Swords beating cav at 15k in VI 2.0

[Puzz3D]

Ran some online tests last night of cav frontally charging swords in mtw/vi 2.0 on flat ground. Using a v1w1 ck 20x2 (1526) vs v3 cmaa 15x4 (1229) head-to-head charge the cmaa wins every time. In mtw v1.1, the cav would win this matchup, but removal of the battlefield upgrade prevents the cav from getting the +1 valor point it would usually get during the melee. This may be why we are seeing the surge of sword based armies in mtw/vi 2.0 at 15k.

The cav/sword balance might be different in mtw/vi 2.0 5k games with v0 fk (425) vs v1 cmaa (425), but I havent tested this yet. The cav would have a better chance of routing the sword during the charge or soon after at the lower morale of 5k. It's clearly stated in the Strategy Guide on page 80 that swordsmen have little hope of defeating mounted knights. So, it is the intent that mounted knights beat swords, and they probably do at equal valor. I would say the game is intended to be played at equal valor, and the way MP players currently use the florins with uneven upgrades upsets the designed balance between troop types.

[Kongamato]

At 15k, the game is slowly becoming a contest in out-Byzzing your opponent. Going lower than 15k might solve a few problems.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I did run some test with FF Manticore a few weeks ago...

Sword (MS, FMAA, CMAA...) won it all at equal fl if unit is full and fresh with upgrade we see at 15k (ie unbalanced), or with equal amount of fl spent for both cav and sword.

Now, if both units are very tired and half strenght, cav will have a chance due to sword being closer to the routing threshold, and sword being way more vulnerable to rout that cav (with charge, and different morale penalty).

But initial engagement is truly a byzzing contest, as Konga puts it...

Louis,

[tootee]

Well my tests show templar knight v1w1 vs CMAA v3 although lost everytime to cmaa in a head-on fight, I would say they are in fact evenly matched.. the cav killed more per pax.. on average when cav down to 1/2 size, the cmaa also down to 1/2 size. It was when they where outnumber 2:1, at around 10 cav to 20 cmaa, that cav will lose and rout easily. IMO its still fair at 15k, cav isnt underpowered or defintely not useless. The foot isnt overpowering the cav, just outsized. But cav more than compensate by being mobile.. so they are worth the money.. so between these 3 foot and cav, still fair and square. You just dont let the cav stay there for the attrition war.. let cav charge, inflict max damage during charge phase, foot unit follow-up, pull cav out and flank, is one suitable use of them.


CMAA, MS and FMAA now more value for money at 15k? I would say yes against the spears and pole-arms. MS v4 can replace billman, halbert or cfk in stopping heavy armour knigts on the flanks (head-on, no swipe), but mostly lose to equal florins light armour cav like mounted sgt or polish retainer.

Spears are useless? IMO, nope. It just that now they can't kill and rout enemy, and runaway easily at 15k games http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif But use them tightly packed and set hold ground hold formation.. they can hold up enemy for long time.. enough to serve their tactical function.. if you know how to use them for their strength that is. So their function is not about killing but playing for time.. time for cav to flank.. time for missiles to decimate.

Historically accurate? I'm no history expert, but probably no.. but 15K is still good fun to play, I wouldnt comment for 1v1 as I play little, but big games are.

[Puzz3D]

tootee,

I think the sword problem at 15k manifests itself in the basic 8 sword, no spear army when it advances in a 4v4 battle on the small and medium maps. You are often in a direct frontal confrontation with little room to maneuver. The mobility of cav can't be used, and neither spears, cav or ranged will stop the swords. I usually use spear in 4 or 5 deep formation, but I'll try using them in deeper form and see how it works.

[shingenmitch2]

Totee, problem is that they aren't supposed to be near even. A good game has fairly clear scissors/ paper/ rocks. Cav beats swords, swords beats spears, spears beat cav. M:TW has real problems with this formula and it is further complicated by "anti-armor" units like Mil. Sgts.

I've often stated that for Multiplayer, CA needs to throw out the Florin based system and do the following:

1. Fighting strength (NOT Morale) is standardized for all units. i.e Valor 2.
2. Slider for total units host wants each army to be able to pick. 1-16.
3. Slider for maximum number of duplicate units. 1-16
4. Separate out morale from fighting ability and create a slider for morale effect. (perhaps Morale -4 to +10?) so players can get the "feel" they want for units standing and fighting.

I believe this would solve the stupid problems that Valor/Morale linking and Weap/ Arm upgrades ALWAYS create as peeps get creative with their purchasing. The only thing that happens when we try to patch stats or make other game mechanic tweaks is that we create new imbalances that take time for peeps to figure out-- but eventually they always do.

Until this happens, every patch/ugrade or stat tweek will always have unintended consequnces.

[tgi01]

yes the observations above are quite accurate ...

Problem is is that ppl are using weaker cav so they can afford stronger inf so val3 cmaa , val 4 fmaa and val 4 mili searg are standard and you will see armies with up to 8-10 of these .... and with the higher morale they will stand usually when on hold hold even when flanked , and slowly the larger unit size will prevail ....

A good cav unit will suaully win at the beginning of the game but as the cav tires they have less and less chance of winning ... and as ther is no valour gain anymore ... small cav units are not very useful in an end battle ..

Ppl using these armies dont have to rely on any kind of skill as these armies work on standard h2h rush ... so you will see all the mediocre players showing , up with this and only a couple of archers / and then the rush comes without even trying to bother to flank ...

Yes the way these armies are played is very much like a byz army with the addition of strong cavalry which the byz do not have .... this is making the game very very boring, there is basically no point in entering a no rules high game...

I moved almost 100 % to early and host a lot of max2 games which still work ...


regards


TGI

[Skomatth]

*Agrees with Mitch

It's a wonder cav swiping is used so much. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif It the only way you can kill swords.

[Cheetah]

Ladies and Gentlemen http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif if you are not happy with the "uber" swords, then why dont you play 15k with "max v3 no upgrades" for sword/axe, or even "max v2w1" for sword/axe units? Or perhaps 12k with max v2 for sword/axe.

[ElmarkOFear]

Looking at the reason cav may be so powerful in mass numbers (6 to 8) I have come to a conclusion. The cav unit has circumvented the "more than 4 unit" penalties. Several christian factions, have a selection of several similar knight units. These "like" units make it possible to get around the penalty and have the same strength, whereas you do not see this necessarily with the sword (except for the factions that have MAA and CMAA available). If we made the +4 penalty not on a unit-per-unit basis, but on a unit type basis, you would see less use of the all powerful sword unit armies and the all powerful cav armies. The breakdown could be something such as (Heavy cav, Light cav, archer cav, sword units, halberd units, spear units, arrow units, gunpowder units) or somthing similar. This would also get rid of the problem some have with longbows since they would cost more if the same player got pav crossbow with them.

Personally I do not like limits put on army selection by the game, but it may be the only solution available since limits, penalties and the power sword/cav armies seem here to stay.

MITCH: I have stated before that removing the weapon and armor upgrade from the valour (morale) upgrade would be a good thing and allow you more options in how you set your army up. Not sure if your morale slider is workable though since knight units are supposed to have higher morale than any other units. If this slider worked off a percentage of base morale, instead of the same base morale for every unit, it might work well.

I have been playing a few 5k games, but have not delved into the unit vs unit comparison at this level. I have noticed more multiple army chain routing in 5k games, where when one friendly army routs it takes any nearby friendly teammate's army with it (Especially if it is a mostly spear army that has low to middle morale to start with).

[tootee]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Aug. 26 2003,23:34)]tootee,

I think the sword problem at 15k manifests itself in the basic 8 sword, no spear army when it advances in a 4v4 battle on the small and medium maps. You are often in a direct frontal confrontation with little room to maneuver. The mobility of cav can't be used, and neither spears, cav or ranged will stop the swords. I usually use spear in 4 or 5 deep formation, but I'll try using them in deeper form and see how it works.
Yuuki:
I'm not too sure about this. For all such games I had, I seldom see army with 8 swords, except against clans, not even to say to have all 4 pick-up opponents bringing 8-swords armies and rush together. If they don't rush together, I dont see how much difficult it is to quickly combo with cav from allies on the one rushing, compared to big map battles.

The usual numbers I see is around 6 good sword/axe in cmaa v3, ms v4 or fmaa v4. Yes spear is under-used I agree. But to say that that cav mobility cant be used for such maps is totally baseless.. it is the timing of the strike and the tactic to handle foot heavy army.

Mitch:
I have no arguement as to cav shouldnt even be on par with sword, like I've said. But IMO even if this isnt realistic, gameplay at 15k isnt sacrificed. As to your suggestion, wouldnt it even be simpler to just implement

1. Just 3 main melee units available: sword, spear, cav
2. A florins per hitpoint
3. B florins per attack point
4. C florins per defence point
5. D florins per charge point
6. E florins per armour point
7. F florins per morale point
7. G florins per speed above infantry speed
8. sword get +1 attack vs spear
9. spear get +1 attack vs cav
10. cav get +1 attack vs sword

We dont even need to name the types.. all are free to custom pick their sword/spear/cav. A perfectly fair system.
But I wouldn't play this game.

[BomilkarDate]

In original MTW heavy cav was too strong and mass routs, even under frontal attack were really annoying. Thats why the community moved to 15k per player short time before VI came out.

With increased morale the community searched for a new standard and after a short testing phase the biggest part of the community decided to stay at 15k.

At 15k the biggest imbalance is that swords get overpowered, but still it is not as bad. Cav might be weak compared to swords but cav still got speed, high morale and a powerful charge. This leads to cav getting used in another way as it was used before. Now you use cav vs enemy cav, to search for holes in the enemy line, to run around his line and flank or rear him. This is clearly an improvement to pre VI gameplay where you just had to frontally charge the enemy with 8 heavy cavs.

Cav still can beat light infantry in a frontal charge and even high valor light swords. But cav cannot frontally charge and beat heavily armoured professional swordsmen. This is historically accurate and does not do much harm to the gameplay.

Pavs and swiping do much more damage to this game than the swords. You dont see so many 8 sword armies online as one might think, spears are underused, but they are still there, personally I always got at least 2 spears with me. They are not as strong as Yari Samurai in Shogun, but they can do a great job in pinning the enemy and give you opportunities to flank. You can counter the low morale by keeping a second line, a reserve unit to help the spears when the pressure gets too big.

My high and late standard armies have 4 swords, 4 heavy cav, 1 light cav, 1 cav arch, 2 spears, 3 missiles and one foot knight or light sword unit.

You can see many similar compositions online and I think, the gameplay in VI is better than at any time in MTW.

RUHM und EHRE

ELITEofBomilkar

[shingenmitch2]

Hi Elmo http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I totally agree with your point about peeps circumventing the 4 max cost/penalty by being able to buy similar units or upgrading close units so that u can have essentially 8 of the same unit. Your recommendations make great sense to me. The only thing I'm not sure of is separating out the Halbs from the Swords simply because the Halbs have a way of acting like swords with more anti-cav ability.

In my "morale slider", the idea would be that not all units have the same starting morale value --- i.e. CKnights start at say morale 6 whereas a peasant would be morale 2, but the slider adds or subtracts morale evenly off of that initial stat. (say in 2 morale incriments) +2 morale to both or +4 to both or -2 to both. So that the CK is always better morale-wise than the peasant. But the big benefit is that while you're adjusting the units willingness to stand and fight, you're not messing with its attack & defense stats at the same time.


Tootie --
The problem I have is that with upgrading attack and defense selectively (or even how we do it now) allows one to build units that break the scissors/paper model and I honestly don't think that is a good thing. That places too much emphasis on "clever" buying and in some cases simply winning the game before it starts by picking the right army. This deemphasizes what in my opinion the game is really about -- maneuver and matchup during the battle. It also gives us silly units like the super-ashi of WE/MI and alows for situations where u can't afford a good enough cav to beat a sword cause the florins have to be thrown into some other unit's upgrade.

Bomil --
I haven't seen much of the 8 sword armies myself, (15k High with V4 FMAA), but my understanding is that in coordinated attacks (i.e. good partners) they are almost impossible to stop when they rush. I'd like to play more against them to see how I fare and get a better opinion. Lately I've tried some 5k games, but the lower morale of units seems to enhance morale effects making mindless rushing even more effective... but again I've not played enough to be certain.

I would argue, however that the cav "swipe" is about the only benefit they have when attacking units alone or not on a flank. (As it is cav have a hard time killing Pav X-bows by themselves if not swiping, and as we've been talking about they will lose to upgraded inf -- point being that u can't afford to upgrade the horse much beyond V1, if even that) And the effectiveness of the swipe technique has been substantially reduced in VI -- i.e. you get stuck much more often.

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa,

Upgrades (Valour, Weapon and Armor) are a problem, not because they are there, but because of the way they work.

I agree with the statement that valour shouldn't tie morale and combatskills (though I'm likely a bit 'clouded' here because of the Honor upgrades in STW).

I also agree with Kraellin when he states that a sword is a sword and could improve combatskill a bit, but not double it like sometimes done.

Another (ihmo) huge problem is that upgrades are generic/identical for each unittype. I'm not going to state how Rock/Paper/Scissor the game should be, that's also an individual choice, but it's a bit weird that the game distincts between archers, anti cav units, cavalry and swords, while every unit is upgraded in the same way. Granted, the upgradecosts are helping there but it still isn't right. A cheap basic spearunit could be a good bang for bucks to stop cav, allow cheap upgrades and it would still be a good cavstopper. But due to the generic upgrades it will also turn into a swordunitkiller. Make the upgrades more expensive and it won't kill swords, it also won't be a good anti cav deal (assuming a simple RPS here).

Another clear example are archers. Would you invest $1,000,000 to teach a submarine captain how to land a Raptor? That's what happens in here, archers don't become more accurate, operate a stronger bow or carry more ammo, they become decent HTH fighters. It isn't very costly anymore because of the discount, fair in some cases but not so good in others.

You could extend the stat and define for each unit how it should be upgraded or you could make a few unitclasses. A txt file would be recommended so the users do have some control about this (some like simple others will like complicated).

Just brainstorming:
Cavalry: agility, speed, charge, both the rider and the horse are weapons (so in a simple example both would get +1 attack).
Shooters: accuracy, ammosupply, strengt of bow (-> range, lethality, armorpiercing which also depends on ammo type).
Swords: melee.
Spears: increased anti cav bonus and a bit melee.

There should maybe also be a few slots for combo/special units, though you could say: 'this unit has a bow but is mostly a sword unit or a cavalrist'.

The cavalry discussion turns up every now and then. One claims it's too strong, others say it's weak. I guess both statements are true. They are strong if you know the swipetrick and are able to use it, they are weak if you charge them the 'intended' way (I wasted tons of horses by charging pav arbs, that's also a good example of a negative effect of bow discounts).

A seperate morale slider, like shingenmitch2 also suggest, would be a good thing. What it would do is adjust the routpoint (set it high and units will rout quickly, set it low and routs will be slower). It's not going to do an individual unitbalance (though it could feel better), but it would allow to use a stat and state 'hmm it's fine but units should rout a little bit quicker or stand a bit longer, no need to dive in all the problems of changing the entire stat and hope others will get it, I just change the slider'. I'm in favour of being able to have a large range of values available, though most would probably go for -2 or +2. Morale off is +12 (routpoint decreased by 12), so the host should be able to set it between -12 and +12. Those extreme values may dramatically change the balance, but it's your and your joiners game not anyones elses.

So, the host gets sliders to adjust the feel of a game as a whole (morale, speed, ammo, fatigue, number of upgradelevels allowed -max 0-3, 'rush'tax -i.e. max 1-16 units, assuming 16 will be max), each joiner can buy a bit extra morale for his units (uncoupled from combatskill so just willingness to fight), buy unitspecific upgrades.

It's very possible to get rid of the extras like armorpiercing, formation and beserk modes, elite/peon in MTW (just zero them, turn them off or make all equal). It's impossible to add them in STW (though not true for the latter since STW had sams and ashis).

I hope that RTW will ship with a few sets to please different schools and will offer an extensive and easy means to mod them. That's a lot of work, no doubt. Distribution was always a problem, for whatever valid or not valid reason. A build in statmanager, ease to use alternative stat (host selects one when building the server) and an option to autodownload missing files from the host (most of them won't be so large) will be of great importance for modding (and using). Being pre-loaded with a few sets upon release should be of importance to get the ball rolling. I'm not sure whether it should be perfect when it will be easy to mod, distribute and finetune but it should be fairly good. I guess schools of fans could be of help (pre-release) to produce a couple of working stats ('physically accurate' 'gamey' together with a few others).
Perhaps there should also be something like an official comp mode?

Edit: thanks for mentioning Swoosh. Yes, and I guess you could even allow the hostbuilder to disable certain unittypes and/or factions without touching the statfiles.

[Swoosh So]

Why not have an option to switch off weapon and armor upgrades at the battle setup?

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (BomilkarDate @ Aug. 27 2003,14:34)]Cav still can beat light infantry in a frontal charge and even high valor light swords. But cav cannot frontally charge and beat heavily armoured professional swordsmen. This is historically accurate and does not do much harm to the gameplay.
First of all I dont consider it historical accurate and I do think it hurts gameplay:

Doesnt matter if its v4 fmaa, v3 cmaa or v4 ms. They are really the same standard sword/shock unit in 15k. I dont see much use for light infantry/swords and same with spears. Yes maybe a few spears but I consider it a specialty unit which I dont see used very much.

You dont find many professional swordsmen in history but you do find loads of spearmen. We see lots of polearms, spears and pikes in history but not in 15k. We see spanish sword and buckler men protected by pikes. But ok lets not talk too mcuh about history..main thing is gamesplay.

Lots of units are simply not used or just upgraded to a certain level so they are the same really. 6 or 8 sword armies...doesnt matter much to me really. 4 or 6 cav...mostly same heavy cav. Any differences is just one upgrade...to me its boring and I want more diversity and so far I have found that at 5k.

The morale slider thing. Well I still dont like it. The unit balance will not be the same just because unit stats are the same and morale is the only thing changed.

The game still has to made with a certain morale in mind and there will be difficulties if people suddenly are demanding changes in balance because they play another morale level.

Just look at MTW: people playing at 7-10k but didnt like the overall changes in 1.1 so went up to 15k and now in VI they actually still play at 15k even with +2 morale and no Lancers in high http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif . If the swipe bug is gone with the VI patch will we see people go away from 15k?

We will spend ages trying to find the perfect game with a morale slider and some will complain about balance at the +10 morale while others think it sucks at +2. Yes its free and people can play whatever they want. But still a hell to balance.

Maybe an option of anywhere between 0 and 2-3 valour (range of 4-6 morale) for all units but I dont see the point of having a 12+ difference..its just way too big.

I dont mind upgrades for individual units but valour 4 in MTW is too much. 1 maybe 2. Yes having upgrading archers give them better accuracy/rate of fire whatever...thats nice.

The current 4 max units or they will cost more..well yes I think it just should go away. Yes it would have made Lancer only cav armies even more insane but its not a problem in 5k http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif It will only work for cheaper units anyway and having more then 4 for some units is fine by me.

Thats it for now..Ill put on my flameproof suit http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

CBR

[shingenmitch2]

Hi CB

*pulls out his matches*

The orginal reason (in M:TW and back in the STW days too) that peeps bounced around from 4k to 5k to 10k to 15k to 25k (and everywhere in between) was not about the upgrades for attack/def so much as it was EXACTLY about the morale... how long before units broke. Only when the morale "feel" was settled upon (15k for M:TW)' thats when peeps started concentrating on figuring out the best unit buys and worrying about Atk/Def upgrades (BUT still always with a unit's morale in mind).

I think with a slider that the community would settle upon an "accepted" setting for the slider pretty quickly -- just like they settled upon an accepted Florin/Koku level pretty fast.

Morale needs to be separated out because it becomes extremely difficult (impossible?) to balance unit stats when upgrades affect Attack/Def and Morale simultaneously -- that affects the battle performance of a unit in too many ways. As it stands now, the amount of variation in upgrade that is possible with 15k -- which unfortunately is the amount of $ u need to get units to a solid level of morale play -- is more than enough money for peeps to buy upgrades that destroy units scissor/ paper/rock role.

The cost structure (of the exponentially rising cost of upgrades and 4x penalty) is suppose to impose limits on "buying too many of the same unit" and "not being able to upgrade and break the scissors/paper model." The shrewdness of peeps purchasing has circumvented this supposed safeguard at every turn. That's why that method of selecting units for MP games needs to get tossed out--it just doesn't work propperly.

[Puzz3D]

tootee,

I'm thinking of four 8 sword armies in 4v4 in a coordinated charge, and I've seen plenty of it lately in clan games. On one side is the map edge. You won't be using cav mobility around that flank. On the other flank, yes there is a chance if you can get past the blocking army before the frontal attack up the side breaks through. When I think about what is needed to hold against the advance of a massive attack like that long enough for cav to flank, I come up with swords. So, the game is driven in the direction of both sides using the same unbalanced army type when you can create a frontal confrontation with secure flanks.

[Aelwyn]

I myself use 8 inf units almost all the time now. I get tired of taking a more "fun" army consiting of any spears, and being overpowered by all of the swords (in mostly 4v4 games as Yuuki has stated). I know the issue of Byz Inf has been argued to death, but when I play someone who has a Byz army, I expect that if I outplay them well enough, I should win. In more than one instance, I have gone up against v4 Byz Inf, attacked them front and back (1 v4 Mil Serg in front, 1 v3 FMAA from behind). If my opponent puts the Byz Inf on hold/hold, I have seen the Byz Inf hold out against both units, and even win with about half left. That just doesn't make sense. I wish I had saved the replay so I could show what I'm talking about, and I'm not crazy or just a bad player http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif The game crashed though, so no luck.

Anyways, my point is, at 15k swords definitely do seem overpowered, and basically in a 4v4 on a medium/small map if your opponent picks much better infantry you're going to have trouble.

Morale would be better served seperated from attack/defense stats imo, but something would have to be done to not hide all the stats from view. As it is now, you can't tell what kind of sword/shield upgrades there are, but with the valour flags at least you can have a general idea of what unit you are facing and plan accordingly. I don't think that should disappear into a guessing game, as it would take some tactical dimension away.

Sorry if I didn't explain well enough, girlfriend just got here and is pressuring me to walk out the door. Will explain better later if necessary. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif