Will there be a 4 unit of same type rule? [Archive]

CBR

04-05-2004, 11:48

Well I do hope they remove the 4 max unit limit. It limits your army choice and not very intuitive for newbies as they have no knowledge of it.

It will of course give a problem if people insist on playing with huge amount of money as they would be able to buy 20 of the best units. But its not that different compared to how current MTW works because of people pumping up different units up to same level.

We might as well remove it to make it simpler for people.

You could still field a historical Roman army with the 4 max rule. 4 cavalry, 4 velites, 4 hastati, 4 principes and 4 triarii. And with the samnite warriors you can use them for auxiliaries and cut down on cavalry/triarii if you want.

CBR

spmetla

04-05-2004, 14:42

The auxilaries and allies could be represented with the mysterious subordinate commander feature where the AI will take control of some of your troops if you have over the 16 (or whatever the limit is) limit.

Aelwyn

04-05-2004, 16:59

I was thinking about this earlier. The solution to me is, either more units have to be usable (not like now where a faction can only use maybe 1/2 of its available units to still stay competitive) or the limit has to be removed. I'm just wondering whether or not each faction will have enough of each unit class to be able to fight whatever kind of battle you want. Like for instance, its pretty much suicide to take the Mongols on a small flat map against a skilled player (unless its to overload another side or something).

CBR

04-06-2004, 13:24

Well I dont see why factions should be able to fight any type of battle. Thats why we have different factions with different flavor. If you want to fight in a certain way you pick the right faction for it.

If you gave all factions all units then you wouldnt see all 200+ units in RTW being used.

Mongols wouldnt really be mongols if they had the option to get same type of heavy infantry as western factions. They were put into late era and that means they are facing arbs and it limits them considerably.

There will be lighter more skirmish oriented factions in RTW compared to Romans. We dont know all faction specific units of course but my guess is Numidians wouldnt have as strong foot. Put them on a map with limited room for maneuver (either because of mapsize or many players or a combination of thse two) and they will be at a disadvantage.

CBR

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

04-09-2004, 21:35

I'd like to be sure that CA can make a game that does not require a 4 max tax...

The 4 max tax is not intuitive, artificial, and useless.

So many units are look alike, that it is harldy a restriction at all.

Louis,

Leet Eriksson

04-10-2004, 01:53

they better add some sort of other restrictions if you want the 4 unit limit to be removed,it would'nt be pleasant with players who have a same unit army(ie 16 warrior monks).

Aelwyn

04-10-2004, 03:55

Quote[/b] (CBR @ April 06 2004,07:24)]Well I dont see why factions should be able to fight any type of battle.
I say it more from a standpoint of fairness, and less predictability. Yes if you are good enough you can win no matter what someone else does. But, if I'm going up against someone with the Mongols, I know to take missles and anti-cav units. Or, if my opponent has them, I start, and he changes, again an annoyance. For factions like the English, you can't know what to expect.

So thats why I say the factions should be a bit flexible.

CBR

04-10-2004, 13:17

Well first of all I dont think one should be able to win just because he guessed right and bought the right units.

Mongols wasnt even in 1.1 and are a limited faction for unit choice. Give them cmaa/fmaa/pav or something similar and you wouldnt need to pick any other faction. The Mongol player will be able to more or less get whatever he wants and the opponent wouldnt know what to take.

One thing I know about English is that you cant come with any horsearchers. That he might come with longbows or hobilars doesnt change much for his opponent's unitchoice.

If all factions had all unittypes available it would be too much a guessing work. You would never know if you were going to face an all cav/horsearcher army and an army like that is potientially the most devastating army and changes gameplay completely for the opponent.

In RTW Romans will most likely be the faction with the best and most numerous heavy infantry, except for the sarissa/pike units perhaps, and you simply cant give them both the best heavy cavalry or light skirmishers. The flavor of each faction would be dead. And you would never know if you were going to face a roman foot rush or all cav/skirmisher army.

Sure I like factions to be able to use many different setups but it cannot be too flexible or it will turn into a mess IMO.

CBR

CBR

04-10-2004, 13:57

Quote[/b] (faisal @ April 10 2004,02:53)]they better add some sort of other restrictions if you want the 4 unit limit to be removed,it would'nt be pleasant with players who have a same unit army(ie 16 warrior monks).
AFAIK in STW the standard money level was 5000 koku. But all units started with valor 2 that could be downgraded to 0. That meant you always could get some money for your missile units as well downgrading the warriormonks just to be able to get 16 of them.

MTW fixed that by making all units start with valor 0. Try a custom battle with 5000 florins and you quickly find out that you cant get many western elite units. Either you will have less than 16 units or just accept that you cant get the best only and buy some of the cheaper units to fill the unitslots.

One big problem with this fix is that CA didnt increase the morale lost with the 2 less in valor. We got +2 morale with VI but that is still only like one valor. The money standard of STW never got a chance in MTW because of this morale problem. But its whats needed to prevent people from buying 20 of the best.

Upgrading is another problem. In VI(10k games) people might only buy 4 of each unit but when you look at the stats of a v3 fmaa and v2w1 cmaa you will find them to have precisely same morale and combat power. 2 different units but in effect the same unit. And even if some people have both v3 fmaa and v3 cmaa then the differece is afterall only one combatpoint... hardly a big difference.

And then we have the v3 militia sgt than has same combat power as v2 cmaa (and nearly same cost) against normally armoured units but against highly armoured cavalry it will have one higher combat point (like the v3 fmaa) Another name and different graphics, and of course 2 less in morale compared to normal swords, but in the end pretty much the same.

If we are going to get the same upgrade system there is not much need for a max 4 limit anyway as people will avoid it by upgrading.

If the morale is fixed then we dont need high money games and we wont be able to get 20 of the best units. I have seen MTW newbies buying 16 mounted sgts...dont think you can ever prevent that heh

There might be some risk of overpowered cheap units to dominate but then its even easier to spot and fix. That also depends on how CA will calculate the unitcosts.

The costformula used for MTW(and from I have checked also in STW) is flawed and it takes more then the fudges CA has done so far to fix it.

CBR

RZST

04-10-2004, 16:33

how about this, no upgrades whatsoever, except maybe valor.

CBR

04-10-2004, 17:30

Quote[/b] (Ky Kiske @ April 10 2004,17:33)]how about this, no upgrades whatsoever, except maybe valor.
heh well removing weapon and armour upgrades will not solve the problem. Most money are spent on valor anyway.

One thing CA should do is to change valor to what it originally was supposed to be: only 1 combat point and +2 morale for each valor upgrade.

Then a valor would precisely be the same as how CA uses troop quality for most units. Examples are like the difference between chivalric sgts and Order foot or fmaa and cmaa.

The effect is that each valor upgrade wont pump up the combat power of a unit so fast and you cant make these super peasant units.

Of course this change in valor will still not solve the basic problem of how to make all units useable. If you have money enough for upgrades why would you ever buy the cheap units. Only one way of doing it and thats to limit money so people never really buy upgrades.

CBR

Leet Eriksson

04-10-2004, 23:51

Hmmm makes sense,i suppose they could change the valour to unit specific than universal,it might be a bit complicated but here goes,lets say for example a unit of fmaa at valour 1 will receive the standard 2 combatpoints and +2 morale,but at valour 2 it will receive +1 combat points and +2 morale,at 3 no combat points but +2 morale,while the cmaa will get at 1 the same as fmaa,at 2 +2 combat points and +morale and at 3 +1 combat points and +2 morale,this way the cmaa is alway better than the fmaa no matter what.any thoughts regarding my idea?

CBR

04-11-2004, 02:50

Hm I think it would be easier just to say that a valor upgrade gives a fixed increase. Right now its +1 attack, +1 defense and +2 morale. If they change it to +1 attack only and +2 morale then cost of valor upgrade can still be a fixed multiplier as it is now just a bit cheaper.

Sure it will still be possible to upgrade the fmaa to have same combat power as the cmaa but it would cost more.

CBR

Orda Khan

04-11-2004, 15:44

Very good,relevant, important points, CBR and Faisal. Your ideas would make for a far more interesting game than we have. Personally I would rather no upgrades. As long as there are upgrades there will be problems, I firmly believe this. Ok, I can appreciate that some people enjoy this gamey feeling but IMO it makes the game a ludicrous farce.

Battles should be decided by tactics and strategy not by studying the stat exploits. An amount of money that limits elite units is a necessity, however, let's have some sense in this department please. I'll explain....Roman Cohorts should cost considerably more than Parthian Horse Archers. Likewise it should be possible to win using lightweight factions, no more ignoring arrows because they hardly kill. So a Roman elite unit should cost more than a lightweight faction's elite unit, otherwise everyone will be using Romans. I think this is what Aelwyn was getting at. One thing is certain, I don't want to find myself at the disadvantage in every battle that I have found with MTW, just for using lightweight factions and I don't want to be a sheep and follow the heavy armour brigade.

This is all a pipe dream no doubt, Rome will have all the upgrades and I suppose we will have the same poor MP side again.
Upgrades are for single player mode...they add nothing but imbalance and frustration when applied to multi player battles

.....Orda

CBR

04-12-2004, 13:15

Yes reducing the importance of a valor upgrade (only 1 combat point instead of 2) is one thing. If you play with a money level low enough so you cant buy elite units then you wont see much upgrading anyway.

If you have loads of money then changing the effect of valor upgrades will reduce the problems but the problems will still be there. Light factions will still get slaughtered by the strong factions that tries to rush with their all high morale/combat power units.

Missile units and their cost is another thing. Our experiences with 5k games showed that missile units were too expensive.

Giving missile units more ammo as well as making them cheaper in the Community Mod made rushing armies less likely to succeed.

The cost problem wasnt really noticed in STW because you always downgraded archers so they would only cost half as much.

If we combine the lessons learned in STW/MTW we can improve the game. I would just like to see a response from CA. It doesnt take that much work to make some changes but IMO it does require that we talk with each other.

CBR

Orda Khan

04-12-2004, 14:33

Very true CBR, it would be nice if they came here to discuss these aspects

.....Orda

shingenmitch2

04-12-2004, 15:02

Only for multi-play, eliminate all upgrades. (hell, I'd like to see this for campaign too, but I'd settle just for multi)

Have a morale slider that is set at the beginning of the game when guys are joining: i.e. this is a +0 morale game, this is a +6 morale game. All units across the board get the bonus to their BASE morale...

i.e. in a +6 morale game a -2 peasant then goes to +4, where as a good inf unit of 5 goes to +11. This way peeps who don't want routs can have their game, guys who like a mid-level rout can have theirs, and guys who like quick routing can have theirs... without ALSO having unit stats altered. Right now the only way to alter morale-play is to increase valor -- which also alters base stats. Stupid.

THEN
Have florins only go to the cost of unit purchase: high florins = player can fill all 16 slots with elites; med florins = players can fill all 16 slots with mix of elite/average/poor; low florin = player can fill all 16 slots with poor or have elites and not fill all 16 slots.

---------
I believe this eliminates the "gamesmanship" of the upgrade, and makes breaking the PSR of the orginal game design much harder to do. Units will act as they were intended. Will certain factions still have advantages... probably. Will one or two units be overpowered and used more often... probably. So I doubt it can fix everything, but I think it would get us all a lot closer to what this game needs to be in multi-play. The upgrades create way too many ways to break the system and makes unit stat balancing almost useless, since an upgrade here or there changes the units.

CBR

04-12-2004, 17:03

I just have a few problems with a morale slider only:

We have had endless discussions on florin levels used and that will end up being denarii AND what morale to play with. More options will make finding a standard even harder.

Some units rely on "low" morale in the game (high charge/morale units) If the morale slider increases morale by too much then gameplay will be different even if no stats are changed.

I do prefer a game without valor upgrades but if they are changed like I have described then they cant ruin the balance as much.

Example:

v1 spearmen would have same stats as v0 feudal sgts, v1 Chivalric sgts same as v0 Order foot, v1 FMAA same as v0 CMAA.

If you make sure the upgrade costs enough so the v1 units in my examples would cost more then v0 equivalents then we would have removed most of the upgrading sillyness we see in MTW.

CBR

shingenmitch2

04-12-2004, 18:21

Hi CB,

I see what ur saying about another area of "agreement" but I'm confident that a "standard" would be settled on pretty fast. An equivalent now would be 5k and +4 morale. I bet you'd see a lot of games setting up like that and not much arguing.

I think you'd need a slider, cause not everyone likes how morale feels at different levels and that's half the reason peeps still play at different florin levels --- esp. 99,999. So I think there needs to be accomodation for them. (when I say slider, i really mean a scale w/definite steps: perhaps 0–10 in incriments of 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10)

Your idea makes a lot of sense. But it still wouldn't prevent how valor "multipies up power" leaving room for RPS breaking.

You make a good point about there being morale-based power -- ie cav. charge. So morale slider does affect combat strength of some units, but at least it is limited in impact. Heck, morale itself affects how game plays anyway -- low morale tactics with "quick routs" will always be different from tactics where units fight to last man. But by separating out morale and eliminating upgrades least u eliminate where one unit can "become another" or have it "do things it was never intended to" simply by giving it that +3 or +4 Valor. (I will say that this is something much better in VI with max +4 than compared to MI.)

Swoosh So

04-19-2004, 14:45

I totally object to a morale slider bar :) I dont think its neccesary as with more florins you can increase unit abilities. A unit should be what its meant to be armor and weapon upgrades have ruined that lets not have a slider bar make it worse, Btw when a unit gets better armor or weapons it should become like from a feudal knight to chiv knight so why the armor upgrades

shingenmitch2

04-19-2004, 14:55

Swoosh,

Having morale connected to Attack & Defense ratings and then all three being able to be bought and increased is what gave us the H7-9 Yari Spearman "super unit." It broke the game.

The same things are taking place now in MTW, but the limit to V4 on the upgrades is mitigating the effect somewhat. Yet the problems still remain. It is also one reason for Spears being near useless in MTW.

---------------

The most balanced unit selection comes in 5k games... Spears are also uselful at that level. However, no one plays 5k games because the average morale for front line fighters is in the 4-6 neighborhood and the game becomes a rout-fest.

So, peeps play at 10k where morale on most front liners is in the 8-10 range. The game "feels" better. But this means v3/4 swords & mil. Sgts. are so strong that they overpower most spear units. (btw it is amazing what 2-4 morale points do to game feel).

Problem is there is no way to get 5k unit selection with 10k morale effects UNLESS you separate morale from the upgrade/florin structure.

CBR

04-19-2004, 14:58

Quote[/b] (Swoosh So @ April 19 2004,15:45)]A unit should be what its meant to be armor and weapon upgrades have ruined that lets not have a slider bar make it worse...
Well I dont like the morale slider either but removing armour and weapon upgrades wont fix much in the current game. Most money spent on upgrades is on valor..only some missile units gets armour.

Quote[/b] ]Btw when a unit gets better armor or weapons it should become like from a feudal knight to chiv knight so why the armor upgrades

You could say the same thing for valor. Give a spearmen or FMAA a valor and they should just be like feudal sgt/CMAA so why the valor upgrades http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

CBR

shingenmitch2

04-19-2004, 15:09

yes CB, i agree it is like a double up-grade.

If u want the progression:
peasant - spearman - order spearman

why have a peasant be able to upgrade stronger than the spearman? Instead, it should change into the spearman. When a spearman hits a certain point it becomes the "better" ordered spearman.

I've personally thought it should go:

crap peasant
okay peasant
experienced peasant >>> lateral shift>>>crap spear
okay spear
vet spear >>> lat. shift >>>poor ordered spear
okay ordered spear
vet ordered spear

CBR

04-19-2004, 15:15

Mitch:

Last round of CWC I had to play both 15k and 10k games. We only have florins to agree on and no one agrees...there is no standard. I fear that having more options wont improve that situation

Another thing is how big should the morale slider be. 0-10 morale is insane http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif If we look at the current v0 morale most people would say its too low. How much do we need to make most people happy? +2/4 is actually all we need.

When you dont have valor to skew balance you will be surprised to see how low morale you actually need. The 8-10 morale for front units isnt needed and actually hurts the gameplay completely.

So if we really should have a slider then make it 3 choices only: low/normal/high

CBR

CBR

04-19-2004, 15:34

Quote[/b] ]yes CB, i agree it is like a double up-grade

Yes thats why I want to change the valor upgrades to only one combat point +2 morale. Yes you can still upgrade "peasants" but you will no longer be able to get them as cheap as now. If you have money enough and no max 4 limit you would just buy the better units first.

I'd say thats more intuitive as well as removing the unbalances, as we have now, coming from upgrades.

Now dont get me wrong heh. I hate upgrades and what they do to the balance. The mods I have been making the last 16 months have actually all been based on no upgrades. But also with only one morale level. Having only one level of morale and no upgrades means its a lot easier to balance.

Sure we cant satisfy everyone but IMO we could add +2 morale to the current game and that would make a lot people happy.

If we are to make everyone happy we should actually leave in the upgrades as some people loves to fool around with pumped up units. And some like the fact that you can win by proper unit/upgrade selection alone.

So ultimately I like upgrades to go and make sure we have high enough morale to get away from the chainrouts of 5k 1.1 gameplay.

If upgrades have to stay then at least change valor to be 1 combatpoint +2 morale instead of the 2 combatpoints 2 morale we have now. And still cut weapon upgrades and less than 4 valor max...maybe 2

If we have a morale slider make sure its limited to about 3 choices. It takes a lot of time to get used to the game (at one morale level) and the more choices you have the more confusion as well as more bitching about what level gives most skill etc etc. Thats my reason behind not having one at all..but giving people some choice might be nice.

CBR

shingenmitch2

04-19-2004, 17:54

First off this whole debate is moot, cause it ain't gonna happen. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

But I'll continue along the lines of thinking:

"When you dont have valor to skew balance you will be surprised to see how low morale you actually need."

How do know what is morale and what was a unit's attack/def or unit size? Since valor affects both Morale and Combat Strength, you can't separate the affects to see exactly what is morale and what is a poorly balanced individual unit. There is no way to test morale effects by themselves. It is thus harder, if not impossible, to balance the game.

--------
I only suggest 0-10 because i know there are people who like "morale off" I prefer only a small range myself.

---------
"The mods I have been making the last 16 months have actually all been based on no upgrades"

U can't avoid upgrades with the unit purchase structure of the game -- especially if peeps want 16 units. U can always conserve $ somewhere to buy upgrades or else u eliminate some expensive units from what peeple can select.

CBR

04-19-2004, 19:12

Mitch:

Then you have never really tried my mods have you?

You can make upgrades not worth it by making sure its better to buy a better quality unit instead of upgrading a lower one.

Have a money level that feels like 5k where you cant buy the best only.

When you have done that then you wont see many upgrades if any at all.

Quote[/b] ]There is no way to test morale effects by themselves. It is thus harder, if not impossible, to balance the game

Huh? where were you when we had valor 3 only games a year ago http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif We even tried some valor 2 games too. All units had to have 2/3 valor upgrades. That was 1.1 so in VI that would be valor 1 or 2. If there ever was a conclusion then it was that valor 3 was more than enough and maybe even too much.

These valor 3 games plus experiences from two other mods, that used same morale, is why I only increased morale by +2 in the community mod.

I have run enough spear v sword tests plus used them in enough battles to know that there is a huge problem with differences in upgrading. Because of the rank bonus a spear unit depends a lot on swords not being too good. It doesnt take much upgrade difference before swords become too powerful and the delicate balance has been ruined.

That doesnt mean costs or stats cant be changed to make spears better but thats not the point.

We dont know the specific details in calculating modifiers from being outnumbered. But we know that stats does mean something so if facing pumped up swords a lonely spear unit could actually run quicker in a 10k/15k game than 5k.

When swords have 1-2 valor more then the spear unit will be losing badly constantly (remember that on equal valor, chiv sgts actually win most of the fight against a CMAA that uses standard formation) and have higher casualty rates that creates bigger morale penalty. Again we dont know the details, only that its worse.

The short answer is that the original stats work pretty ok but upgrading ruins it. There is room for some tweaking on costs of course (especially the formula CA used to calculate unit costs)

Quote[/b] ]U can't avoid upgrades with the unit purchase structure of the game -- especially if peeps want 16 units

If people want upgrades you cant stop them. But you can make sure it wont improve their army and basically be a waste of money. Actually I figured out how to remove upgrades completely from the game but that required custom missile stats.

Quote[/b] ]First off this whole debate is moot, cause it ain't gonna happen

Yes perhaps its moot. Its not like we are drowning in developers here...

CBR

ElmarkOFear

04-20-2004, 01:34

What I would like to see would be:

Elimination of 4 max penalties.

Also a "Random Army" game for MP: Where you could choose your faction, but the computer would pick your army for you given whatever money level you chose for each player. That would challenge you every game and also simplify army selection. Obviously, this would entail a "no upgrade" game as well since the computer would pick units based on their base cost with no upgrades.

Lastly, the ability to create games: Choose the map, the units, upgrades if any, number of players on each side etc . . and then be able to play it in MP, with players being able to choose which side they wanted to be on. Think of all the battle reenactments you could do.

As for CBR and his statement about the game being able to be improved for MP. You are correct in stating that if the developers/programmers would actively participate and hold an ongoing conversation with the community, they would be able to avoid a lot of imbalances and also gather a lot of new ideas for them to implement in the next game.

shingenmitch2

04-21-2004, 22:21

CB

"There is no way to test morale effects by themselves. It is thus harder, if not impossible, to balance the game"

I was trying to get at the fact that every time you change a units moral (through Valor) you then alter it's attack and defense stats so that the changes are never "either-or" but always "both" so it becomes difficult to see what is causing a unit to perform good or bad.

I guess I'm unware of what is possible to be modded. But I suppose once a morale level is agreed upon/set. Then you could just mess with the attack/def strengths of a unit (if there is the capability in the modding.)

--------

Hi Elm,

Random army? I could see it as an option. I think I wouldn't want to play that myself. I'd hate to lose games based solely that comp delt me "crappy hand." No matter how units are rated, I have feeling comp. would get "giving even armies" out wrong more often then not.

Create-a-game would be a nice feature.