View Full Version : CK vs CMAA at different levels
Together with Puzz and CBR, a test was performed.
We took Chiv Knights and charged them into CMAA at various levels for the CMAA.
Well, at V0 the CMAA broke right away at a frontal charge by V0 Chiv Knights. But strangely in Wedge the knights did quite poor and had to beat up the men a little.
At V1 for the CMAA it was a betting game. The CMAA could break like at V0, but if they didn't, they beat up the knights.
At V2 it wasn't even funny, the CMAA beat up the knights rather easily.
But at the same time it was also visible that the knights did from 25-75% of their total damage in the charge against the V2 CMAA. So naturally one can conclude that recharging the swords while the pushback is still in effect (or else losses while pulling back would be too great) would be great. But who has time for that? Personally I have tried it (not really knowing about the pushback so I lost a lot of men while pulling back) a few times and it worked well, but the rest of my army got ripped apart due to my focus on the knights.
So the results had me thinking.
Swords beat spears fairly easily, if not fast, and spears that are much more expensive (CMAA >>> OF). But cavalry has to be lucky to beat cheaper swords and get thrashed by slightly more expensive swords.
To me that means the swords are too cheap. Or the others too expensive (but due to ranged I'm more willing to go for swords too cheap). We simply get much more bang for the buck out of swords than any other type.
Now knights are meant to break swords right away like they did to the V0 CMAA, but that means we would generally play at V0 for all troops and it isn't exactly fun to go about chasing down routing troops everywhere. So mostly that option isn't possible. We want the troops to fight, but then the cav haven't got a chance.
Where am I going? I don't know really, just wanted to let you in on this.
Kongamato
10-25-2003, 05:19
Well, hopefully you'll have a spearwall to protect your swords from the charge... but, if you dont have this, you can always try the last ditch Hold Formation command on the swords. Did you try that? Could the swords hold out longer?
Also, if I read you correctly, the pushback is after the knights hit the MAA, that tiny window where the front row of swords is at incredible weakness. I've noticed that after maintaining high speed for a while, the second row of knights catches up to the first, which, I believe, causes some disorganization and bunch-ups to occur during the initial charge, lowering the number of knights that can get a charge after the first row hits. I think that you need to get to max speed at a short enough distance to have the knights hit while their rows are still spread out from the acceleration to max speed.
I have no real proof to back up anything I said here.
Personally I think the strength of knights is good like this. I haven't tested it but it is said that swords beat spears easily when used at wedge, and I believe that. So I assume swords beat spears easily. But their speed are the same. If cav. beated swords easier than this then the game would not be fun for me. All the noobs charging 10 cav frontally etc... If cav was stronger then it would be an overpowered unit IMO because they are also much faster than the unit you are comparing to, and it is CAV who decides to attack a foot unit (unlike cav vs cav, when cav charges at your cav you have to respond usually, but if a foot unit charges you can always pull back).
Cav's strength is not only pure h2h, they also have speed and manueverability, so this still makes them the most valuable unit. If it wasn't then would all cav armies (or armies with more than usual cav) this strong?
Well all can use cav's h2h power; it is simple double click but can everyone use cav's other strength of speed and manuverability like skilled players use? This simply brings the need of SKILL to the game. The need of skill is at its peak at 15k compared to pre patch VI and MTW.
Quote[/b] (Kanuni @ Oct. 25 2003,06:33)]So I assume swords beat spears easily. But their speed are the same.
So its alright for swords to wipe out spears?. Why do you want spears in the first place, if swords can handle cav from the front anyway?
Quote[/b] ]If cav. beated swords easier than this then the game would not be fun for me. All the noobs charging 10 cav frontally etc...
When someone tries to cav charge me frontally I have anti-cav units. Please show me the anti-sword units when some noob charges me frontally with his 8-10 swords?
Quote[/b] ]and it is CAV who decides to attack a foot unit
In a 1v1 steppe perhaps but terrain and having more than 1 player on each side changes tactics.
Quote[/b] ]Well all can use cav's h2h power; it is simple double click..
Which is pretty much how people use their pumped up sword armies these days..
Quote[/b] ]The need of skill is at its peak at 15k compared to pre patch VI and MTW.
yes it might have improved...but 15k sucked pre patch so that doesnt say much really...
CBR
Orda Khan
10-25-2003, 14:44
Anti sword unit is......swords 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
This game is a mess, it always has been and it won't get any better. I can't remember my last VI game, it ceased to be fun so I rarely bother any more
......Orda
so why not give units penalties vs certain units:
Spears +2 vs cav -2 vs sword
cav +2 vs sword -2 vs spears
sword +2 vs spears -2 vs cav
etc.........
Znake I have thought of that too, but less pronounced, just a +1 attack to cav facing swords, axes and archers (or else hybrids would have a much too easy time). Naturally something more elaborate is needed. And I have also though about making cav 50 men to give them more stayingpower in the melee, as it is now, they run out of men.
But I think the best option was if cav caused a larger moralecheck to swords (and the others execpt spears and polearms). That way the cav could make swords run, but it wouldn't be a routfest like it can be at 5k because only cav could do that. And you could stop it with spears and polearms.
Kanuni, something is wrong when swords that are cheaper than cavalry beat the cavs down to 3-8 men with about 40 to spare. That is total annihilation for the cost of around 20 men. That is simply not right.
Further, yes, cavalry is at its best when charging rear or flanks, but when you can turn the swords to meet them it take a good deal out of it. And remember now if you catch one knight you catch the entire unit (did that last night when a unit of knights managed to get behind my line and was causing all units to waver). Also in larger games cav haven't got the room to run around with the initiative. There is simply arbs/crossbows everywhere and swords where there finally is an opening.
Only complete experts can use cav right now, and since I'm not one such I feel left out a bit. It is not because I'm bad at the game at all, but I can't make cavalry work at such demands.
All unittypes should work at least partially due to their cost.
Besides this I think CBR has presented it all.
Well I am not a number expert in this game like some of you, i rather like playing by the tactics without really studying the numbers. My knowledge is about the best units to choose and experimenting. I am telling this because if you answer me with numbers it doesnt interest me a bit.
My opinion is same as kanuni's. Knights are good as they are. If knights were more powerful they would dominate the field. I want to remind of you that knights are not units of frontal assault. Knights should be used to FLANK not to batter up swords. They are expensive because they have good armour and good morale also very good charge. I can put it in this way for most of you to understand my thoughts.
Knights beat spears dont they? I know they shouldnt but they do and there is nothing to do about it. Imagine knights beating swords too. That would mean that only a few units in the game should be able to counter the knights and that would be a disasterous fact.
Here is another way of expressing my thoughts. In how many battles in the total of history had knights charged the swords or spears frontally, and won? When was it seen that knights were the backbone of the frontal line and swords were used to flank? If your thoughts were to come true, then what i would do would be to charge swords with my knights, block the anticav with my swords while i rout the enemy swords and then flank with other sword units. Tell me please, how would you like that for historical accuracy and gameplay?
Mounted knights do not beat spears frontally at 5k, and all cav armies do not dominate the field. The light cav should have to flank and it does at 5k, but the heavier cav knights shouldn't have to always flank. Historically, cav knights made successful frontal charges on inf. If the best cav doesn't beat swords at 15k, what does? Cav is weaker in vi v2.01 than it was in vi v2.0, so 15k is not still needed just to counterbalance cav and inf. Something else is going on here to continue the preference for 15k. I can see that 5k will not catch on because morale plays a larger role in the tactics than many players want, but 15k practically turns the morale system off when you consider that a morale 10 unit fights to almost the last man. It's just not logical that mtw v1.1, vi v2.0 and vi v2.01 are all played at 15k to counter cav when cav has gotten downward adjustments in each version. VI v2.01 at 8.8k is mtw v1.1 at 15k with weaker cav and less advantage to discounted units.
Quote[/b] (Balamir @ Oct. 26 2003,08:00)]
My opinion is same as kanuni's. Knights are good as they are. If knights were more powerful they would dominate the field. I want to remind of you that knights are not units of frontal assault. Knights should be used to FLANK not to batter up swords. They are expensive because they have good armour and good morale also very good charge. I can put it in this way for most of you to understand my thoughts.
Historicaly, Knights were the ultimate frontal assault units. Every single piece of their equipment is designed for a frontal assault, they were never used for skirmising or flanking action.
Knights beating up swords need not imply that knights would dominate the game. It all depends whether you have a good anti-cav units with good morale. For exapmle, in STW/MI heavy cavalry (HC) could beat up nodachi at ease yet one could rarely see HC heavy armies, in contrats, 4 or 5 or even more nodachi was quite common. Why? Because in STW/MI there were good anti-cav units. Spears could handle HC with ease (well, depending on their honour upgrade of course), spears had good morale, one could always count on them, and spears even put up a good fight vs nodachi or monks. Well, there was spear that break the RPS: the pumped up ashi, this unit could even beat nodachi and monk. Obviously, this made HC even more rare. However, even in games without the super-ashi HC were rare, max 1 or 2 units per armies. The most frequent cavs were the naginata cavs (NC), which were less efficient vs nodachi in h2h fighting but were much faster than HC. Not surprisingly NC were mostly used for flanking and hitting musket lines and rarely for head-on assaults.
All in all, the fact that a heavy cav can beat swords head-on need not imply the battlefield dominance of that cav unit. It depends very much on other unit types. Moreover, it is possible to have a balance were your HC can beat swords with ease, yet you wont see HC heavy cav rush armies.
The Wizard
10-26-2003, 20:58
But does this allow me to conclude that spear units can be abolished? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I agree with Kraxis in that swords have too many men remaining after winning a battle with Knights. Spears should beat cavs, but lose to swords. Swords should beat spears, but lose to cavs. That isn't to say that this should happen in every situation. That isn't to say that spears are completely worthless, I was just in a game a while back where Amp used 8 spears (with two people of course, he controlled 2 of the 3 on his side) so a total of 16 spear units, and won. Both his men did not have very good ratio's, but they still won. So, basically if you take things to an extreme, it can always seem like a unit is over or underpowered. But, that having been said, it does seem like swords win far too often, to the point where if your opponent has a few spears, he usually seems to be the target of the opening assault.
I had more to say, got a phone call and lost track of it though.
Brutal DLX
10-27-2003, 11:17
As I stated before, the stats have been designed for equal valour I think. I also think you will find V3 Knights kill v3 CMAA. But of course, how many v3 Knights can you afford?
The upgrade costs don't match. Also while knights were used as frontal assault units (if the enemy didn't field massive numbers of spears or pikes), you have to consider the unit size mismatches. There are just 40 Knights, not 60. In reality units weren't fixed in size like that. Knights of that time weren't stupid (for the most part http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif) and would estimate their chances of success before they actually decided to engage.
Many changes would have to be made to get the game to a level where most can agree.
For the time being, I really think it helps to set rules.
It shouldn't be a problem for matches between dedicated players of this game. Perhaps a v2 limit for CMAA at 15k would be a good start.
At lower florins, Knights are stronger and it may pay off to have v1 Knights even there.
At higher florins, if you know the opponent will be using swords armies, it could pay to buy some spears and buy 8 cavalry and envelope the opponent with that force. You just have to be creative if you don't want the same sword vs sword duels all the time. And when you know you can't afford to fight melee between knights and swords at 15k, then by god either don't pick too many cavalry or start using them better, as Kanuni stated.
Quote[/b] (Balamir @ Oct. 26 2003,15:00)]In how many battles in the total of history had knights charged the swords or spears frontally, and won?
Knights have done that a lot more times than we have seen medieval armies filled with sword armed infantry.
Depending on what army and what time we do see heavy cavalry as the main assault force standing in the center. If there were lots of infantry then we see the heavy cavalry on the flanks.
Sometimes infantry (must have been cheap and low quality) was used in the center as a way to slow down a charge from enemy knights. While they were busy chewing up the center, cavalry was then sent in from the flanks to attack the knights. But a lot depended on quality and quantity of the different units being used and what the enemy had.
You could tell me what you want out of MTW. Are you after a historical game or just a game?
As it seems you want history it must be annoying to see so many sword units being used in MTW?
Quote[/b] ]then what i would do would be to charge swords with my knights, block the anticav with my swords while i rout the enemy swords and then flank with other sword units
You know what? That description actually sounds as if more advanced tactics are being used compared to having loads of swords and some cavalry on the flanks.
But yes it could be improved for the historical accuracy..we could start with cutting down on the number of swords..
CBR
the way it is now:
armies of 6+ maa
4-5 knights
3-4 pavs
2 mil sergs/misc
line up your inf as wide as possible, 3 ranks deep. Sit cav on flanks, engage frontal with swords, have a cav skirmish on each flank. Cav flanks swords, swords dont break. one sword unit eventually wins, end of battle.
how it WAS (history)
8+ heavy cav (mounted men at arms and knights)
2-4 pikes (only later)
2-4 swords/bills/other inf
perhaps some bows (if your english, bows were usually left out of most battles untill the longbow)
Cav would charge cav, bav is the center of your line. Swords and other inf would follow behind. Some spare cav might flank
now can you spot the difference?
Theres a bit of a misunderstanding her i think. In medieval, most armies had spears in the center to hold against the knights and swords would back them up. The spears were strong enough to chew any knights that came across charging frontally. That is why i stated knights never used to charge frontally but i made a little mistake by adding "swords" there, and sorry for that.
CBR, what i want of this game is to come as close to history as it can. For this, i think we should stop bragging the knights and focus on spears. If spears were made powerful enough in this game, then we could start talking about knights. But since spears are simply "wiped" out of the multiplayer battlefield, players require themselves new units to fill the gap which normally would be taken by spears. And that is why we have 6 CMAA whilst we ought to have 3 CMAA and 3OFS.
This multiplayer at this moment has so many unproper arrangements that we have to look at the core to solve these. And the core, by my opinion stands in spears. As for the knights, they are ok as they are now I would say. When spears are included we might start feeling that nice rock paper scissors again.
If you are still uncomfortable about swords beating knights, I advise you to try manouvering.
Quote[/b] (Cheetah @ Oct. 26 2003,19:11)]For exapmle, in STW/MI heavy cavalry (HC) could beat up nodachi at ease yet one could rarely see HC heavy armies..
Yes we could look at STW for similarities..
In STW we had the dominance of Warrior Monks (WM). IIRC not even Heavy Cavalry (HC) could kill them. The result was the WM rush armies. WM's were one of the reasons why rules like "max 4" was invented.
In MI WM's were weakened but, even without the super ashigaru and very good guns, the standard Yari Samurai was much like the No-Dachi when upgraded to same cost.
So cavalry always had something to counter it so it and therefore never could dominate.
The spears and polearms in MTW handle cavalry good enough but is having problems against swords and therefore the sword/cav army is better.
And its been like this ever since 1.1 got out. The +2 morale in VI(plus no more Lancers in high era) and the removal of swipe in the VI patch has just increased the power of swords compared to cavalry so we see less cavalry and more swords.
The feared all cav army in 1.1 was helped by the swipe and the fact that no one dared to bring spears and polearms (or just a few) in their standard army, and the large amount of florins that made it possible to buy 16 knight units.
Cavalry will defeat swords in 5k (especially if they can get a clear charge) but that doesnt mean all cav rush armies suddenly dominates the low florin games.
CBR
Quote[/b] (Balamir @ Oct. 26 2003,08:00)]If your thoughts were to come true, then what i would do would be to charge swords with my knights, block the anticav with my swords while i rout the enemy swords and then flank with other sword units.
I know you have answered this Belamir, so bear with me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Well what you have presented is exactly what I want. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif People trying to counter each other with the proper weapon. Because what makes it impossible for your enemy to do the same to you? And then you get a lot of maneuvering and fights where you do small scale fighting in advance of the main fight.
Ahhh if it was just so. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Now people, I might like 5k, but I only like it because I like the moraleproblems at times (hate routfests as much as anybody), but mostly I like it because all units seems have a purpose there. Perhaps it is just because we haven't found the magic formula as in 15k...
In reality I would like better morale but the same setup (which seems hard to do since morale is the issue when it comes to swords vs cav).
Balmir,
Cav doesn't beat spears. Since swords beat spears, the only reason to take spears is if swords loose to cav.
This is how it plays out now at 15k: If you take 4 swords and 4 spears to face 8 swords, you simply loose because you cannot force the enemy cav to engage your spears. Instead, the enemy swords engage your spears, and what do you have to counter their swords? Nothing Ranged units are not strong enough to deter a charge, and only come into play when a charge by the enemy is detered by the basic hth combat power of your army. If you take spears, the basic hth combat power of your army is less than the sword army. You won't outflank the sword attack with with your cav because the enemy cav is there to stop your flank move.
When cav beats swords, you can have the tactical situation where you could counter an 8 sword attack with a combination of swords and cav. The enemy cav then has the option to directly counter that or try to outflank depending on where your spears are positioned. That type of gameplay provides more tactical options that what exists now at 15k, and I think Alrowan described the current gameplay accurately in his post above. Unfortunatly, the current gamplay isn't significantly altered until you get to a fairly low level of morale. Given that most players don't want to play at low morale and low florin games have their own issues of balance, the current gameplay is in no danger of going away.
Quote[/b] (Balamir @ Oct. 27 2003,15:15)]Theres a bit of a misunderstanding her i think. In medieval, most armies had spears in the center to hold against the knights and swords would back them up.
No there is no misunderstanding. The Middleages covers such a long period with so many nations and so much technological and social development that you cant come up with a "standard" medieval army.
Yes if they had many spears (and good enough quality) they would be used in the center.
Cavalry did lose against prepared infantry in lots of battles but it didnt stop them from continuing with the frontal charges (some of that was also because of stupidity and arrogance) and winning too if they could surprise the infantry or if the infantry was low quality, and lots of infantry was like that during the middleages.
That doesnt mean cavalry didnt use maneuver and tried to hit flanks and rear but we see many battles where the defender has his flanks covered by terrain making it impossible for such flank attacks.
The sword (or the cheaper falchion/shortswords) were commonly used as backup weapons, if the soldier could afford it. But you wont see many soldiers using such a weapon as their primary weapon.
In the Renaissance we see the sword and buckler men as part of the pikeblocks (along with men armed halberds two handed swords) IIRC there were some lighter troops used in italian armies in 13th-14th century (warfare there involved a lot of sieges) also with sword and buckler only.
Dismounted knights used their lances (to recieve a cavalry charge) or poleaxes while swords and axes were secondary weapons (especially in later times with much heavier armour used)
Quote[/b] ]what i want of this game is to come as close to history as it can.
Sounds great as I want precisely the same as you.
Quote[/b] ]players require themselves new units to fill the gap which normally would be taken by spears. And that is why we have 6 CMAA whilst we ought to have 3 CMAA and 3OFS.
Which is why I play 5k battles so heavy cavalry kills swords easier while swords normally dont have more upgrades than spears. The result is that spears dont get wiped out as they do at higher florins (although I would still like to see a cost reduction for spears) and a player want spears/polearms more as swords now suddenly have big problems against cavalry.
Quote[/b] ]And the core, by my opinion stands in spears
Yes absolutely correct (and lets not forget polearms) You need to make sure that there is a need for spears while making sure they are not weak like they are now.
So how do we do it? If we want to do something? We can try different florin levels, rules or mod it.
Quote[/b] ]If you are still uncomfortable about swords beating knights, I advise you to try manouvering.
No thanks, I prefer a historical game.
CBR
Well the ideal solution looks like a cost decrease in spears and knights, not lowering the stats of swordsmen if you ask me. Polearms, at the moment i think they are good as they are MSv4 is good against cav. But we were to decrease the cost of knights and make them stronger they will have to be of a much better price too. Specially billmen.
Maybe what should be done is to increase the cost of swords. Anyone ran tests on what v2 CMAA can do against the v1 Chivalric knight?
Ok, got it. I ran 3 tests:
v2 CMAA vs v1 CK---Winner CK
v2 CMAA vs v2 OFS(hold formation)---Winner CMAA
v2 OFS vs v1 CK---Winner OFS
How does that sound for paper rock scissors? Maybe we should try getting v2 cap for swords?
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
10-28-2003, 14:59
More discussion about capping sword to v2 there...
V2 limit upgrade on sword (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=18;t=8417;st=25)
Overall, not many are receptive to this idea... Pretty much to the point that NO TEST GAME (AFAIK) have been run with this rule to see how it would go.
Louis,
Balmir,
I think your analysis is correct, and an increase in the cost of swords (decrease in spears and cav if you wish) would help keep the RPS working at somewhat higher florins. Sword cost increase would also make ranged units relatively less expensive which is something they need at the lower florins. However, I don't think there is much room to increase sword cost without upsetting the sword vs spear part of the RPS.
This is what the Official Strategy Guide says about Swordsmen.
quote:
"In terms of combat factor per florin, sword-armed infantry are probably the best value in the game. They will defeat most other infantry of similar price. Swordsmen may be pressed back initially by a charge of pikemen or spearmen. However, if they have the morale to survive the initial onslaught, the nimbler swordsmen will gain the upper hand as the melee causes the pikemen's formation to break down. Swordsmen can be deployed a little wider than pike-armed units, too, so some men will be able to fall on their enemy's flanks. Use engage at will mode to get the best effect.
The big drawback to infantry units armed only with swords is that they resist cavalry attacks poorly. Swordsmen have little hope of defeating knights, and even light cavalry can cause some serious harm. If deployed in a thin line, swordsmen run the risk of being swept away almost immediately. When forced to face a strong cavalry attack, the best tactic is to deploy them in a very deep formation (5 or more ranks). They may not win ultimately, but at least they won't be swept away by the initial calvalry charge."
end of quote
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Oct. 28 2003,11:10)]In terms of combat factor per florin, sword-armed infantry are probably the best value in the game. They will defeat most other infantry of similar price. Swordsmen may be pressed back initially by a charge of pikemen or spearmen. However, if they have the morale to survive the initial onslaught, the nimbler swordsmen will gain the upper hand as the melee causes the pikemen's formation to break down.
Puzz,
This is exactly what i said. In the test i made between v2 OFS and v2 CMAA, the charge of order foots caused about 10 deaths in the CMAA unit, but then CMAA recovered so well that at the end of the battle it was 87 kills-23 losses for the CMAA. Isnt that absolutely same of the definition the strategy guide tells?
I think the CMAA cost should be somewhat similarized to the order foots. which is around 1100 in v2 and 1900 in v3. They will beat spearmen and probably are the best inf on that amount. Wouldnt that make them the most cost effective infantry in the game?
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
10-28-2003, 16:29
Yuuki, Balamir,
I don't think increasing the cost of sword, or decreasing the cost of spear is going to be very helpfull in regard of RPS.
I'd rather go the Znake way, and increase the differents boni / mali each arms got against each other; ie anticav bonus for spears, and charge for cav.
The boni/mali each component got vs other component of the RPS are not big enough. There are not enough difference between a spear and a sword that a couple of upgrades can't bridge.
Changing the cost of spear or sword, may get us back to 1.0, with spear domination, and sword not able to kill those.
As Yuuki puts it; not much room there without upsetting the spear vs sword balance.
Louis,
Quote[/b] (Balamir @ Oct. 28 2003,13:56)]Polearms, at the moment i think they are good as they are MSv4 is good against cav.
The funny thing is that MS are not polearms but axes. They are slightly better versus chiv knights because of their armour piercing (giving them 1 better attack than CMAA) but nothing compared to what polearms can do against cavalry.
But yes I would say the current cost difference sword versus spear/polearm is simply too big. The sword has a clear advantage when using the wedge formation against spears but it comes for free while spears/polearm units cost more because of their anti-cav stats.
As I see it, it seems spears have never been as weak versus swords as now (starting from MTW 1.1)
CBR
Brutal DLX
10-29-2003, 11:02
Louis, I could test the v2 cap with you, depending on the time frame though.
However I think at 10k v2 CMAA are used more often anyway, but there, cav also get downgraded so it isn't helping much.
Louis:
The thing is that I can protect my swords with cav. From 1.1 to the patched VI we have seen swords becoming stronger compared to cavalry and people use less cavalry. Giving cav some more strenght again will just mean 6-8 cav in the standard armies again.
The problem is that we cant really have a strong RSP system as it can get too easy to focus on 2 types only that still suplement each other perfectly.
What do I mean by not having a strong RPS? What does that mean to spears? STW/MI might be a good example as spears were never that weak (lets just forget about super ashi that was later fixed) Swords would win against them but not wipe them out when upgraded to equal koku. Warrior Monks (swords) were overpowered because cavaly could not get a clean win against them.
Of course its a bit different in MTW with things like ranks bonuses, different unit sizes and more expensive upgrades but its still easy to see how strong swords are against spears.
I think its pretty easy to make sure we dont see spears like 1.0 again...oh yes 1.0..Im actually seriously thinking about installing 1.0 just to make some sword (in wedge) versus spear tests. I dont remember much talk about wedges back then? Maybe spears were not that overpowered afterall?
CBR
Quote[/b] (CBR @ Oct. 29 2003,04:20)]I think its pretty easy to make sure we dont see spears like 1.0 again...oh yes 1.0..Im actually seriously thinking about installing 1.0 just to make some sword (in wedge) versus spear tests. I dont remember much talk about wedges back then? Maybe spears were not that overpowered afterall?
CBR
I seem to remember somebody making a few tests on that and the swords lost horribly.
But you might have a point. Testing it could be interesting.
Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Oct. 29 2003,20:27)]I seem to remember somebody making a few tests on that and the swords lost horribly.
But you might have a point. Testing it could be interesting.
While looking for something else I found that thread:
http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=20;t=5927
Seems like wedge actually did work back in 1.0
CBR
Hm... yes it did. I must have remembered wrong then.
shingenmitch2
11-12-2003, 21:30
I'm wondering if the lack of significant directionality of morale and combat is part of the RPS problem.
Directionality of units as the differentiation:
Spear -- Should destroy cav frontally, should beat sword frontally. Should turn slowly. Should have a lot of STAYING power from the front. i.e they die slowly. From the front they would dominate.
Cav -- should beat sword. Would be a constant fast flanking threat to defeat direction of spear
Sword -- more mobile than spears, less issue with being attacked at from mulitple directions. More directionally independant. Can tackle spears head-on if they have to, but lose slowly -- can kill spears if they catch a flank.
Right now all units feel like they behave the same in terms of how they handle attacks from differing directions.
Morale directionality:
There are tons of factors that add up to a unit breaking, but they all "feel" about the same:
outnumbered, fatigue, #'s of troops dieing in a combat cycle, flanked, rear-ended, et. al....
But I think that their needs to be an increased sense of directionality to the rout. When I think about routing historically, I think the single greatest factor has been being hit in rear. (even beyond a flank hit). But what I see in MTW, is that although rear attacks increase the chance of a rout -- it feels only like one more in a long line of factors, albiet one of increased importance.
Too often I've seen units sandwiched front and back continue fighting for long periods. And then I've seen just the opposite--units routing from a mere frontal charge (not even combat) because the router felt "threated" -- accumulation of odd morale factors.
I think this has to change. My suggestion would be to make the direction of attack -- if a unit is already fighting in another direction. The single most important contributor to a unit rout.
If you combined that with the directional focus (dominance) of spears and the directional independence of swords and the speed/flank threat of cav. I think you would again see a need for all three units.
But then this gets at more than mere "tweaks" to a unit cost or the purchasing system and involves tackling the actual combat process and stats.
Brutal DLX
11-13-2003, 11:08
I agree, sometimes it's odd to see a unit not rout when attacked from front and rear, and especially the rear attacker being a cavalry unit. Really odd to see sometimes, just like last night, when the engaged unit had already lost some men and was more tired than mine.
Perhaps the morale boni/mali application will be reviewed for Rome, getting it closer to the "intuitive" feel that most experienced players have developed.
PS: I think spears should lose to swords also frontally, but very slowly so. Spears should be top-class holding units, in my opinion, which would never render them useless.
Depends on whether the units size difference stays the same though.
Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ Nov. 12 2003,14:30)]Too often I've seen units sandwiched front and back continue fighting for long periods. And then I've seen just the opposite--units routing from a mere frontal charge (not even combat) because the router felt "threated" -- accumulation of odd morale factors.
Mitch,
Aren't these two situations caused by playing at a morale level that's too high in the first case and too low in the second case? We played a game last night at 8k. Did you see either of these problems in that game? I didn't.
It's true that for positional morale purposes the rear is same as a flank. There is a difference in combat factors between flank and rear (an extra +2 to attack for the striker and loss of the shield bonus for the target which can be up to -2 to defend), and since casualties have an associated morale penalty there would be a difference in morale effect after contact. If the aspect ratio of the target is wider than it is deep, you also come into contact with more men if you hit the rear of the unit.
I do see a difference in the current game between flank and rear attack when it's played at the correct morale level, but I can see where the these differences can be easily swamped out by raising or lowering the overall morale and a larger difference between flank and rear would be felt over a wider range of morale.
shingenmitch2
11-13-2003, 16:17
Yuuk,
I think what u say is true that overall settings/florins can swamp things. But i still think there should be a stronger differentiation between how long a unit fights when attacked frontally, flank, and rear.
The florin settings can only affect all equally... i.e. high florin all fight longer (even rear), low florin all break easier (even front). I'd like to see, at some (mythical) standard play setting, frontal fighting last as long as frontal fighting does at 20k and have the rear attack act like it does at 5k -- increasing the importance of maneuver.
I think that morale/attack-direction factors could work in conjunction with some basic unit-type tweaks to make all 3 unit types more needed and useful, and also enhance the maneuver aspect of the game. The frontal rush of 9 swords just wouldn't work.
I'd like to see spears return to what they should be...a solid pinning unit that holds the center of an army nearly forever, but a unit that is not very maneuverable. They should be able -- by mass of numbers be able to knock backwards units half their size -- the heavy unit should be able to drive foward through lighter ones.
The swords could then be these lighter maneuver units that work on the edges/cracks of the line and get at flanks -- thus they're mediocre/bad frontally, but because flanking/rear attack is now even more important, they gain their speciality there. Because they are not mounted, they can fight okay versus spears.
Cavalry could be what it needs to be, a deep flank threat, sword killer and skirmish destroyer (this is another area that should be enhanced).
Who knows if that would work without testing... but I think it is certainly something that should be explored.
Mitch,
What I'm saying is the game already possess the elements of long frontal fighting and quick breaking from a rear attack if you play at the correct morale level. Even at 5k you can easily get frontal fights of over 2 min, which should be enough time to make a flanking maneuver. However, at low morale the whole battleline is going to rout once one unit goes. From the number of people I see playing vi at 15k, it would seem they don't like that aspect of the gameplay. Your idea might address that by only routing the one unit that gets hit from behind and not tending to take eveything else with it.
One of the big issues I have with 5k team games is the ability for a 2 on 1 attack to blow out a player so fast that an ally who is not very far away doesn't have time to respond. I think this is due to the outnumbered morale penalty. To my mind this need to stick together in low morale games causes congestion of units and reduces strategic maneuvering. I've recently tried the strategy of separating from my ally in several 2v2 5k games, and it doesn't work well. In mtw v1.1 at 15k which translates to vi v2.01 at 8.5k, you could hold a double team long enough for an ally, who was as far away as the normal separation distance in a 3v3 deployment, to flank the attackers if they didn't protect their flank. Even the most distant ally would often have time to send some cav to assist. I saw many players try those quick double teams back in Nov and Dec last year because it worked in stw and be upset that it didn't work in mtw. At the same time, if an ally didn't come to assist the player in trouble in those games or at least attack the disordered enemy, he rarely won by subsequently camping even on a hill once the attackers had reorganized their forces.
shingenmitch2
11-17-2003, 15:18
Hi Yuuk,
I'd agree with about everything you said. I guess that quick loss because of "outnumbered" that u cite is a good example of what I'm talking about. I think too often all these ancillary/ secondary morale factors wind up swamping what should be the primary causes for unit routing. It creates situations that are counter intuitive.
A further exaggeration of the difference between front and rear fight times (even if they work okay in 5k) would be useful and a reduction in the impact of secondary morale penalties would be worth a test -- though this is obviously beyond simple mod capabilities.
"Even the most distant ally would often have time to send some cav to assist. I saw many players try those quick double teams back in Nov and Dec last year because it worked in stw and be upset that it didn't work in mtw. At the same time, if an ally didn't come to assist the player in trouble in those games or at least attack the disordered enemy, he rarely won by subsequently camping even on a hill once the attackers had reorganized their forces."
Hehe. Sux for that camper guy as a "fun game" strategy for the lone great player. That is the way things should work on a strategic/multiplayer level. It places a greater emphasis on strategic team play. I think it is one of the reasons my play took a nice jump up with MTW.
I've not had a problem with that aspect of overall game morale, I guess the tweaks I'm suggesting fall under smaller tactical adjustments to the behavior of singular units.
At the Battle of Crecy, the French fielded an army 3 to 4 times the size of the English and most of it was mounted heavy cavalry. The English heavy cavalry dismounted and joined the Men-at-arms with locked shields. The English line (along with support from Longbows) held firm and the French were easily defeated in the end.
My point is this.. A horse can not be forced to charge head on into a deep formation of men with locked shields, it simple will vear away.. So charging head on into Sword units should result in mounted units losing.. Into the flank and rear however should really just decimate much of the victim unit and mean dissaray..
Maybe this is an area to strengthen. Rear and flank charging bonuses?
toddy,
At Crecy, the French knights charged uphill over ground that had anti-cavalry preparations, and were decimated by the longbows. Are you saying that on flat ground with no anti-cav preparations and no longbows that mounted knights should loose a frontal charge to dismounted knights who only have swords? I suppose, since homogeneous sword units are not historical, you could imagine that the maa and dismounted knights are actually using a cut down lance as a spear or some other weapon that has some anti-cav capability. However, the Official Strategy Guide states that sword units are supposed to loose to mounted knights. In any case, at 10k florins and higher, upgraded sword units do beat mounted knights frontally so it plays more or less the way you say it should. It's just that from a gameplay point of view, a whole category of infantry units (anti-cav inf) are superfluous. The current gameplay revolves around three types of units (cav/swords/ranged) rather than four (cav/swords/anti-cav/ranged).
shingenmitch2
02-23-2004, 23:09
Lol, after re-reading all these posts and having continued w/ VI for the past several months, I'm still stuck with my opinions.
However, I'm comfortable with High play at 10k and I can live with the game-play, but Yuuk is absolutely correct that we are down to essentially 3 unit types instead of four.
I still think it would be interesting to see frontal fights last 50% longer while at the same time having a rear charge 50% more effective. The two can't be had at the same time by simply playing with $ amounts.
Men-at-arms was a general term for the heavily armoured knights and squires, and in some of the English armies of the HYW they would be the only melee element as the rest were archers. At Crécy they had Welsh spearmen and knifemen too though.
When fighting dismounted and especially when recieving a cavalry charge men-at-arms would primarily use their lances. Other weapons would be swords of course or the fearsome poleaxe.
Standing in dense order, with lances stuck into the ground to take the impact of the charge, would be the usual way of stopping cavalry. Even against other infantry people back then described how defending infantry in close order would have an advantage as an attacker had problems moving while keeping the important close order.
That cavalry could and did frontally attack infantry is more or less a fact. If riders actually would try and gallop the horse into such a formation is another matter...that would mean a high speed and most likely deadly collision, but warhorses were aggressive, trained and accustomed to war. When facing disciplined infantry that didnt run away it would more likely be the rider that didnt dare to close in than the horse.
Most infantry were using either spears or polearms and swords was more a sidearm/backup weapon. MTW has clearly too many sword only units and their strength versus other infantry and cavalry is too good or just too cheap (spear and polearm units cost about 1/3 more because of their anti-cav stats)
If swords should have any role on the battlefields of MTW the best would be to give them higher speed and turning ability compared to especially spears/pikes (that can be done by making spears turn slower and would give better flank kills)
About Crécy
There were lots of hard fighting and one French knight even penetrated the English right division. Longbows, potholes and totally uncoordinated French attacks were important reasons for the English victory but it was still the men-at-arms who did the fighting to repulse the French attacks and finally counterattack.
The Black Prince's division that had taken the right position took the brunt of the fighting and Edward III was even asked to send reinforcements. The left division apparently also got a message and did send a force to hit the French in the flank.
CBR
Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ Feb. 23 2004,23:09)]I still think it would be interesting to see frontal fights last 50% longer while at the same time having a rear charge 50% more effective. The two can't be had at the same time by simply playing with $ amounts.
Give units crap turning ability and some more defense (or just make players use more spears) would do the trick.
Of course that requires a mod and who wants anything that messes with their beloved sword armies http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
CBR
CBR,
Well, if maa did historically beat cav, then you could say that the maa in the game are simply depicted with the wrong primary weapon and are working correctly. Units like spearmen and other non-elite units tend to run away in the game, and that seems correct also since, historically, non-elite units did tend to run away if it looked like the battle was turning against them. The weak ranged effectiveness of xbows in the game is also right if you look at a battle like Crecy, and the longbow probably wasn't as effective as it has often been historically portrayed so you could say the longbow's game representation is right as well, especially since we don't have prepared positions in the game. So, maybe the gameplay we currently have at 10k to 15k is actually somewhat historically correct as several people have indicated over the past year including most recently toddy. In a 10k battle, if I field 6 maa units at v3 in a line 4 or 5 deep, commonly used enemy cav knights at v0 cannot break through that with a frontal charge.
Heh yes just forget they have swords http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Imagine we dropped their shield and sword and gave CMAA a polearm instead.. they would have 3/5 instead of 4/4 in att/def. They would have armour piercing too of course so overall thats one higher combat point against normally armoured targets. Cost would be 450 florins...
Problem is still the spears and polearm units. If we want some historical accuracy we would also want armies with many spears and polearms. Good examples are the Flemish and Swiss armies in the 14th century
Although the battle engine is pretty simple its still working ok with the current anti-cav units and combined arms. Its all thrown out of the window because of the cheap swords that also dont have anything else but brute frontal combat power. If there had been some more focus on unit speed and turning ability it could have been much better IMO.
This game definitely has room for 2 combat infantry types(spears/pikes and polearms) and having a third (swords) is possible too although in a slightly different role as people currently are used to.
Im not after a game where you absolutely have to buy an army with all elements/certain numbers, but being able to use all kinds of types and have more varied armies and still be competitive would be nice.
You have seen some of my weird armies that I have used in 5k or mod games and I actually expect them to work ok in games and they are pretty historical too.
Missile weapons work pretty ok IMO. If we could have a better disordering effect that would be nice of course. Main problem is the cost and that their targets always are loaded up on armour and morale and that the enemy actually can fill up most if not all of his slots with such melee units.
Crécy showed that demoralised crossbowmen, who were forced forward without their pavises while being outnumbered, would lose against longbowmen standing on a hill. Being shot at by the few English cannons did not help on their morale either. And if we are to believe the chroniclers the rain ruined many crossbow strings too.
No wonder that Philip VI ordered the Genoese "traitors" to be executed, although he cooled off later. The French used Genoese crossbowmen regularly and most likely had never seen them run/rout so quick as at Crécy...what else but treachery could explain it.
But back to the game..
Although it should be difficult to stop a big attack with missile alone it would be nice if we could see more missile units in battles.
CBR
CRB,
Well army composition isn't my point. If you want more accurate army composition, you would have to have restrictions on elite units just as Yamaga did back in STW with his 22 unit army 14 of which had to be yari ashigaru, 2 samurai inf and the rest cav or ranged inf. We even played a tournament with these armies.
BTW, Yamaga left the total war community because CA wouldn't respond to his inquiries about making some minor changes to the game which would have allowed his historical system to work better. I remember testing 56 revisions of his system as adapted to WE/MI before he finally gave up and left.
Restrictions right now is based on money alone, and the silly(IMO) 4 max. With low amounts of florins you are not going to buy 16 elite units.
I can understand why he gave up and left. It can be frustating to have an idea, especially historical heh, and see its impossible to achieve with the current game.
But yes having an army of both mounted and dismounted men at arms as the only melee element with some missile as support, is in itself not historical inaccurate if that was what you meant.
My problem is that there are no real alternatives with other infantry types.
CBR
Dionysus9
02-25-2004, 19:02
Quote[/b] (CBR @ Feb. 23 2004,18:42)]That cavalry could and did frontally attack infantry is more or less a fact. If riders actually would try and gallop the horse into such a formation is another matter...that would mean a high speed and most likely deadly collision, but warhorses were aggressive, trained and accustomed to war. When facing disciplined infantry that didnt run away it would more likely be the rider that didnt dare to close in than the horse.
I'm going to go off an a bit of a tangent about whether a knight could/would order his mount to vault into densley ordered infantry for the purpose of breaking up the formation. I would estimate that a heavy laden warhorse (possibly with barding and carrying an armored rider) could vault maybe 15 feet. If you pulled the jump off perfectly you could probably clear the first few ranks of an ordered infantry unit, smashing into the 4th rank and probably taking out 3-4 enemy soldiers. Of course the mount and rider would either die on impact or be killed shortly by the mass of enemy around them. But it would break up the enemy unit and cause a lot of disorder/panic.
A well trained horse will jump to its death if ordered to do so by a rider it trusts. Just talk to any show-jumper. The horse has no clue what is on the other side of the obstacle and he jumps only out of trust for his rider.
So I agree that a well trained warhorse would jump head-long into densely ordered ranks of infantry if "ordered" to. CBR is right-on when he says it was most likely the rider that would balk at such a kamikaze mission. Although many knights were undoubtedly brave (sometimes to foolhardiness) I have a hard time believing they would sacrifice themselves and their mounts to penetrate dense ordered infantry. It would be suicide for both horse and rider-- certainly.
I've never heard of a european kamikaze knight They were definately prepared to die for their liege, but they would want to die in combat-- not in a weaponless jump to their doom. Of course it is "possible" but I think it is unlikely it ever occurred given the cultural preference at the time to fight with weapons instead of kamikaze tactics. You also have to think about the cost in training, armor, weapons, horses, etc. One well trianed knight and horse with armor and weapons sacrificed for, maybe, 5 infantry kills at best... is it a good exchange? Maybe, but I doubt it would have been seen that way by the knight.
I think it is safe to say any cases of "kamikaze knights" were rare and isolated, historically speaking. Now that is not to ignore the bravery of a knight who makes a "suicide charge" but I'm just saying they probably didn't try kamikaze tactics such as vaulting into ordered infantry.
Cavalry was more often used on the flanks or to chase routers than in frontal charges (although plenty of historic frontal cav charges did occur).
Also, there were 2 reasons that bills/halberds worked so well. 1 they were long and could be planted in the ground to absorb the charge--they would hit the horse before the rider could close to striking distance. Second, if the rider did close to striking distance he could be pulled off his horse with the "hook" on the pole-arm (which would catch on his armor) and then easily killed. So even if our theoretical knights charged the front ranks of a densely ordered infantry unit, they faced considerable danger from polearms. As soon as they loose momentum they become vulnerable to being dismounted and swarmed.
This is, I believe, why cavalry (even heavy cavalry) was more commonly used in flanking/ routing maneuvers.
shingenmitch2
02-25-2004, 20:15
The whole problem comes down to the $ system for choosing units.
Peeps circumvent the 4 max (and any other limitations) through buying elites at low valor and pumping up cheep/weak units into elite equivalents. Ergo, armies are always over-stuffed with elite type or equivelent units, thus blowing any historical accuracy.
First and foremost, the upgrade and unit selection process must be thrown out for multiplayer if we ever hope to see historical-type armies.
Once the flaw of HOW units are picked and upgraded is eliminated, then all these little tweaks to unit speed, turning, attack stats and morale will make a difference. Until then, for every tweak made someone will figure a way to purchase/upgrade around it.
Ex. Historically cavalry to inf. is about a 1:8 ratio [let's not get into the mongols :) ]. Thus we should see about 2 cav units per army max. The 4 max rule and cav. costs were supposed to produce a decent cav to inf. ratio, except the system is easily skirted. I easily get 16 cav. by selecting 4 of each type of cav. available to me. Compounding that is it is easy to get 8 elite cavs if I am say German [4 Chivs, 4 Teuts.], not including any upgrade to Feudal Knights to make them Chiv equivalents. This same cheese happens with infantry.
AND I haven't even scratched the surface of how even a 4-step valor upgrade system blows up the "intended purpose" of a unit.
So any tweak to stats is meaningless, until CA get that system under control. The $ and exponential cost increase for upgrades was nice "in theory" but has been exposed as poop "in practice."
Dionysus9
02-26-2004, 05:58
I agree, Mitch, but I think you are making an assumption that CA tried very hard to achieve historical accuracy--especially in MP. I dont know, I suppose Gil would be one to ask, but I see a lot of fundamental decisions (like the cost of knights vs. the cost of spears and the upgrade problem you are talking about) that suggests historical accuracy was actually intentionally avoided by the developers.
Brutal DLX
02-26-2004, 13:02
One can argue up to no end about this, but I still think if you want historical armies, you can take them, but at the same time, your opponent has to do so too for a fair game to occur.
Currently, most MP games are about winning, and winning only and one really can't complain when people start exploiting the system to provide themselves with the best armies possible.
If I take a historical/mixed army, I cannot expect to win against the standard sword/cav army, but it doesn't exactly ruin the fun for me, I rather see it as a challenge, and in team games, you may still have a chance unless there are lots of rushers. Of course, clanmates should have a greater chance of setting up all-historical battles.
I would say the purchase system is not bad if you don't exploit it but rather keep valour/upgrades reasonable to the respective unit. The point is, only a few are willing to do that. V3, v4 means this unit is a battle hardened veteran one, they should prevail against v0 units, especially if those have fewer men.
shingenmitch2
02-26-2004, 14:26
Brutal,
I think that's my point. Because peeps play to win, they will exploit the system. That is why the system should be designed so that it can't be exploited (or at least exploited so badly).
Now I say exploited -- but I don't equate that w/cheating. I'm fine with that to the extent that I'm just playing a game and all is fair for everyone. I would just like to see the game designed so that the best armies one could choose are as close to historical as possible. And in that there is a lot of room for improvement.
I happily play VI and use upgrades and buy "silly" armies, but I also don't feel like I'm playing a war sim so much as, just some interesting fantasy game.
Quote[/b] (Dionysus9 @ Feb. 25 2004,19:02)]This is, I believe, why cavalry (even heavy cavalry) was more commonly used in flanking/ routing maneuvers.
Well it really does depend on when and where. Its a period of several hundred years.
Heavy cavalry were actually the main attacking element in many battles in the earlier times. Normal approach would be to place them in the front and then have infantry come in afterwards to support them.
Of course it depends on how much infantry they had and what the quality was. Weapons like long spears or polearms didnt automatically mean infantry had a clear advantage over heavy cavalry.
Equipment, training, unit cohesion (not always good as units could cosist of many smaller contingents that hadnt trained with each other) and that a unit was prepared to recieve a cavalry charge (dense formation, flanks covered or in a circle/square formation) were very important elements for infantry. You also see defenders using ditches and potholes to disrupt the cavalry charge.
During the HYW you see men-at-arms being the main element even when most of them fight dismounted. They where the best men a king could get and also in big enough numbers to do the job..or at least try to do the job heh. In such men you had the closest thing to a full time professionel. That didnt stop the French from gathering the local militias but they were not used offensively in many battles.
AFAIK the mid 14th-mid 15th century is a time where you see men-at-arms being used dismounted a lot. The typical battle in the HYW was a English raider force being caught by a bigger French force and the English would find a good defensive position and dismount most men-at-arms. The French quickly learned that using cavalry for the main center attack was foolish against such a prepared position, so the few that didnt dismount was either used as reserve or on the flanks to hit the archers. But it did require a good position with flank protection.
CBR
Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ Feb. 25 2004,20:15)]Ex. Historically cavalry to inf. is about a 1:8 ratio
Hm where do you get that number from? It varied a lot through history and the Middleages is most likely the time where we have the lowest ratio. Apart from some crusader armies that had ratios like that we have many battles where it was more like 1:3 sometimes more sometimes less.
CBR
Quote[/b] (Dionysus9 @ Feb. 26 2004,05:58)]I agree, Mitch, but I think you are making an assumption that CA tried very hard to achieve historical accuracy--especially in MP. I dont know, I suppose Gil would be one to ask, but I see a lot of fundamental decisions (like the cost of knights vs. the cost of spears and the upgrade problem you are talking about) that suggests historical accuracy was actually intentionally avoided by the developers.
No CA didnt work hard to achieve it. For them its a historical themed strategy game. But compared to STW heavy cavalry is stronger and we have a new weapon in the polearm (at least with different stats compared to the STW naginata) and spears has weaker attack to give the polearms a role. Clear indications IMO that CA at least wants the theme to be correct.
What went wrong was the weaknesses in STW (unit cost formula and upgrades) that is just even more obvious in MTW. We will have same problem in RTW if we dont get any changes. I have some suggestions on my mind...takes and awful lot of numbercrunching to figure it out though and get a system that cant be exploited...
CBR
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Feb. 23 2004,14:36)]toddy,
At Crecy, the French knights charged uphill over ground that had anti-cavalry preparations, and were decimated by the longbows. Are you saying that on flat ground with no anti-cav preparations and no longbows that mounted knights should loose a frontal charge to dismounted knights who only have swords? I suppose, since homogeneous sword units are not historical, you could imagine that the maa and dismounted knights are actually using a cut down lance as a spear or some other weapon that has some anti-cav capability. However, the Official Strategy Guide states that sword units are supposed to loose to mounted knights. In any case, at 10k florins and higher, upgraded sword units do beat mounted knights frontally so it plays more or less the way you say it should. It's just that from a gameplay point of view, a whole category of infantry units (anti-cav inf) are superfluous. The current gameplay revolves around three types of units (cav/swords/ranged) rather than four (cav/swords/anti-cav/ranged).
I used Crecy as an example for Knights dismounting. The front rows of the battle line would inevitably have some lances and spears, but would not be in an organised manner as we see them on MTW..
We are talking about Men-at-arms with a mixture of weapons. Some well equipped, others with looted equipement from past engagements. Yes there were anti cavalry steaks and holes dug into the ground, but most of this was to protect the Longbows who were situated around the flanks and mainly due to the small size of the English force in comparison with the French.
But all you have to do is look at Square formations during the Nepoleonic era. Muskets with Bayonets fixed would not provide the same defence as a lance or spear, yet in discipline ranks, could hold off tousands of cavalry (the fact that powder and musket balls are shot is irrelavent as they could still hold if out of ammo)..
My point I suppose is this. You don't need a spear, lance or musket to hold a cavalry charge, you need a packed formation of men, which closes ranks if a breach is made, either by an extremely brave sacrificial warrior or a dying horse..
Swords could do that job, but more importantly, locked shields with pressure from behind from packed ranks could hold..
Thus, sword units in the game should be able to take a charge if held in formation and attacked head on, it's not that unrealistic..
Quote[/b] (toddy @ Feb. 26 2004,08:19)]Thus, sword units in the game should be able to take a charge if held in formation and attacked head on, it's not that unrealistic..
Well they do that in 10k+ florin battles. And what you have is a unit type that can beat cav, anti-cav inf and ranged inf. Between fmaa and cmaa amd mil sgt (axe) you can get 12 of them with no penalty.
Lord Rom
03-03-2004, 16:34
Multiplayer, when you first start playing is bizarre compared to a single player campaign. I almost never attack with 1 to 1 odds(more casualties). I think most of the imbalance comes from being able to buy valor. I've always thought the idea of being able to buy valor was a little strange.
Rom
Quote[/b] (toddy @ Feb. 26 2004,15:19)]We are talking about Men-at-arms with a mixture of weapons. Some well equipped, others with looted equipement from past engagements. Yes there were anti cavalry steaks and holes dug into the ground, but most of this was to protect the Longbows who were situated around the flanks and mainly due to the small size of the English force in comparison with the French.
You make it sound like Men-at-Arms were some poor sods heh. They wouldnt get the pay and privileges if they didnt have the right equipment from the start. In general a knight had to have 4 horses (2 of them warhorses) and squires 3 horses. There are examples of knights who only got squire wages because they could only bring 3 horses. Even the cheaper warhorses cost a lot and the armour/weapons combined could be around the same as a good warhorse.
Quote[/b] ]But all you have to do is look at Square formations during the Nepoleonic era. Muskets with Bayonets fixed would not provide the same defence as a lance or spear, yet in discipline ranks, could hold off tousands of cavalry (the fact that powder and musket balls are shot is irrelavent as they could still hold if out of ammo)..
Napoleonic times were a bit different but lets look at it:
A musket with bayonet attached is nearly 2 meters long..same as a short spear. If in a square formation you would see the first 1 or 2 ranks kneel down and put musket butts into the ground just like infantry did with spears/pikes.
Most Napoleonic cavalry was no near the shock cavalry of earlier times. They didnt have armour nor the confidence to do the frontal/shock attacks and in general cavalry was used more in smaller formations. And a good part of cavalry was of the lighter type like Hussars.
Napoleon actually started using cavalry in a much more shock oriented role and put them into larger formations compared to what had been used during the 18th century.
In battles like Eylay, Friedland and Borodino we see cavalry being used in massive attacks and IIRC at Borodino even attacks on fixed positions. Squares were attacked and wiped out by cavalry alone. In training manuals there were specific tactics on how to attack squares...of course manuals and real life might be two different things but the battles show that cavalry could do it.
At Waterloo it was a failure but the French attack was no near some act of desperation as some might think.
The musket fire from a square could disrupt a cavalry charge but yes there are examples of squares that was out of ammo but still wasnt run over. Morale, numbers and type of cavalry are all important factors when infantry faces cavalry but standing in a dense formation is by no means something that means automatic success.
If you dont have some kind of weapon that can make a rider think twice about moving head-on into the formation, or even impale a horse, then there wouldnt be much to stop most of the line from being hit. It would no longer be a matter of a few horses that enters the formation but the whole front would be put under pressure. 1200+ pounds of horse, man and armour moving forward is not easy to stop.
Thats why it was so important to try and disrupt the formation. Fewer horses would simultaneously hit the infantry line. Pot holes, and ditches and casualties from missile weapons could create gaps so some riders might feel alone and not charge home and others who did would be unsupported.
We have an example of Romans preparing to receive an Alan Cavalry charge. Close formation with first 2 ranks using their Pila just like you see with the front ranks of a Napoleonic square. The next 2 ranks would use their pila to throw and then move forward to help while next 4 ranks would use lighter javelins and finally archers in rear rank. A combination of close formation with prepared pointy sticks to either convince a rider not to close in or at least(with some luck) give a terrible wound to the horse as well as missile weapons to kill/wound and disrupt charging cavalry. Why use such a special formation and use of pila as spears if all you needed was to make a shieldwall?
Even if we totally drop any consideration of historical accuracy we still have a gameplay that clearly shows problems. As sword units are cheaper than spears/polearms and therefore will kill them for equal money while not very weak versus cavalry then there is not much point using spears/polearms. Even if anti-cav units are better cost wise against cavalry its still better just to focus on swords and cav in your army.
CBR
Quote[/b] (Lord Rom @ Mar. 03 2004,16:34)]I've always thought the idea of being able to buy valor was a little strange.
Yes the way valor upgrades work right now it changes overall balance between the different units way too much.
Units base stats comes from armour/weapon and troop quality. The troop quality for most units comes in a rating that increases its morale by 2 and gives only one attack or defense. Valor upgrades gives both one attack and one defense plus the 2 morale.
That basically means you can pump up weaker units to very high levels of combat power compared to how units have been created by the developers. Both morale and attack/defense stats increases cost but by having upgrades like we have now you spend most of the money on attack/defense compared to units default stats.
If valor only gave either 1 attack or 1 defense and 2 morale and cost x 1.4 (1.7 now) then that would lessen the effect of how much upgrading changes balance.
But I dont think that will be enough as unit cost is an exponential system that causes the expensive units to simply cost too much. CA did make a fudge formula to lessen the effect on the expensive units( in the 1.1 patch) but the base formula is still used for the cheaper unit and the difference is still too big.
CBR
Vinsitor
03-06-2004, 11:59
Why we do not use a special 2max rule ONLY for swords (MAA, Byza inf. ecc.) in MP games? It could create a different balance/battle stile, maybe. What do you think about? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif
I dont think it will solve much really. 2 CMAA, 2 FMAA and 2 MS will be the core in an army wouldnt it?
CBR
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.