust the community to decide on what setting they like.
Yes I know. "But I bought this game..I play the way I want", "Its a free world" etc etc but consider this:
I have seen several newbies asking about how to stop unit from running and (at least from what I have seen in the foyer) the mostly used answer has always been "buy some valour". Well you can really only buy valour if you play with silly amount of florins...
I mean what will you do if you start playing a first person shooter and get killed constantly? You rent a server and start hosting the game with x10 armour so you dont get killed so quickly...or you keep on playing to improve your skill?
In MTW anyone (except those with router/firewill) can host a game..just type 99999 and host. Good days on the server mean 100+ players and we have freedom like that compared to most first person shooters with thousands playing and with a lot less freedom in host settings/availablity
And this game takes a lot of knowledge and playing to learn...not good with too many options and Im inclined to say we have too many options today with upgrading and money.
I wouldnt mind that we had more than just the standard last man standing games and making custom/historical battles available for MP would be great. Then you could make a scenario for people to download... or making standard army setups for all players used for tournaments..whatever.
And of course making mods easier to use without some silly statswapping. A mod has to offer something for people to download it so we will never see loads of them anyway.
Hm another confused basher rant. I'll think of something more to write later.
CBR
ElmarkOFear
08-19-2003, 20:44
Unfortunately, some of your suggestions, would be seen as reverting back to the old STW game. From a PR point of view this is unacceptable, so for the future, I cannot see any simplification of the game. The real unbalancing problem with MTW is thw different sized units. You cannot come up with an acceptable balance to offset a size advantage. In STW it was simple and easy and the game was very enjoyable, and still is. There were problems, but not that many compared to the complications of the MTW game. The addition of many more units did not help MP gameplay.
If you just want to eliminate valour and have everything at val 2 and have only one amount of florins available, the RTW game will die even more quickly than MTW did this time. I do not think I have ever seen 100 players in the MTW lobby, ever. The MP community is small for a reason. It isn't the difficulty of the game, or the unbalanced units, it is that it is boring . . every game is the same, you see the same army set ups, over and over, that is why everyone left.
You do not trust the MP community to make suggestions about what the standard is, but it IS the MP community who plays the game, so they DO decide, for better or worse. Whether we personally like it or not. The reason games are now at 15k to 20k is that it helps offset the uber-cavalry units to a certain extent. Not to bring up an old rant of mine, but; "CAVALRY IS TOO POWERFUL AND NEEDS TO BE TAKEN BACK TO THE ORIGINAL VALUES BEFORE THE FIRST PATCH." hehe
I do think the ability to set armies for MP play, would be a good idea for campaigns, but once again this is another option, which is against what you stated. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Aug. 19 2003,19:45)]CBR: I do not mean smelly when I use the word "gamey", if that is what you mean hehe
No no I didnt think of smelly..just wanted to know what you wanted in a TW game.
The upgrading in STW was IIRC very cheap and unbalancing, end result was super ashigaru in MI.
But I can see your point. But I also think can be done in 2 ways thats doesnt seem to give any/me problems:
1)Playing a low florins with most units having v0 and perhaps save some money to upgrade one "surprise" unit to v1-2. No need for having a max of 9 as in STW.
2)Having many different unit types. Well we already have that in MTW but its ruined by the high florin levels play it. Order foot/Italian Inf is not that bad actually in 5 k games but you cant buy loads of them so having a few of them is "special"
Quote[/b] ]This "sameness" is what has led to the decrease in the number of players
And that sameness is actually caused by the florinlevel. In one 5k game I actually ended up using Urban militia..just because I wanted 4 chiv knights.
But I do agree with you about veterans not liking changes. A
This game is meant for 5000 florins, yes you can play with 4000 too..6000 might mean using only the best units and might be considered too mcuh actually. Yes the morale is lower than what we are used to, yes buying units is suddenly a lot different than the usual 15k and yes it might still not be 100% balanced..but its a lot better than 15k.
I grew tired of 15k several months ago..never played much after VI got out and have not played for 4 weeks now. Im not tired of MTW itself, yes bugs and drops are annoying, maybe it was the heatwave that cooked my brain.
But this community needs to change or RTW will be f..... up from day one.
Yes in RTW it will be called denari and not florins but try and imagine what amount people will use..We will see either elephants, cataphracts or double cohorts rule the battlefield and people bitching and whining about balance all over again.
CBR
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Aug. 19 2003,21:44)]
Quote[/b] ]If you just want to eliminate valour and have everything at val 2 and have only one amount of florins available
I never said that I dont want that. What I am saying is that having loads of money for upgrades and be able to get very big difference in valour for some units is a bad thing... at least IMO
A game like MTW, and afaik what RTW will be too, is a game with a lot of units. Most of the units will not be used if people play with lots of money. Even if they are of same unit size there is no point in buying basics Spearmen when you can buy Order Foot. Having lots of money will kill some of the cheaper support units..skirmishers etc. STW didnt have many units but MTW is different and so will RTW be with 100+ units and 10+ different factions.
We already have seen things reduced as max valour is now 4 instead of 9 and we lost everything but last man standing games. It was not mentioned anywhere and not used for PR anyway. Whats good for PR is to show super graphics and talk about max number of men and huge epic battles.
The 5k game is very balanced. Cavalry is good but you cant buy that many of them, because the difference in valour is now either 0 or perhaps 1 spears are suddenly a lot more worth it and wont get slaughtered that quick. Swords gets killed a lot quicker against cav.
The rock/scissor/paper system that people talk so much about is actually working better in a 5k game compared to a 15k game.
You have anything betweeen 40 and 100 men in your units and they are all used... I would call that very balanced.
In many of the 5k games I have played I have tried to use a balanced army (the one everyone talked about but never used heh) and it worked great. The all cav rush army just doesnt work that great in 5k.
Yes people play 15-20k because of the power of cav. The power of cav that starts around 7k when you can buy loads of cav but still cant buy that many upgrades for your inf. No one thought of going back, only increasing money.
I see the use for most of the units in 5k while in 15k its really just a handful of units that are useful. And yes it is incredible boring. I want more diversity and well you want more diversity heh. It can be done in 2 ways. Either use lots of upgrading for it to make units different..but that is the same as leaving out most of the units that comes with the game. Or play the game with less upgrading but use more of the units. Which way is the best?...I guess that is up to people to decide. But just dont expect to get both: use all units AND have lots of upgrades.
I think the main reason why you havent seen more than 100 in the foyer is because you log on very late. Im normally going to bed when you come online heh. I have seen hm.. 140-150 as max I think maybe more not sure.
Quote[/b] ]You do not trust the MP community to make suggestions about what the standard is, but it IS the MP community who plays the game, so they DO decide, for better or worse. Whether we personally like it or not
I didnt say make suggestions I said: "And I really dont trust the community to decide on what setting they like." and gave some examples to why.
What Im wondering about is: Can we change..can we improve ourselves. And would having more game options make things better when we already have problems with the few options available today?
I dont know the right word for it really... maybe responsibility is the best I can come up with. And this is not directed at you or your thread on .com its just me stabbing in the general direction of the community.
But no one cares anyway I guess.
CBR
1dread1lahll
08-19-2003, 23:59
hey Elmo... i did not see a .com. sticky... but ive one small request (if you could enter it) remove the designation 'attacker/defender' and replace it with red team, blue team,.... that would go a long ways to ending cornner camping, and other camp-a-ramas...some people just never budge from their mountains....even when they have far more troops will say 'your the attacker'...that gets old...with no designated attack/defend games could be more dnyamic.
ElmarkOFear
08-20-2003, 00:09
"But no one cares anyways." Seems to be the case here since it is mostly you and I discussing changes. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I have not tried a 5k game in MTW. But it would seem the lancer unit would dominate and be overpowering at this level (as well as most knight units). It is very easy to use a cheap armor or wep upgrade to a knight unit instead of a valour to get an overpowering unit. I will have to try it in custom battle to see if it actually works that way or not.
Yuuki host a few 5k games if you see me, so I can see the difference it makes.
The val 2 default for units you speak of CBR. Was that just for morale or did it also include the weapon and armor upgrade? I do not notice any difference from the before patch units when I use the F1 key to check the stats.
ElmarkOFear
08-20-2003, 00:12
Lahll, here is the topic URL at the .com: Please go there and state what you said here. I don't want to seem to take over that thread with all of my opinions. hehe I do think that is a great idea.
MP topic (http://pub133.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=1415.topic&start=1&stop=20)
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Aug. 20 2003,01:09)]"But no one cares anyways." Seems to be the case here since it is mostly you and I discussing changes. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Yes I hate it when Im right http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]The val 2 default for units you speak of CBR. Was that just for morale or did it also include the weapon and armor upgrade? I do not notice any difference from the before patch units when I use the F1 key to check the stats.
Erm I dont speak of val 2 default. Only thing I speak of is saying that val could/should be max 2 instead of the max 4 we have in MTW. Valour works the same way in VI as MTW. +1 attack, +1 defense and +2 morale.
Knights are good in 5k. The big problem is you cant buy many of them and you will have to sacrifice something else in your army.
A 5k game is very different because your swords will be crushed quickly against the knights. The standard power armies for 15k simply dont work because you cant buy all the upgrades for your swords/shock foot that changes the balance between the units, and you cant even buy all the super units as the basic unit cost would be 6-7k for most of these armies.
I normally dont have one upgrade in my 5k armies..I can easily spend my money on buying units alone. Other people might have a few.
About your Lancers. They cost 850 and standard chiv knights cost 675. Thats a 175 florin difference. For every Lancer you buy (and you cant buy that many of them with only 5k) and every Chiv knight I buy..well yes you have better cav, no question about that. But it still means I can have cmaa if you only have urban militia or you have spearmen and I have chiv sergeants. Now you have good cav compared to me but sucky foot.
Maybe Lancers are still too good but its nothing compared to the good old 15k game. You have to make sacrifices with your foot and you dont have to do that at all in 15k.
In early June I did try creating some interest in 5k battles: Thread (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=18;t=7484) but nothing wild happened really.
CBR
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
08-20-2003, 03:13
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Elmo,
You need two topics not one;
One would be; "What change to RTW multiplay would have you playing online?". For the newcomers to tell CA what really hinders them from getting online.
And the second one; "What change might stop vets from ranting and whining?" for, well, the usual rant.
It seems, from the few real answers from newcomers that the main problem is having to log throught gamespy... Balance and fl level (or units tire too fast, or swipe or whatever...) are worthy topics, but it is not stopping ppl from starting to play. It might make them stop later, but right now, they don't even get started...
One can tell eyeclosed which topic is written by an old timer, and which is written by a beginner.
Good topic Elmo, but it's sad that the only out of the box thinking comes from newcomers with fresh eyes saying what actually is a problem for them. And this is not really what the old timer community think it is... Not surprising though...
Louis the Simurgh,
PS; hey CBR, let me know when you want to go to the 5k land again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif, and let's make sure Alioven will be there, I think I got a score to setttle in 5k with him
Damn 5K, how am I going to upgrade those hybrid to insanity?
ElmarkOFear
08-20-2003, 03:27
About valour default. I thought the patch raised valour or maybe just the morale base of MTW units from 0 to 2. Maybe Yuuki will know.
I will try to host a few 5k games, since people like to join my games for less lag and my "sparkling" personality hehe
Hi Louie
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Glad to have your input. I will be on earlier tonight, since the plant is on reduced hours, due to the power failure up North. Seems we don't have a stockpile of parts to keep production running. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Lucky me
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Aug. 20 2003,04:27)]About valour default. I thought the patch raised valour or maybe just the morale base of MTW units from 0 to 2. Maybe Yuuki will know.
Ah ok just me who misunderstood it.
Yes with VI we have got +2 morale. That basically means we have 1 valour more.
CBR
Quote[/b] ]Damn 5K, how am I going to upgrade those hybrid to insanity?
Hey Louis. Yes Im really sorry about your hybrids heh http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif
CBR
My 5 cents worth.
1. Other sliders will not be any more useful than the florin sliders. The 'vet' groups will try to seek a balance to match historical reality, or a reasonable scissor-paper-stone.. and this will become more of less fixed at a particular setting. Yes sliders are useful in the initial phase where everyone is trying out to find the best feel, and sooner or later, most will become content or at ease with a particular setting.. thereafter the sliders are just useless. Why you see lots 15k now, and 10k in STW, or 99k too, because these different schools come to like it. I for one belong to a small school that does not bother with balance or whatever, just play at whatever the game has and exploit the strength and weakness during gameplay. It can be at a florin level where cav dominates.. so I use more cav if I'm bang on winning, or get less effective for a challenge. Not many people appreciate the different gameplay enjoyment 5k level to 99k level can bring, because for most fun come from winning, and winning is when one is proficient at a level, and being proficient at a level mean constantly playing at that level. But having fine-tune sliders is always better than none. So CA please implement them.
2. In MTW or VI, low florin games.. cav rules.. be it cav archers or cav.
3. "What change might stop vets from ranting and whining?" you cant.. its a universal constant.
4. Atmosphere in the lobby. Yes, its not newbie friendly. Rule by competitive vet or clan players. No vet like to play with newbie, save a few.. understandable since time isnt to waste, and a good time is when you play along and vs good opponents. But generally I think the atmosphere is still ok.. its the maturity or the attitude of the new-comer that really matters. I wouldnt be playing now if I got pissed off, when I bought all missiles units + a few yari in STW, got rushed by my opponent, and got scolded by my allies for being an idiot.
ElmarkOFear
08-20-2003, 06:14
Just played a few 5k games. Horses are way too powerful at 5k. An 8 horse army ran over 3 armies and still had almost 2 full units left and second game I bought lots of horses to see if it was just skill with horses or the horses themselves. I got high kills and had many horses left at end of game. It could not be skill because I am not good with horses, because I never use them, because they are overpowered. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Maybe I will start hosting No Horse, No arty games. LOL
Try and buy some spears. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Yes cav will be very powerful if people buy their 15k armies with the standard loads of shock foot and no spear. That combined with the lower morale is a big surprise to people.
CBR
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
08-20-2003, 14:20
I second CBR on this one... I have limited experience with 5K army, but yes, a 'usual' 15k set up with 6/8 swords is not going to cut it; without the massive upgrade pumped into them swords can't beat cav. At 15K sword beats cav. Hence the feeling that cav is more powerfull.
5k makes spear more interesting. If you don't have spears in 5k, you are unlikely to stop cav, whereas you can't care less at 15k....
Going online tonight; hopefully we'll try Elmo cav vs Louis pointy stick http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Louis the Simurgh,
Orda Khan
08-20-2003, 16:50
Some very valid points brought up in this thread, I've said all along I'd like to see all the units being used. Like CBR I think basic is best only I'd go one step further back and do away with all upgrades including honour, valour or whatever. I would also do away with the 16 or 20 units max. IMO a wad of money and a list of units is all we need. I buy unit after unit according to their skills until my cash is gone, that way my opponent can no longer count units, we can all have a fun game using skill because of no pumped units and the game is varied.
Upgrades ruin the game
Another chance to beg for an online campaign? Battles are ok but we really do need a means by which we can conduct a war.
......Orda
Konnichiwa,
Sliders certainly are useful: not only because they allow people to actually use something else, but also because they help to finetune the game for one or more mainstream stats/styles. MP but also SP (!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif players don't have to wait for a patch but can make it themselves (can't fix real bugs of course).
You could state that too many options will lead to 'wrong' communitysettings, but it is a setting made by the people who are going to play it. The other benefit is that it is possible to get more ways of playing the game, so it has the potential to attract more people. More customers -> more money -> more service.
It doesn't really matter what other gamers are doing in their games when you are enjoying yours with 1-7 other players, does it? This does not mean that I don't like to see (mainly) one stat played, but it has to be because the gamers like it.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
08-20-2003, 17:09
Quote[/b] (Orda Khan @ Aug. 20 2003,11:50)]Another chance to beg for an online campaign? Battles are ok but we really do need a means by which we can conduct a war.
......Orda
In the .com topic, what is not put forward is as important as what is put forward.
So far, none of the MP potential beginners said 'well a MP campaign is what it would take to get me online'.
I find that... interesting...
Louis the Simurgh,
ElmarkOFear
08-20-2003, 18:04
Elmo had 4 chiv sgts in that game. At 300 a pop, I could not afford to buy upgrades. I hit a unit of Yuuki's Feudal knights with a chiv knight and had a unit flank him, the horses did not run, and fought to the last horse, they held against these units for an extremely long time, before i killed them too, which should not be the case, when they are already stopped and fighting. They did not have a valour upgrade, but they could have possibly had a wep or arm upgrade, I will have to check.
Spears were weakened, but the patch, to where they are completely useless. The 8 horse, 4 chiv MAA, 4 missile army rules in 5k games.
I hope that RTW has stronger spear units, or weaker cav.
spacecadet
08-20-2003, 19:55
For all the discussion going on, the main reason the MP community is so small is that the server/game is so user unfriendly and unreliable. When MTW first came out, the numbers were nearly up to 200 after 2-3 weeks, and probably would have risen much higher but for technical problems people had.
The hardcore stayed but the casual MTW purchaser (of which there were many since MTW was a hit) would have noticed how much time was wasted trying to get a game up, people to join, and get it to the end without it crashing, and given up pretty quickly. It also doesnt help that the game is really tough to learn, especially for the average game player.
Make the interface and server bullet proof and you'll have a communiity large enough to warrant multiple patches.
ElmarkOFear
08-20-2003, 23:45
That is exactly what most SP players in the .com topic are saying cadet. Connection issues mostly.
RTKLamorak
08-21-2003, 02:05
Quote[/b] (spacecadet @ Aug. 20 2003,13:55)]For all the discussion going on, the main reason the MP community is so small is that the server/game is so user unfriendly and unreliable. When MTW first came out, the numbers were nearly up to 200 after 2-3 weeks, and probably would have risen much higher but for technical problems people had.
The hardcore stayed but the casual MTW purchaser (of which there were many since MTW was a hit) would have noticed how much time was wasted trying to get a game up, people to join, and get it to the end without it crashing, and given up pretty quickly. It also doesnt help that the game is really tough to learn, especially for the average game player.
Make the interface and server bullet proof and you'll have a communiity large enough to warrant multiple patches.
very well said space... but it has also driven away some of the "hardcore" players after a time to, like me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
i havent played in over a 6 weeks now, and it slowled down long before that aswell.... i just find to much time is wasted with simple developer/server side bugs compared to the majority of other games online. I stuck it out all the way thru MTW, but i simply get to frustrated with the out of sync drop/quit bug of VI, the slowly decreasing foyer size/number of games, and the general lack of developer support that it has driven me from the game i once loved http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
i would also agree that connection/server/bugs issues are the number 1 reason for the current size of the community, and the lack of newer members. If (i dont even believe this while i type it but oh well) the developers actually give adequate support to the RTW mp side then il be back.. mmmmmmm maybe also IF (again im typing lies) they actually decide to bring out the necessary patch for VI mp then maybe then to http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ....
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
CoooOOOoooOOoooome back Lammmmyyyyyyy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
CBR, cavs are actually more powerful at 5k than at 15k or higher. It thought it is common wisdom http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif A v0 orderfoot has 2 morale, a v0 chivserg has 0 morale, yet a v0 chiv.knight has 8 morale. Which unit will fight to the last men? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif True, you cannot buy an all cav army but unit vs unit cavs are stronger.
If you really want strong spears then play one of those high florin games and buy v3 italians or v4 chiv.sergts.
Elmo & CBR, if cavs are really that strong then why is it that most of the players buy 8 or even 9 good melee infantry and buy only 4 or 5 cavs to protect the flanks? As far as I can tell there is a definite trend to buy more infantry heavy armies in VI compared to 1.1 armies.
Elmo, you want to host "no cavs, no arty games" and you complain about lack of diversity? (plz no offence m8 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif) How can you expect diversity when most of the "non-standard" armies are condemned by vets? If you buy an all cav army then you are rusher, if you dare to use catapults then you are coward (and probably will be banned ...), if you play the byzantines then you are a noob who cannot play "more challenging" armies ...
And dont get me wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I know it is not the only problem, some units are indeed unbalanced, cavs were indeed very strong in 1.1, catapults are indeed devastating and nerve wrecking even in the hands of less experienced players, and yes byz inf is still the most powerful hand to hand combat unit in the game, but if you put up a constant peer pressure to ban these unit types then wont be surprised to face the same armies again and again.
Hm, I know that your answer will be that "It is not fun at all to face AMP's cats&cavs army" and on this point I have to agree with you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif but I think it is part of the challenge http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
your fast and furry friend
Quote[/b] (Cheetah @ Aug. 21 2003,18:57)]A v0 orderfoot has 2 morale, a v0 chivserg has 0 morale, yet a v0 chiv.knight has 8 morale. Which unit will fight to the last men? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif True, you cannot buy an all cav army but unit vs unit cavs are stronger.
Yes and a chiv sergeant cost 300, orderfoot cost 400 and chiv knight cost 675. The costs doesnt mean much in a 15k because its all about upgrades but in a 5k you have think about what you are buying..lots of heavy cav means none or crap foot.
Individually heavy cav units are better than in 15k and that is precisely like I think they should be...good but damn few of them. Missile hits hurts more and you really dont want to get involved in fights where some good foot even can charge your cav.
We fear the 15k all cav army (yes we feared it more in MTW 1.1 because of Lancers and 2 less in morale compared to VI) as it will kill the standard armies used..thats what makes it so annoying.
In VI we got a +2 morale and Lancers are now a Late era only unit. That has changed a lot, but it hasnt improved gameplay that much has it? Now we just see even more shock foot used.
In 5k the all cav army will not defeat a standard "balanced" 5k army...at least not as easy as the feared Lancer thin line rush in 15k. So for me that means cav in general is weaker.
In 1.1 I think my favorite game was either 5k or 25k. The main reason was that the difference in valour is what causes most of the problems..at 25k swords were not as strong as you had money to buy more upgrades for cav too.
But I really dont need to play high florin games to get "good spears" at there most likely will be no valour difference in a 5k game the good spears will work fine against good swords. Yes they have less morale but thats just part of it. You will get a minus from higher casualties (a 1 valour difference will give 20% casualty rate) and will be "losing badly" more often.
In 15k games I feel my v2 order foot as weak. I dont feel they are weak in 5k as v0. They simply dont encounter the same over powered upgraded shock units.
Now of course I might not have played enough 5k battles and I guess my opponents could do better http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif The only times they felt weak was against naptha (silly upgraded of course), loads of javelins(with some upgrades) where one unit got blasted and ran quickly and against a highly upgraded group of shock (but that came at a cost to cavalry so I won in the end)
5K is still new for most of us so we are still learning but I like having spears in 5k while in 15k I really try to avoid buying them..maybe 1 if its some special army. And as swords get killed easier in 5k against cav, spears are now needed for protection.
So my common sense tells me that cav are weaker and spears are stronger. The effect is that when I buy an army I really like to have a more balanced army compared to 15k.
I have had succes with armies that can be considered light or skirmisher armies, something that would be suicide in 15k where everything is about loads of shock and just move forward.
Yes 5k is "new" so there is lots of experimentation but I still feel that most units can be used because of the simple reason of money..you cant buy pure good/expensive units..there is lots of room for different armies in 5k.
Now we can always discuss the morale thing. First of all I would say that it does takes some time to get used to a new and lower morale but maybe rushing and doubling is too good in 5k. in 1.1 we had some valour 3 battles (so thats +4 morale than in a 5k VI battle) and it worked but I still felt morale was a bit too much sometimes.
So either its what we have now in 5k...just a question of old dogs learning new tricks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif or its an increase of +2 morale but maybe some other would still want +4
But thats just technical stuff.
Even if we few here agree on something and we get the "perfect" patch from CA it wouldnt matter that much would it?. Yes I might be pessimistic and paranoid but I dont see a sudden shift in the community.. it will be the usual 15k and some occasional bitching about CA and patches and balance and and etc. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
CBR
ElmarkOFear
08-22-2003, 00:47
YUUKI:
Send me the replay please. I would like to take a look at that game again. It seemed to me you launched just the one Feudal knight unit vs. my 2 chiv knights, then I sent in the chiv sgts, 4 units, then i sent in the chiv men at arms. Your horse held against them all. One or two horse units should not be able to stop a charge that size, especially against 3 spear units (the fourth was the one that engaged later, because i was protecting my flank. The only unit of swords I saw by my chiv knights were byz infantry which came from your partner. I never saw any sword units sent in by you, when I moved my chiv sgts up. But as you said your sword units ran quickly. I do not think they should have, since I only sent in the 2 chiv knight units there. Capt. was late arriving to the party on that forested hill, so your men-at-arms should have held my horses off in the woods and beaten them. They did not, which is proof that swords are too weak vs. cav even in woods, with the hill advantage.
I did not see your cav charge my pavs I thought they were all busy fighting me and Capt. They should have won, vs my pavs, because I do not think I upgraded armor on the pavs at all and they were at val 0.
My army was around til the end game, but more than your horse units holding so long, the cav units I am talking about are the 8 cav units that Mitch brought. He still had 2 full, fresh units at the end of the game after chasing off 2 enemies. One being Inda, who is very good with his armies, the other guy, was a new player and only killed 87 or so men. This may be why Mitch was able to keep his horses, I will have to see your replay to make sure.
I will look at the kills for your horse units in my logfile as well, to see how many they killed. Most of the kills will be my chiv sgt units since I sent them in behind the chiv knights. I kept the one chiv sgt unit back on my right flank to insure that the middle guy did not try to cav flank me, once I knew he didnt I sent it to flank your cav, but your cav did not break, and it had been fighting my other units for abit and should have been tired.
Once, again plz send the replay and I will look at it to see if I missed anything. I am old and I am not as aware of what is going on as I used to be. hehe
CHEETAH: The "no cavs, no arty . ." was an exaggeration, showing how silly it would have to get to balance this game. As for your statement, "most players buy 4 horse, 8 or 9 foot units . . .", and you think this makes for diverse armies? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Armies are at their lowest point, variety-wise, than they ever have been and online play is at its lowest point player-wise than ever. PS: I have never said Byz infantry units should not be allowed. I only have said "Cav is Too Strong" and "Arty is too accurate." and that is in the Late era, not in high era. I have never called arty-users; "cowards". I am more understanding and do not ban players in high era games, where their arty will not be overly accurate in killing general units. Also, I have never called all cav army players; "rushers". I think rushing is a valid tactic if used well. It is an art. With the game the way it is now, it is also close to impossible (unless you use many of the overpowered horse units), even with flanking (unless you use many overpowered horse units)and proper unit vs unit matchups (unless you use many overpowered horse units). LOL - See a trend to my rantings now?
This is the way some would like the game to stay, and they are working still to keep it that way, but not me.
PS. Besides you should never argue a point, because as everybody knows . ."Cheetah's never win" hehe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
CBR: Your comment; "Individually heavy cav units are better than in 15k and that is precisely like I think they should be...good but damn few of them." Is wrong, because there are NOT fewer horse units being used in 5k games, the only effect is, the few units that can kill them (spears) are now ineffective, because they cannot be upgraded enough to beat horses effectively. Ratio-wise, the armies are still more horse units than either sword, spear or missile units. Try playing with less than 3 horse units and see how well you do in a game of 5k, against other players using 8 horse armies. If you win, save the replay and show it to us.
I never thought in the original STW, that there was a big problem with balance. Guns were somewhat overpowering, but that was later as the game progressed, and they did have counters which were very effective. You did not normally see players buying 8 gun armies either, but you DO see players buying 8 horse armies in MTW on a regular basis, because horse units are overpowered.
In original STW, you had rushers, shooters, all horse, all spear, and so called balanced-army players and all had a chance to win if they played well. Not so in MTW after the patch. Before the patch, all missile, all spear, all sword armies could be played and have a chance at winning. Knight units were underpowered, the alan cav and mounted sgt units we good though. The patch went too far in correcting the knight problem, and created an environment that means the only non-standard type army which has a chance of winning today is the all cav army.
Caps on valour, caps on number of like units before massive florin penalties, changes to the armor/wep upgrade charges which make them even more expensive than valour upgrades at times: These restrictions make the game more predictable, eliminate the ability to surprise your enemy with any type of strategic element, eliminates the need to "know your enemy" because he will have to buy the exact same type of army as you, eliminates the need to consider the map (hilly, flat, coastal), eliminates the necessity of using the terrain (Note: Yuuki's Chiv MAA were routed by my 2 Chiv Knight units, in a forested area, and attacking uphill.) Yuuki's statement: "The upgrade system introduces unbalance, although, it's better than the upgrade system in STW/WE/MI because the combat advantage gained with the upgrade is less than the cost of the upgrade which wasn't the case in STW/WE/MI." seems to indicate that upgrades should cost so much that they are useless. Which is pretty much what the 5k games CBR and YUUKI enjoy, do. Except for the fact that Cav is Too Strong to allow this to happen.
MAJOR RANT COMING ON:
Do we want games where the enemy might surprise us with an unbalanced army? Do we want games where a unit may be used to surprise an enemy unit which would normally kill it easily? Do we want a game where a rush army can win sometimes? Do we want a game where a missile army is able to bring an enemy down from a hilltop. Do we want a game where horse units have to be skillfully maneuvered for them to be effective? Do we want use of the right unit for the right terrain (hills, forest), to be important in our army selection? Do we want a game that can be played at several florin levels and force us to be creative in our unit selection instead of picking the same army mix, thus making the game fresh?
If you are of a mind like me, your answer is "Your Darn Right" for all of the above.
If not then, let us ask for less options: the elimination of all upgrades, only one map type, one weather type, no special unit bonuses, no difference in stats between units, no troop selection, no faction selection, no era selection. That way every army will consist of: 4 pavs, 4 Chiv MAA, 4 Chiv Knights, 2 Feudal Knights, 2 spear units with low morale and be played on flat, lush, no rain maps in high era. This way we will not have any surprises and will not have to worry about what type of army to buy, or what type our enemy might bring against us. One where we can just click twice and set back and watch our knights, charge head on, against those pesky spear units, comfortable in the knowledge that our knights will rout the spears on contact or kill them slowly without taking many losses. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
AH I FEEL MUCH BETTER NOW LOL :P
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Aug. 21 2003,23:07)]IIRC, all the players except you that played in those 5k games we hosted a while back said units routed too easily.
Yeah...I guess Im the weird one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
Saying minimum v1 and then play at 8k would be the same as 5k just with +2 morale. And would mean missile units were a bit cheaper compared to standard unupgraded 5k.
Only thing I have against is that it is a rule that you always have to explain to people..plain 5k makes everything so much simpler. But of course its not that bad I guess.
CBR
Skomatth
08-22-2003, 01:10
Less upgrades isnt the same as less options. The devs, I imagine, originally intended the game to be balanced at 5k and so thats what they balanced their stats to. However since the morale was too low a different florin level was used. When upgrades for all units comes into play (as opposed to maybe 1 or 2 at 5k) the balance originally intended gets destroyed. From modding I know that 1 combat point (att or def it doesnt matter) destroys a unit about (rufff estimate) 25% faster than without it. This is how upgrades cause uber-units and destroy balance. UPGRADES = IMBALANCE. The patch solution of CA should revolve around tinkering morale and stats so that the game can be played at 5k. It would help keep their originally intended balance.
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Aug. 22 2003,01:47)]CBR: Your comment; "Individually heavy cav units are better than in 15k and that is precisely like I think they should be...good but damn few of them." Is wrong, because there are NOT fewer horse units being used in 5k games, the only effect is, the few units that can kill them (spears) are now ineffective, because they cannot be upgraded enough to beat horses effectively. Ratio-wise, the armies are still more horse units than either sword, spear or missile units.
No if people wants to use 6-8 cav in their army they can do it and I dont see any problems with it really. If they really want 4 chiv knights + other cav they dont have very good foot. My turk "fun" army has 10 cav, its not a bad army but I have lost with it too.
Quote[/b] ]Try playing with less than 3 horse units and see how well you do in a game of 5k, against other players using 8 horse armies. If you win, save the replay and show it to us.
Do I see a glove being thrown?? huh? HUH?? I'll buy a no cav army you will have nightmares about for weeks..no need for replays http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Gah I just realised I miss a good double click gah I'll have your head for this Elmo http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
CBR
ElmarkOFear
08-22-2003, 02:33
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA CBR http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif **GO ELMO, GO ELMO** Elmo does the single-person wave, sticks big yellow nerf hand, with index finger sticking out, while yelling were number ONE, takes a big swig of shine from his two can with straws drinking hat, takes off his shirt exposing his big flabby tummy with the "CBR loves CAV" tattoo on it, turns around, drops his pants and moons CBR, thumbs his nose, sticks hands in ears and flaps them while sticking tongue out, then passes out from the previous big swig of shine.
LOL
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
08-22-2003, 14:19
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Aug. 21 2003,19:47)]CBR: Your comment; "Individually heavy cav units are better than in 15k and that is precisely like I think they should be...good but damn few of them." Is wrong, because there are NOT fewer horse units being used in 5k games, the only effect is, the few units that can kill them (spears) are now ineffective, because they cannot be upgraded enough to beat horses effectively. Ratio-wise, the armies are still more horse units than either sword, spear or missile units. Try playing with less than 3 horse units and see how well you do in a game of 5k, against other players using 8 horse armies. If you win, save the replay and show it to us.
...
MAJOR RANT COMING ON:
Do we want games where the enemy might surprise us with an unbalanced army? Do we want games where a unit may be used to surprise an enemy unit which would normally kill it easily? Do we want a game where a rush army can win sometimes? Do we want a game where a missile army is able to bring an enemy down from a hilltop. Do we want a game where horse units have to be skillfully maneuvered for them to be effective? Do we want use of the right unit for the right terrain (hills, forest), to be important in our army selection? Do we want a game that can be played at several florin levels and force us to be creative in our unit selection instead of picking the same army mix, thus making the game fresh?
If you are of a mind like me, your answer is "Your Darn Right" for all of the above.
If not then, let us ask for less options: the elimination of all upgrades, only one map type, one weather type, no special unit bonuses, no difference in stats between units, no troop selection, no faction selection, no era selection. That way every army will consist of: 4 pavs, 4 Chiv MAA, 4 Chiv Knights, 2 Feudal Knights, 2 spear units with low morale and be played on flat, lush, no rain maps in high era. This way we will not have any surprises and will not have to worry about what type of army to buy, or what type our enemy might bring against us. One where we can just click twice and set back and watch our knights, charge head on, against those pesky spear units, comfortable in the knowledge that our knights will rout the spears on contact or kill them slowly without taking many losses. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
AH I FEEL MUCH BETTER NOW LOL :P
Hum... Just a small comment Elmo&CBR...
It's funny to see both of you going after cav being too strong / too weak. It's not about cav.
At 15K sword win vs cav. Easily. Cav stands a chance when the swords unit are tired and half strenght, or maybe with a lot of manoeveuring (and I think the counter manoeuveuring is easier for the sword...). Most popular armies as per today are 8 swords; 4MS v4 and 4FMAA/CMAA v4. And no spear at all, even polearm (polearm being +3/+1 vs cav... not regular AP like MS) are unnecessary. Why do you want spears when sword can do the job?
Elmo, your major rant does apply well at the current state of 15K game... But maybe not at 5K game.... Variety? It looks like 8 swords 3 miss 5 cav all around now. Spears are for sure completly ineffective in 15K; bring 4 spears and watch them getting trashed by the sword line.
I still play with JHI, and some plays with spears. I don't know how they feel, but with my JHI, I spend most of my time running around praying for me to catch cav before some sword behemoth get them. So many swords on the field make match up even more difficult for the few remaining spears / polearm... Who had a tought life anyway trying to match with faster running cav...
I think what CBR wants to do at 5K is getting rid of silly sword upgrade so that cav beats sword again, as they are supposed to.
So sure if one comes up with 8 sword, a cav charge is going to be much more damaging at 5k than at 15k. That's the part I feel comfortable with playing at 5K. At least cav beats sword.
The next question is; are spears strong enough to stop cav from ruling the field at 5K?
My answer is ; not conclusive yet. But very possibly yes.
Elmo; odd to see a rant about 'do we want a game...' played at several fl level' as an answer to CBR who is asking just that...
Are you praising CBR, or have I missed something?
Louis,
ElmarkOFear
08-22-2003, 16:47
Simurgh: CBR is my idol I worship the fact that he can be so oblivious to the obvious overpowered cav vs spear debacle LOL
We will have to continue playing at 5k before we can see what needs to be done to cav units to make them more balanced. The games that I did bring lots of horses, I had lots of kills. We did not win the games of course, but that was for other reasons.
Catch ya later PS: Next time don't be such a chicken and play on my team for a change http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
ErikJansen
08-22-2003, 18:48
Quote[/b] (Duke John @ Aug. 19 2003,03:00)]Then there are clanmembers who yell at each other for whatever trivial matter, or some funny guy saying the same idiot word 20 times and we then have a very nice place to welcome any new player, which from then is called n00b and gets nasty comments all over him since he dares to use Pavise Arbalesters and isn't performing up to the elite standard.
Ah, the MP community http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif let the flame-wars begin
Cheers, Duke John
Dude, don't log in through Gamespy and go get VI http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif
ErikJansen
08-22-2003, 18:59
Quote[/b] (CBR @ Aug. 19 2003,12:15)]More busy whining about MTW than playing..
Says who? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Aug. 21 2003,18:47)]CHEETAH: The "no cavs, no arty . ." was an exaggeration, showing how silly it would have to get to balance this game. As for your statement, "most players buy 4 horse, 8 or 9 foot units . . .", and you think this makes for diverse armies? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Armies are at their lowest point, variety-wise, than they ever have been and online play is at its lowest point player-wise than ever.
The fact that most players pick the same sword/axe heavy armies does not imply that you should play those armies as well. Simurgh has a very nice turkish hybrid army (even though he keeps complainig about unit matchups http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif) and I have seen a nice russian army from MizuTekiseki. And if you really want some variety then you should play winter or desert battles, not to mention viking era games.
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Aug. 21 2003,18:47)] PS: I have never said Byz infantry units should not be allowed. I only have said "Cav is Too Strong" and "Arty is too accurate." and that is in the Late era, not in high era. I have never called arty-users; "cowards". I am more understanding and do not ban players in high era games, where their arty will not be overly accurate in killing general units. Also, I have never called all cav army players; "rushers". I think rushing is a valid tactic if used well. It is an art.
WOW, could not agree with you more http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif BTW, sorry Elmo, that I was not clear enough, my comments were not directed to you (even though the paragraph strated like "Elmo", lol), there is just an observable peer pressure.
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Aug. 21 2003,18:47)]
With the game the way it is now, it is also close to impossible (unless you use many of the overpowered horse units), even with flanking (unless you use many overpowered horse units)and proper unit vs unit matchups (unless you use many overpowered horse units). LOL - See a trend to my rantings now?
Yes, I see the trend http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif but that is just wrong. There are no overpowered cavs in a 15k early/high era game. Lancers are gone, the strongest cav you are likely to meet is v1 chiv.knight. Swords can beat v1 chivknights head-on with ease, flanking is different but then it is more about skill then uberunits. The very fact that players using 8/9 sword/axe units shows that cavs are no longer the kings of the battlefield.
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Aug. 21 2003,18:47)]
This is the way some would like the game to stay, and they are working still to keep it that way, but not me.
I am not saying that this game is perfect but cavs are not as unbalanced as they were pre-VI.
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Aug. 21 2003,18:47)]
PS. Besides you should never argue a point, because as everybody knows . ."Cheetah's never win" hehe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Hehe, Cheetahs do win, just have to play against you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
ElmarkOFear
08-22-2003, 20:31
LOL Cheetah :P
I tried hosting those Viking era etc games, but everybody complained so I host only high era games, arid, summer maps now. Have been trying the small u nit size games and they are fun and open up the map more.
Whining about MTW/VI is half the fun
Yuuki: I have the replay and will check it out tonight. Thanks. Darn I wanted to add that "Elmo you are right to my Kocmoc sig at the bottom LOL
Remember a stopped watch is still right twice a day. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
08-22-2003, 20:48
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Aug. 22 2003,11:47)]Simurgh: CBR is my idol I worship the fact that he can be so oblivious to the obvious overpowered cav vs spear debacle LOL
We will have to continue playing at 5k before we can see what needs to be done to cav units to make them more balanced. The games that I did bring lots of horses, I had lots of kills. We did not win the games of course, but that was for other reasons.
Catch ya later PS: Next time don't be such a chicken and play on my team for a change http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Obvious overpowered cav vs spear...
IMO most of the games yesterday were decided by doubling, and not really by RPS and match up. As morale is lower a double can be more rewarding, the doubled can't hold long before allies help (although one doubled guy did not do too badly in one game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ). Low morale + outnumbered penalty and here we go. In some sense, one can be outnunmbererd by peasant or chiv knight, it would not matter much...
So, Elmo, I'll grant you that cav is more helpful due to sheer speed in those conditions; outnumbering/ doubling is easier.
Part of it might also be because we are for the most part set in a higher morale mode, with larger spacing, more streched lines and so on; to keep inf lines closer together will help.
But I still don't think that cav rules the field at 5k. Let's give spear a chance in 5k and see some more; as I said earlier, so far for me it's unconclusive; we need 100 games
At 15k, la messe est dite (or nearly), as Cheetah puts it cav are no longer the king of the fields, swords are.
Being on your team; as you may have seen, I have a good potential to rout before you; for the sake of balance (whatever that is) and 'who routs first' competition we may need to be opponent
Louis,
PS: one shall not understand outnumbered by peasant or chiv knight as a proposal to play a all peasant army... Let me chicken on this one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
08-22-2003, 20:52
Quote[/b] (Cheetah @ Aug. 22 2003,14:09)]The fact that most players pick the same sword/axe heavy armies does not imply that you should play those armies as well. Simurgh has a very nice turkish hybrid army (even though he keeps complainig about unit matchups http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif) and I have seen a nice russian army from MizuTekiseki. And if you really want some variety then you should play winter or desert battles, not to mention viking era games.
The Turks hybrid army is actually a sword army...
Variety can be achieved by changing weather or map setting...
CBR thinks (well that's my understanding...) it can be achieved by changing the fl level so that swords stops ruling the field using uber upgrade.
Let's play and see if he is right or wrong...
Louis,
ElmarkOFear
08-22-2003, 22:28
Yup I plan on playing 5k until I get proficient at that level. Which, of course, means that you will get your 100+ games in. hehe
The first game we played at 5k, was a good indicator of the power of cav. The one where AMP rushed me in center and we hit him and routed him, and then Yuuki as he tried to help AMP. CBR was late getting to the party with his all-spear army and what was left of AMP's and Yuuki's armies routed thru him. We kept the pressure on with our camels and cav and his men routed without much of a fight. Spears, I believe may be strong enough at 5k in a one-on-one, or unit vs unit battle, but if any other penalties are applied: nearby losing troops, routing friendly troops in the area, out numbered, or anyone near your flank, the spears begin to lose quickly and rout. Their morale is not good enough to hold. I agree that certain spear units before the patch were super units, but I think only one thing should have been adjusted, either cav or spears and not both. The double adjustment caused a problem.
PS. SHHHHHHH Don't you dare tell CBR I agree with him on a point of his It would make him cocky I am sure of it LOL
Kraellin
08-23-2003, 05:24
ElMOOOOOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO
sorry, i had to fast forward through this thread. so many old discussions. is this thread for the 'ideal multiplayer interface, gameplay, setup'? no, that's a real question and i'm not just being sarcastic. i can tell ya how to do it, but then i'd have to shoot CA ;) a lot of these are old ideas, but still valid. but if i'm in the wrong thread, i'll post elsewhere.
K.
Skomatth
08-23-2003, 05:28
Chain routs are quite possible in 5k so you have to play well with allies. I've also noticed certain spears losing pretty badly against a v1 knight, but then again it was v1 so.... Another observation, charging a full unit's flank with feudal sars made that unit rout tho it didnt chain rout.
I plan on collecting a bunch of 5k replays using different types of armies and team play. Any ca patch proly wouldnt change stats for 5k but as always, I'm willing to mod it.
Changes right now that would be good- lower heavy cav morale by 2. I would be afraid to raise spear morale cause that would require sword tweak and then cav tweak.
ElmarkOFear
08-23-2003, 07:31
Hi Kra wow good to see you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif No you are in the right place to discuss anything multiplayer, also check the first post for the URL to the .com sticky post I made and put your thoughts there too. I am trying to gather up MP info. Maybe CA will pay attention, maybe not. Couldnt hurt to try. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
08-23-2003, 13:51
And now for something different... But not completly unrelated http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
See the nice CBR byz army?
http://www.thiep.com/~ffmtw/iB_html/uploads/post-19-41930-CBR_ELmoScreenie.jpg
Had some fun 5k games yesterday. Quality of game is unequal, but I guess we are still in a learning curve. Some were good 1 very good late game and a couple of interesting viking one...
Louis the Simurgh,
PS; I got to say we had more cav than our opponent and got awfully trampled http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ Aug. 23 2003,07:51)]
PS; I got to say we had more cav than our opponent and got awfully trampled http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
LOL, Simurgh that you must have done something wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif Cavs are way too much powerful. As Yuuki said sometimes it is just enough to put cavs behind fighting troops and it will rout them. Yesterday 3 fresh cav unit routed my entire army ... I just defeated my opponent, I had all of my infantry except 1 handgunner, cavs down to half size, then there came 3 fresh cavs from the ally of my opponent and routed my army without an effort http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif Well, definitely this is not the gameplay I am looking for http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
IMHO playing at 5k like playing at 10k with 1.1 patch. Swords dont hold long enough, spears can be routed with a simple flanking move, you will see more and more cav heavy armies with 6 or 8 combat cavs.
ElmarkOFear
08-23-2003, 16:12
LOL SIm SHame on you CBR you, you, horsey lover http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif And Byz inf on top of that too He must have been playing against AMP to have bought that army. LOL
I had an interesting game last night vs CeltiberoAlioven. He put all his horse in single file (column) and ran right through my pavs and halberds and chiv men at arms and 2 chiv knight units. His units were hard to kill, and they routed my men at almost full strength. Even my Halberds died against them. I would not say that it gave him a MAJOR advantage, but it did make his all cav 4 pav army a killing machine. I hope we don't see more of THIS now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
08-23-2003, 16:13
No question we did a few things wrong...
Yuuki comment about a cav behind line routing an army is, IMO true of any unit. An infantry unit going behind your line will rout your army too. It's more a positional question than a cav vs inf question.
Now as cav are faster, it's somehow easier to do it with cav.
Changing fight stat for cav won't impact that much, if at all. Teki got some very good result with a v0 viking raider... Tough to have crappier stat than that... But the moves were good and he was rewarded for that. Other cav with better stat, but used in a less efficient way, just found their way to death.
Sword not holding (vs cav) is exactly what is intended; at 15K swords beat cav, they hold so long that cav are not routing them anymore and it ends being sheer fight power; then sword wins.
Spears routed with flanking; spears seems to work vs frontal charge pretty well. Now, if only we could get a spear with half decent morale, say 4 at v0, it would not be too bad.
The good news with yesterday game is that I think they last longer than the previous try... In the 15 mn to 30 mn range...
Louis,
PS: I am more than willing to keep playing at 5k. Viking 5k game felt interesting.
First of all I would like to say to Elmo that Im sorry that I kidnapped this thread and turned it into something else. It was not my original intention..but in a way it was good as Im now playing again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I now see that the com thread might be turned into 2 different threads, which I think is good. I dont know if that means I will post in them as Yuuki seems busy there already...the quota these days seems to be max 1 Mizu per thread http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
But anyway...
Yes 5k is not just about cav, its about the whole delicate system of infantry unittypes that I dont feel is there in 15k: Spears, swords and polearms.
About cav being overpowered. As I tried to explain (and Im only doing it so people know precisely what I mean, not because I look down on them or their opinions) cav is less powerful in 5k than in 1.1 15k because the all cav army simply wont be as powerful against the "standard" army people are using. Yes you might see lots of cav used (6+) but I see the need for foot (and missile) so cav is not too powerful or unbalanced or whatever term we might use.
Just because I dont consider cav to be unbalanced/overpowered doesnt mean other people cant feel they are too good. Its a matter of taste really (but there might be room for some tweaking). I see it from a historical viewpoint. CA does that same really. Thats why cav is weak in Viking era and maybe most powerful in High era. The eras are different (why else have them if there were no difference in gameplay)
Thats why cav will be weak in RTW, as you hope for Elmo. There might be something powerful left in Elephants and Cataphracts but in general it should be a more foot oriented game. Not because some MP veterans have complained and CA said "Oooops Cav is too powerful" but because they try to follow the historical trend of the game.
Same thing with missile units. While (yes Im no expert) in MI the standard would be 6+? and you might even be able to stop an enemy attack with missile, its not like that in MTW and RTW will be the same.
And that doesnt mean that we dont need some basic changes in the system. If Im not mistaken LongJohn have said that the morale system might work better in 1v1 than 4v4 (outnumber modifiers..whatever) or some changes with missile (cost, accuracy etc) or cav in general.
What Im saying is that each version of the game and even each era has its own flavor. Some of my friends dont like the WW2 first person shooters..preferring the modern weapons, while I cant get enough of the "ping" sound when my Garand runs out of ammo. Some prefer a foot or missile oriented game..some would prefer Napoleonic and some Ancient. Thats fine, there is nothing wrong about that.
But what I consider wrong (or is wrong too strong a word?) is trying to make a game into something that it never will be. Ok wrong is not good..lets just say waste of time.
Take a look at the screenshots and you will see different unit sizes being used, so thats not going away suddenly (and so far I have not seen one convincing argument about the balance problems of different unitsizes)
We know the game will have 100+ units and IIRC 12+ factions wth many faction specific units. We are not going back to a STW like game with very few units no matter how much some people want it.
And I just cant see Roman musketeers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Gah another senseless general rant...just when Elmo thought he had me cornered. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
I'll make some more serious posts now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
CBR
Quote[/b] (Cheetah @ Aug. 23 2003,16:46)]Yesterday 3 fresh cav unit routed my entire army ... I just defeated my opponent, I had all of my infantry except 1 handgunner, cavs down to half size, then there came 3 fresh cavs from the ally of my opponent and routed my army without an effort http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Yes I saw the replay earlier today. What is there to say? You didnt have any spears and 1 chiv knight, 2 feudal knight, and 2 mounted sergeant as cav (I even consider that a bit weak if you dont have any defensive foot.
You had nearly regrouped and enemy foot was rather close while you were hit from the front and flank by some cav. A few units routed and then the rest a few seconds after.
Now I can understand that people like more morale compared to 5k but as I have said several times: 5k is a game where you need several types of foot (at least swords AND spears). The lower morale also means players need to think more about flanks and formation in general. You simply cant play like you do in 15k.
How many 15k battles did you play before you felt you knew the basics of what you could and what you couldnt do? Im still learning when it comes to 5k. I still do things that doesnt feel very dangerous because Im used to do it in 15k...but turns into a disaster. But I do use spears, multiple lines and always think about my flank.
IMO 5k is not like 10k in 1.1 as you dont have the money to buy just the few upgrades to kill the balance between swords and spears and you cant buy 16 knights and just charge.
CBR
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Aug. 23 2003,17:12)]LOL SIm SHame on you CBR you, you, horsey lover http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif And Byz inf on top of that too He must have been playing against AMP to have bought that army. LOL
Yes Im experimenting with all kinds of armies to see what they can and what they cant do and that does include all foot and all cav armies(of course this wasnt all cav but it will come)
That is the idea of playing these games... to see what is good/bad about 5k. And keep playing them. Not to give up after buying a crap army and get killed once http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]He put all his horse in single file (column) and ran right through my pavs and halberds and chiv men at arms and 2 chiv knight units.
And I dont see spears mentioned?
CBR
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
08-23-2003, 17:22
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Aug. 23 2003,07:42)]Keep in mind that after enough games are played, the same convergence of army type is going to happen at 5k just as it did at 15k. Right now it's interesting because no one knows exactly what to buy so you see a great variety in the armies.
I kind of agree with Yuuki's post but for this last part.
I don't know if 5k will result in more variety or not.
In 2.0 the convergence toward sword heavy army at 15K (8 sword is basic, I see 10 swords... I wait for a 12/14/16 swords... There is no reason for those not to come really) is mainly because a full quite fresh sword unit will kick cav out of the field. Beside another sword, it's tough to defeat a sword unit.
If sword got defeated by cav, and cav is still defeated by spears, then two things might happen
1/ balanced armies will become attractive again
2/ you might want to bet on one extreme to beat a balanced army, taking some risk.
Maybe it will converge toward balanced army, and we will see a lot of those. But, IMO a battle between two balanced armies, with different kind of unit, and match up issue and all that, is somehow more interesting than two lines of sword figthing each other to death. There is a variety of army and a variety in army...
Louis,
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
08-23-2003, 17:28
Quote[/b] (CBR @ Aug. 23 2003,12:19)]
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Aug. 23 2003,17:12)]He put all his horse in single file (column) and ran right through my pavs and halberds and chiv men at arms and 2 chiv knight units.
And I dont see spears mentioned?
CBR
Halberds = polearm = same function as spear (anticav) with some risk on initial charge (charge bonus not nullified).
Or am I overloooking something CBR?
Louis,
Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ Aug. 23 2003,18:28)]Halberds = polearm = same function as spear (anticav) with some risk on initial charge (charge bonus not nullified).
Or am I overloooking something CBR?
No not same function at all. They are better at killing cavalry than spears are.
Spears to stop enemy cav charge (nullify charge) and lots of defense to stay alive while fighting/keeping cavalry away. Secondary role as a defensive line that can hold some time against enemy shock foot (just not when in disordered line..then it can quickly fall apart)
The polearms are meant more for offensive work but really not good in first line to recieve cavalry charge. (if you do, you better use hold formation and not in a wide line) And some of the better ones can kill weak spears and they will generally kill spears in woods. Standard anticav method would be to have something to recieve/hold the cav so they can charge in and get some kills.
CBR
Kraellin
08-23-2003, 18:24
yup. good to see yer ugly mug too, elm :) ok, you asked for it.
first things first. throw out the current multi interface. why is one third or better of this thing done in background animation? what we want is info. enlarge the info portion of the interface to full screen and dump all that background stuff. i want to know who is hosting, what the game is, what the parameters of the game are, who is already joined, what the map is, info about the map, player ratings (if these were used), a bigger chat area with expandable window, chat option buttons listed like #ignore and so on, multiple chat windows if wanted, expected weather for the game, florins for the game, all the game parameters (maybe in a mouse rollover option), and so on.
i want multiple rooms back. these were quite handy in stw/we/mi. gamespy has this capability as part of its arcade system, but i want it for in the foyer as well. they shld be lockable, password-able, kickable, and able to host games from there. sometimes you just dont want the hubbub of the main room.
fix the bloody features of the existing foyer. that's just annoying. come back from a game and have to re-log? silly. cant keep folks selected in a chat. silly.
the entire concept of the multi game is different from the single game. multi is strictly tactical. it's a scenario game. so, make it a scenario game. sure, we'd love a multiplayer campaign game, but the current game is a scenario game, so let's expand that.
the host shld be able to set ALL the parameters for a scenario if he wants to. that means setting the money for not only each team but each player, or giving the option of each team 'captain' the ability to set money for each of his teammates.
and since i've mentioned 'captain', there shld be at least one 'captain' slot for each team, if desired. he's the main general, the field marshall, the main honcho. he's running the overall army. now, you dont have to use this 'captain' if you dont want it, but it shld be available. the captain can not only dole out money to his other generals, but he could also even pick their armies or leave it up to them. i mean, let's model this thing after feudal realities if desired.
now, the host sets all that stuff up to begin with. he might not want a 'captain' option, so fine, he can set it how he wants it. and these options all get listed out in the foyer so everyone can tell what the game is.
now, i recall one fellow back in stw days that was trying to re-create certain battles but it was almost impossible to do with how the game worked. that shld change. there's a lot of history buffs around here and i frankly think we shld pander to them a bit. it shld be possible, through game options, to at least set up the parameters for a given historic battle. this or that army had this or that many men and these types of units and it occurred on this type of map in this type of weather. that shld be possible. expanding the game options would go a long way to allowing this.
the host shld be able to set what factions are available to play in a game. as a subset of this, he shld be able to set what units are available or not within that faction. some folks hated guns in stw/we/mi. it shld be possible to play without them, or any unit type. or, he shld be able to limit how many of any given type of unit are available, if that's what he wants. this totally arbitrary thing of if you have more than 4 units of one type costs more is just plain goofy. sorry CA, but it is. i'm a feudal lord and 4 horse units costs me x amount per unit, but 5 changes the cost? sorry, i hate arbitraries for the most part.
now, whenever you see arbitraries like that, it usually means that someone was 'fixing' another problem by adding the arbitrary, and that is what the case is here. it's basically an unusual solution because something else is fundamentally wrong but they dont fix that fundamental. and this goes to the heart of the matter. it used to drive me crazy in stw that 'morale' translated into skill on the battlefield and that's just not the case. morale is simply your willingness to stay or not. that's all it is. it shld NEVER be tied in with skill and ability to fight. one might be more willing to stay and fight if one is more skilled, but by making them the same thing in the game you've done yourself in. just because one is more willing to stay doesnt mean he's going to skillfully kill anything more, it only means you're willing to stay and risk your life further and at least try and kill something else. the game confuses this in the stats and morale translates into skill.
so, when you 'buy honor or valor' you end up buying skill. that's wrong. if you're going to allow buying of attributes, then you MUST spell out what you're buying. that was what was wrong with the super ashigaru units. a bunch of peasants might well be willing to stay on the field and fight, but they're still going to get creamed by a well trained fighting unit that might well have a lower morale. you see? now, it would prolly be true that if that same well trained unit fought another well trained unit, that the first one with the lower morale is going to rout, but it's not true that high morale peasants are going to suddenly beat a well trained no-dachi unit. just plain silly.
and that IS one of the fundamental things wrong with the game. and it IS one of the reasons why we now have this arbitrary thing of only buying 4 of one type of unit. and it IS one of the reasons why gun units got hated so much in stw/we/mi. i'm sure it also exists for some of the mtw/vi units and games as well.
next, a horse is not a horse is not a horse. a man is not a man is not a man. i mean simply by that, that all horses and not the same as all horses. all men are not the same as all men. all armor is not the same as all armor. if we're going to be allowed to upgrade things, then upgrade based on this fact. one could go out and buy old nags and stick highly trained cav guys on the horses, but guess what, your chances of winning are gonna go down quite a bit. buy some old rusty, poorly made armor that you can barely move around in, and again, you'd be better off throwing it away. if you're going to allow upgrades and tweaking of units, which i do think is a good idea, then do it with some sense. better armor is better armor, it's not better skill or better morale and the cost certainly shldnt be dependent on the unit wearing it, which is how it is now. it just gives you a little more defensive capability or mobility. these costs are fixed costs. iron armor of this quality costs x amount. a better quality costs more. keep it simple.
the same is also true of swords. a better sword is just that, a better sword. it costs x amount regardless of who is using it. it doesnt impart any skill to its user. it's a sword. it might break less, or be better balanced or weigh a bit less, but the sword doesnt impart any morale or skill. what it does do, is reduce the lack of skill a bit, compensate for this, so yes, you can translate that into 'increased skill with a sword' a bit.
and that brings me to the next point. the stat numbers are way too low. by using numbers like 1, 2, 3, etc, you are multiplying the percentage rates and thus the overall effect that each stat increase or decrease brings. this is simple to see. if i increase a stat of 1 by 1, i've doubled the effectiveness of this stat. if i increase 50 by 1, it's whole different game. so, you argue then that well, 50 would be way too much for say hit points, but there's no reason why a 'hit' cant reduce the 50 by 40 or even 50. and that's just hit points. apply this to all of the stats and then apply this to buying stat increases and the game isnt nearly so lopsided when it comes to stat increases at times. if a stat is at 50 and your stat buying buys only 5 more to that stat, then you dont suddenly get a 2 becoming a 4 or a 6, which is double or triple the original. morale is done the same way. say you start with 48 morale and buy an upgrade. if the upgrade is only 4 points, this isnt a major increase, just a tweak. now, before you go nuts and say 48 morale is just plain stupid, realize that i am figuring for the morale and routing routines to be adjusted accordingly.
also, stay away from negative stat numbers. by making your stats larger numbers, you never need to use negatives, or shldnt. this keeps you away from the nasty bugs that can sometimes crop up with negatives and zeros.
now, if you put all this stuff together, and study it, you'll find in there a much more workable and enjoyable game. the history buffs can re-create that oh so significant battle of the cows where one guy slipped on a cow flop and the battle was lost, and the wannabes can create their ideal armies, and the clans can function as real clans more easily.
and again, that brings me to the next point. change the bloody deployment routines and change the bloody attacker/defender thing. there's nothing particularly wrong with having an attacker and defender, but it shld be an option. whoever said change this to red team/blue team is right, as long as it's an option for the game parameters. sometimes two armies just collide into each other while moving place to place. one isnt necessarily the aggressor nor one the defender. they just simply met and decided to have a little fun. at other times, someone is indeed attacking someone else's territory and one would be the attacker and defender.
now, if you are playing attacker/defender, then the defender shld get his choice of ANYWHERE on the map to set up. anywhere. it's his turf. you then simply allow the attackers to set up anywhere else, or to even come in from off the map at their choice. the defender sets first, then the attacker chooses his entry point or multiple entry points if desired. very simple.
if it's nobody is attacker or defender then divide the map in half for deployment and allow all team members to set up as they wish, where they wish on that side of the map. you might even allow the deployment options as part of the host options. team A can have this half of the map, and team B gets this half, and you could even pick horizontal divisions or vertical divisions for the halves. then just assign each team to a half.
ok, that's enough for now. we've hashed a lot of this stuff before and i wont even go into the ai options at this point for a multi game, but know they could be done.
good seein ya again, elm :)
K.
ElmarkOFear
08-24-2003, 02:14
Kraellin: Great post lots of good ideas. Can we summarize them into a list of some sort? It would increase the likelihood of CA reading them. Glad to see ya. Come back and play some VI with us. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
CBR: Actually my cav stopped Ali cav then i sent in the halbs, but with his cav in single file, My halbs were confused and did not attack the head of his horses but the tail end, which means the front of his column had my flank and there was nothing i could do about it. A crazy game. hehe
The more I play at 5k, the easier it is to concentrate on the base stats problems since the units are not upgraded much. After looking carefully in these games and watching the Yuuki replay he sent me (Thanks Yuuk), the basic cav stats may not be the problem, the problem is how the cav can be used and all the bonuses they receive. The swipe, the single column, the wide loose formations, all create a big disadvantage in the (cav vs. spear) battles. If cav was made to where these strange formations, uses, are eliminated, then I think it would work more to even MY satisfaction. Another thought on the cav debate is: It seems the stats focus mainly on the horse and not its rider. The knights on these horses are heavily armored, and thus their fighting effectiveness due to fatigue should be reduced more than it is. Those lances should feel extremely heavy after the Knights have been using them. I say keep the speed of the horse unit as is, but reduce the fighting effectiveness (due to knight fatigue) as the game progresses. One way to due this (for horse units only), would be to separate the speed factor of the horse from the fatigue of the rider. This way the unit as a whole would still be able to move at its current speed, given a separate fatigue factor for the horse, yet as the unit gained kills and exerted itself in battle, its fighting ability would be reduced by the separate fatigue factor of its rider.
I am not sure I have explained this idea, in a way that anyone could understand, but ask me questions about it and I will try to explain. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] (CBR @ Aug. 19 2003,13:41)]I wouldnt mind that we had more than just the standard last man standing games and making custom/historical battles available for MP would be great. Then you could make a scenario for people to download...
...And of course making mods easier to use without some silly statswapping. A mod has to offer something for people to download it so we will never see loads of them anyway.
CBR
I like the scenario idea,
lets hope that gets more "air" time, and perhaps CA will take notice,
Also I know the failure of the -reload command has been noted by CA, now we just have to hope they make that one of the bits and bobs for the patch...
---
and if i read the rest of the thread right then many more people are now playing 5K games?
In my humble opinion that is a very good thing, players definately have to be more on the ball with supporting their front lines and protecting flanks in 5K, and there are less "supercharged" units too,
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Now of course we dont know if the swipe bug will be fixed in the patch but I do think that if its fixed it will change more than we might realise.
It will reduce the power of cav a bit and will make routing units less dangerous when standing in their way.
If the sudden losses that units get from swiping (and I think there is a lot of unintentional swiping) is gone, then we will see less routing from the "random" front/flank hit.
They do give bigger morale impact on the enemy but for the "just send cav in the rear and enemy will run" effect Im still inclined to say that its a matter of protecting flanks better and use more depth in your formation (multiple lines)
In 15k I see lots of people use one line of infantry and to me that is an all or nothing formation. If anything goes wrong with your flank cover you are history. But it doesnt really work like that in 15k and most people are used to that.
The cav fatigue thing...well yes could be nice I guess. Just too detailed IMO... one more thing to keep and eye on?
CBR
Skomatth
08-24-2003, 16:49
I've also noticed at 5k I've never lost to a player worse than me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Unlike 15k http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Very nice post by Kraellin. He went all out on that and im sure he is loaded with more ideas.
Now all we need is someone to do what elmo said "summarize them in a list of some sort". Could also add all the ideas suggested by others too and rate them on a scale 1 to 10. 1 being the lowest as in the idea isn't really needed and 10 being the highest as in it's really needed and could make the multiplayer much better.
ElmarkOFear
08-25-2003, 02:53
I have separated the sticky post at the .com RTW forum into 2 separate discussions. One for new and SP players and for stability, ease of use, discussions. The other is for you guys mostly. It is for discussion of all things related to MP. It is made for in-depth discussion of ways to balance the next game in the series, features we want most to see in RTW, bugs in the game engine (which will more than likely transfer to the RTW game.) and any other items you would like to discuss. I have heard it thru the grapevine, the developers and CA are following these discussions and was encouraged to separate the discussion at the .com into 2 threads to further breakdown items of concern. Please go there and comment.
PS. If someone would please gather the ideas presented here and post them at the proper .com sticky thread it would be much appreciated. \
Thanks guys.
that was a nice post Krae.. a long one too.. I hope someone from CA actually does read through it, because it took me 4 attempts before I willed myself to start reading it ;p
Swoosh So
08-29-2003, 17:34
I feel that the main multi player improvement in the game would be a better balance to the units and armies, (nostalgic mode) When i started playing shogun i found (imo) a perfectly balanced mp game, it was fantastic. Now mtw (imo) is not a balanced mp game and has far too many units and unbalanced nations. I hope that in rome totalwar there will be less units with more detail and balance given to the units. Rock paper scissors its the only combination i feel that works in shogun, when you get units that are "rock and paper" it kind of messes things up I also strongly feel that unit upgrades (armour and weapons) should be left out of the multi player game, as they makes battles a guessing game because if you do not know the power of a unit how can you apply a meaningful strategy on the battlefield against it, At least honor/valor is shown with small flags, with weapons/armour its a guessing game, random luck and nonsence.
Just some of my views ill share more soon
Swooooooooooooooooooosh
Ps: Whos going to give an peasant a gold diamond encrusted sword? The mere thought of peasants with great weapons is laughable Only nobility can afford such weapons and peasant and regular units should no be allowed to upgrade beyond a certain level Same goes for armour too Although id be completely happy with standard units and stats that were not upgradeable at all
Swoooooooooooosh
Swoosh So
08-29-2003, 17:37
I was also thinking why not have a realism mode for mp battles where you could only select a certain number of units of any type (not 4 then price hikes up) but like combat mission where you can only spend so many points on certain areas of the army. like 15000 koku game you can only spend 25% on hcav or units selected as nobility or something similar. And what about options to select ready made armies that reflect armies of the period?
Id also like to see options to save army selections and also group setups and formations
ElmarkOFear
08-30-2003, 01:56
I wonder if a new way of spending money or points would be an interesting way of "buying" your armies upgrades? For example: Using something Yuuki mentioned earlier about army bonuses being tied to the general unit and the vice & virtues from the game, we could construct our armies by:
1. Selecting the units from our faction's list of available.
2. Choosing a general unit.
3. Then choosing a few vice & virtues to be attached to this general unit. (Ex. Great defender = +1 to morale when defending a position, (not moving)) or any other ones you can come up with which would have a specific effect on the battlefield.
4. As long as the general unit is not dead or routing, the bonuses would apply. As soon as the general unit is dead or routing then those bonuses are lost.
5. Also, the general unit could provide a boost to nearby troops (such as +1 to morale) when the general is in the area. The good thing about this is if one of your units is on the verge of routing, you could send your general unit nearby, boosting the morale of the unit and encouraging it to hold. You would have to give the general unit a fairly large morale, so that if that unit does break, you will not lose your general in a chain rout effect.
What these changes do, is make the general unit more important in battle and defending yours or attacking the enemies generals very valid tactics in MP.
This would eliminate upgrading of weapons and armour and valour for individual units, preventing the uber units you see now. It also makes balancing, and the rock, paper, scissors, effect less complicated to change, since you no longer have to worry about how changes to a unit will effect different money levels.
It also is a unique way of upgrading, not seen before in an MP game, which could be a good selling point. It is also a tie-in with the single player game, which makes the choice of armies easier and faster, thus increasing the chance of many SP players converting to the MP game.
You could even allow 4 generals/commanders per army, (You will have 20 units available in RTW MP), each with their own vice & virtue. The way you grouped your generals with the units would determine what units received what bonus. So units that you want as attackers would have a commander with, for example, a Great Attacker virtue giving +1 to each unit's attack stat, under his command.
Furthermore, you could allow a certain amount of "points" to be allocated for different-valued virtues. A virtue, which would give +2 to attack, would cost more points then one which gave +1 to attack. If you buy a bigger valued virtue for one commander, you could only afford a lesser valued virtue for the others.
This type of global system of upgrading actually has a lot of complexity to it, but is simple for the new player to understand. More so, than looking at a unit's stats and figuring out how a +2 to valour upgrade adds a +1 to wep, +1 to arm and adding them to the base stats for that unit.
Do you think this would be too far a deviation from what we have now for the MP community and new players to accept as a part of MP?
PS. This also makes modding the game simpler, because you dont have to adjust stats to reflect a certain money level to keep it in balance. The money level would be non-existant.
Kraellin
08-30-2003, 02:36
thanks guys, but if you think i'm coallating that mess, forget it ;)
tootee,
dont worry about, i cant stand to read my posts either ;)
swooshers has a valid point about high level armor and weapon upgrades to lesser units like peasants.
and yes, elmo, i like your idea. part of what we were arguing for a long time ago was to make weapon and armor upgrades a fixed cost to eliminate this nonsense of differing ratios of effectiveness when the florin values changed for a game. a sword is a sword. it doesnt cost more because it's in the hands of a peasant or in the hands of a noble. same with armor.
i dont mind having morale upgrades as a purchase as long as you dont tie it to anything but routing. otherwise you confuse the issue and things get skewed. i'd also like to see skill upgrades. a good balanced sword can make a novice a bit better, but training that novice can and shld do even more for him than the better weapon.
ah well, i'm re-stating myself now. time for a senility nap.
K.
ElmarkOFear
08-30-2003, 03:14
No need to worry Kraellin, I copy pasted your long post here, at the .com forum, in the MP section. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
That is the beauty of the general's virtue being the basis for upgrades. If the general had a Great Swordsman virtue than any swordsmen in his group would have that upgrade until the general was killed or routed. There is a lot to be worked out, but I wonder if it would take care of a lot of the current problems we are having with uber units?
Kraellin
08-30-2003, 18:31
elmo,
yes, that's been my point all along. until you fix the things that are screwing up the ratios to the different florin levels, arguing about the stats is just plain p*ssing in the wind.
K.
ElmarkOFear
08-30-2003, 21:11
Hey Kraellin, how bout sending me an email at el-marko@insightbb.com so we can get together and discuss our ideas for RTW. Glad to hear from ya. Elmo
Quote[/b] (Kraellin @ Aug. 23 2003,12:24)]the same is also true of swords. a better sword is just that, a better sword. it costs x amount regardless of who is using it. it doesnt impart any skill to its user. it's a sword. it might break less, or be better balanced or weigh a bit less, but the sword doesnt impart any morale or skill. what it does do, is reduce the lack of skill a bit, compensate for this, so yes, you can translate that into 'increased skill with a sword' a bit.
Konnichiwa,
I agree with that statement and I also don't. A better balanced sword will allow an expert to fight significantly better, while it's just something to hold tigh for a peasant.
So, it 'should' cost the same, but it depends on the unit how much extra combat it adds. This is exactely the opposite of what's done now: upgrades become more expensive for the more expensive units, this one states that upgrades should be cheaper for expensive units (same price but more benefit).
This would quickly render the cheap units obsolete. Upgrade classes are a way to prevent this: cheap archers becoming better shooters, spears better in stopping cavalry.
I guess that you'ld run into other problems: what if there are two different swordunits? It doesn't pay to upgrade the cheaper one, would it pay to buy the cheap unit at all?
has anybody mentioned the problem that the foyers between VI in gamespy and through the games own interface are not linked up properly .. let alone MTW and VI linked up, surely this is a major problem that deters ppl without them even knowing there is a problem there. its almost like a hunt to find the secret world of mp twers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
i posted about it hope it in the right place http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.