Unit speed in RTW is indeed WAY too fast

[DisruptorX]

Now we all know the argument, and after playing the game for a long time, I have seen some ridiculous things that certainly point to the game moving too fast.

Lets start with the obvious, it feels too fast, and I don't like that. Massive zergling....... sorry, horsemen rush is completely unbeatable due to the fast that they run the speed of cars.

Next, I watched the legs of my skirmishers as the zipped around and the steps they were taking. They seriously looked like people in fast forward. From rate of speed they moved and distance covered, I would estimate that they were going about 20 mph. I don't like this.

Horsemen move so quickly that when you zoom in, it actually appears like they disappear and then reappear a few feet away. :no: Not cool. Also, when they "pile in" by jumping over friendly units, the jump is fast that they hit the ground before you actually realize what they are doing.

Being one who exists in real time, I can recognise what is happening in real time, as opposed to fast forward. Why is this game in fast forward?

[andrewt]

The walking speed is the same as in MTW but the battlefields are so big they feel much slower. The run speed is so noticeably much, much faster than the walking speed that it gets ridiculous.

[Murmandamus]

Have you not seen a horse moving at speed in the real world, DisruptorX? What dissapoints me is that the horses just run through spears like they aren't there. Horses should baulk at a barrier of spear points.

Speeds in RTW seem pretty good to me, but I always felt that running/horse movements have been too slow in past games. Cavalry should move a lot faster than infantry. That's the whole point of getting on a horse. :charge:

[DisruptorX]

Have you not seen a horse moving at speed in the real world, DisruptorX? What dissapoints me is that the horses just run through spears like they aren't there. Horses should baulk at a barrier of spear points.

Speeds in RTW seem pretty good to me, but I always felt that running/horse movements have been too slow in past games. Cavalry should move a lot faster than infantry. That's the whole point of getting on a horse. :charge:

Yes, I have, which is why I am amazed by the way that it takes horses a long time to catch up with fleeing skirmishers.

After playing a bit more I have determined that only Skirmishers and Cavalry Skirmishers/light cavalry are actually moving at inhuman rates, the rest seem to be fine. Unfortunatley, those 2 unit types are most of every AI army. Also, the "school of fish" movement the cavalry do adds to this sped up feel, as they turn much faster than they normally can when not in battle.

[Hamburglar]

Although things don't seem as fast in the demo, it still bothers me.

The maps are bigger but it seems that you do have to set up really close to the enemy. You can see a lot of map but the useable space really isn't that big. On the defensive you barely get any space to set up. I've yet to defend on a hill or somewhere cool simply since my army isn't allowed to set up on the hill right next to them.


Anyway, infantry run speeds are WAYYYYY too fast. The light troops look ridiculous when they're sprinting. Light cavalry might be too fast too but I don't know much about horses to tell anyone.

Cavalry WALK speed is very slow. Seems slower than the infantry walk speed which is a bit odd.


Killing speeds still seem too fast. I don't know if its just because I'm fighting the Gauls, but it seems that every battle I've fought is over within 30 seconds of the two armies colliding. I've fought about 40 battles and not one of them has actually had any extended combat between the two armies.

It's just a lot of manuevering and missile fire. Once the infantry waves charge each other one side routs almost instantly. Kind of dissappointing. I really miss the long slugfests that happened in Medieval because it almost helped me feel more attached to my guys if they had to spend 10 minutes fighting off those spearmen instead of chopping through anything (or being chopped through) in 30 seconds.

[Duke John]

Our new patron Apollonius has made a mod to slow down units! It seems that at least that problem has been tackled. Click here for more info! (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=36729)

[d6veteran]

The unit speed is fine imo. In fact I've grown to like it quickly and I'm not using the pause. It makes the battles exciting and immersive.

I've played a handful of online battles and the speed seemed right in those battles too. The maps are larger and the controls are more robust (you need to learn the shortcuts). I think you need to give it some time and let go of MTW preconceptions (as great a game as that is).

I think it is a shrinking minority that thinks the speed is too fast.

[DisruptorX]

After fighting several seige battles, I have solved another of our questions. Indeed, the killing speed is not ridiculously fast untill you charge. Charge bonuses are obscene, and end the battle pretty much instantly. Personally, I think they should have either lowered global attack power or several cut charge bonuses.

[SpencerH]

Our new patron Apollonius has made a mod to slow down units! It seems that at least that problem has been tackled. Click here for more info! (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=36729)

That mod is a first step perhaps, but unfortunately it slows everyone down uniformly. The problem is the inf run speeds.

Discussion on this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=36099) suggests that the inf walk speed in RTW remains at approx 4mph (which is high based on my own experience, but hey its a game). Run speed is 2.5 x that number (10mph) and charge speed even higher (probably). I'd like to point out that an elite olympic marathon runner averages 10 mph. Based upon my own experience, 6 mph is a fast run speed for a modern unit in fighting order with 5 mph being more common.

I have no experience with horses so I googled it. It looks like a decent time for a thoroughbred running a mile is 1.5 min (40mph) after which time they slow dramatically (or so I'm told by some 'horsie' friends). The record for the Grand national at Aintree is approximately 30mph over 4.5 mi. RTW cav run speeds seem to be 5 and 6 x inf walk speed (20 and 24 mph) (presumably for heavy and light cav). Both of which seem to be a 'tad' high based upon the best run speeds of the fastest horses in the modern world but then inf dont march at 4mph either.

So my 2 cents is that the inf run speed needs to be dramatically reduced to a realistic number and (as importantly) fatigue needs to be re-examined (overall).

[Turbo]

The unit speed is fine imo. In fact I've grown to like it quickly and I'm not using the pause. It makes the battles exciting and immersive.

I've played a handful of online battles and the speed seemed right in those battles too. The maps are larger and the controls are more robust (you need to learn the shortcuts). I think you need to give it some time and let go of MTW preconceptions (as great a game as that is).

I think it is a shrinking minority that thinks the speed is too fast.

I don't find the speed to be an issue. If anything, I speed the game up when marching on the battlefield.

[Oaty]

SPENCERH

I can walk at 5mph(about 3 mph for normal pace) jog at 8 mph and sprint at over 10 mph, so those statistics are'nt far off

Anyways what it really boils down to speed vs A.I. Does the comp really have a chance at lower speeds? I think I'd be guaranteed victories, the problem is there are tons of variables and it is hard to program the A.I. to take notice of every single possible aspect. Now for MP I can understand the difference but apparently the troop selection is quite different from single player and things work differently for the most part. Maybe what really needs to be done is a charge penalty for charging head on into a unit with cavalry. That would definately emphasize the need for cavalry to hit the flanks and rear. And maybe special units like kataphracts do'nt get a penalty for a head on charge

[d6veteran]

Maybe what really needs to be done is a charge penalty for charging head on into a unit with cavalry. That would definately emphasize the need for cavalry to hit the flanks and rear. And maybe special units like kataphracts do'nt get a penalty for a head on charge

And I think that is the case. I mean my experience with Cavalry charges so far shows that to be the case.

[Morindin]

Walking speed of infantry = fine.
Running speed = too fast.
I zoom down and watch my men running and they actually look pretty realistic to me, but they take about 10 seconds or so to cover 100m which is like an olympic sprinter.
Zoomed out however this can look absurd, however RTW wasnt made to play zoomed out :) After all zooming out is "unrealistic".

Skirmishers = way too fast running and Cavalry = about right.

I've tried some slow down mods and now it just makes my units look like they're walking on a treadmill. When they get tired its absolutely ridiculous how slow they are moving, I could crawl around faster than they "run".

[SpencerH]

SPENCERH

I can walk at 5mph(about 3 mph for normal pace) jog at 8 mph and sprint at over 10 mph, so those statistics are'nt far off

What people can do is their jogging shorts has no comparison to what soldiers have to do. I ran a 5:15 mile indoors and averaged 6 min/mile cross country.

As I said, the numbers I gave were based on my experience in the infantry and airborne while carrying fighting order (which weighs in excess of 30lbs without body armor). The RTW inf numbers are not even close to realism. 4 mph for a march speed down a road is 'movin' (but do-able) for around 8-10 hours.

[Morindin]

What people can do is their jogging shorts has no comparison to what soldiers have to do. I ran a 5:15 mile indoors and averaged 6 min/mile cross country.

As I said, the numbers I gave were based on my experience in the infantry and airborne while carrying fighting order (which weighs in excess of 30lbs without body armor). The RTW inf numbers are not even close to realism. 4 mph for a march speed down a road is 'movin' (but do-able) for around 8-10 hours.

What about in battle? After all that's what we're talking about. Pumped full of adrenaline marching speeds go out the window.

[son of spam]

What about in battle? After all that's what we're talking about. Pumped full of adrenaline marching speeds go out the window.

Since RTW is supposed to be 'simulating' hours long battles (yeah, right), a short term boost of adrenaline should not make a huge difference in marching speeds.

IMO unit run speeds should either be taken down or make it something like a 'boost' that you can only use when you are above a certain level of fatigue (like warmed up).

Walk speeds seem fine though.

[Morindin]

Since RTW is supposed to be 'simulating' hours long battles (yeah, right), a short term boost of adrenaline should not make a huge difference in marching speeds.

IMO unit run speeds should either be taken down or make it something like a 'boost' that you can only use when you are above a certain level of fatigue (like warmed up).

Walk speeds seem fine though.

What gives you the idea that RTW isnt simulating 'hours long battles' ? Have you played the campaign long enough yet to get that are the size of the real life ones that HAD hours long battles?

I seriously doubt anyone has played the game enough to get 10,000's of armies or even 45,000 yet but I have no doubt that they will last just as long, if not longer, than MTW.

I can't imagine a battle of a few hundred men forming one line of battle, which is common in this stage of RTW to last for "hours". Not only would it be highly unrealistic it would be EXTREMELY boring.

I think many peoples judgements are way premature. One thing ive noticed about RTW that will give it potential for longer battles with bigger armies is the fact that routing units dont seem to set off a chain rout through your entire army.

[d6veteran]

Well said Morindin.

Besides. I don't know about anyone else, but I want realism to a point and then I want gameplay. I don't want a 6 month turn on the strat map to take 6 months!

If the units on the battlefield are running 8 mph vs 4 mph then what is the big deal?

I think the game plays very well. You have time to respond, the controls are not a hinderance, the maps are huge ...

I'm about 60 years into the game and the sieges and some of the battles are taking longer and longer. This game can hardly be considered quick ;)

[DisruptorX]

Well said Morindin.

Besides. I don't know about anyone else, but I want realism to a point and then I want gameplay. I don't want a 6 month turn on the strat map to take 6 months!

If the units on the battlefield are running 8 mph vs 4 mph then what is the big deal?

I think the game plays very well. You have time to respond, the controls are not a hinderance, the maps are huge ...

I'm about 60 years into the game and the sieges and some of the battles are taking longer and longer. This game can hardly be considered quick ;)

And lo and behold, the seiges are actually fun to play because they take so long! ~:eek: I really enjoy seiges because movement speed has factor, without the ridiculous movement the result is incredably fun battles.

The same can not be said of normal battles. Also, the main complaint is that speeds were perfect in MTW, yes, perfect. Why fix what is not broken?

[Morindin]

Speeds were HARDLY perfect in MTW.

Routing units were IMPOSSIBLE to catch despite their fatigue level. They all ran like gods away from your tired men.

Cavalry Charging: Better in RTW
Routing Units: Better in RTW
Differences in fatigue level: Better in RTW

Foot Units Charging: Worse in RTW
Skirmishers in General: Worse in RTW
Cavalry Trotting: Worse in RTW
Troops on gradients: Worse in RTW

There are issues with RTW and the game can look silly when viewed from afar, but MTW was hardly perfect by any means.

I'd like to add im currently using the slow down mod, which makes units too way slow when they're fatigued and you usually waste half the timer just getting to the battlefield. Initially though when your troops are fresh and that it seems a lot better.

[Puzz3D]

The game is scaled very nicely in terms of size of objects and distances, but the speeds are violating that scale. The speeds should have been set to something realistic in the beginning, and not changed. Other factors not related to scale could have been adjusted to get the gameplay desired, but treating speed as an arbitrary variable is going to destroy the sense of realism as soon as units start moving around. As has already been noted, if you use that terrain mod to slow everything down a lot, you will introduce excessive fatigue and it could mess up flanking tactics as well. It might work ok if you just make a modest reduction of 10% or 20% at most to take the edge off the speeds.

[Thoros of Myr]

I'm using a small reduction and the fatigue doesent bother me, the units don't tire as fast as MTW anyway so it's fine.

[Morindin]

I'm using a small reduction and the fatigue doesent bother me, the units don't tire as fast as MTW anyway so it's fine.

I find my units tire much more than MTW. When defending in MTW you hardly ever ended up with exhausted units but in RTW you do quite easily once units engage in melee.

Are you sure about this?

Also RTW units take way longer to get back up to fresh if they do at all.

What difficulty level?

[son of spam]

Speeds were HARDLY perfect in MTW.

Routing units were IMPOSSIBLE to catch despite their fatigue level. They all ran like gods away from your tired men.

Cavalry Charging: Better in RTW
Routing Units: Better in RTW
Differences in fatigue level: Better in RTW

Foot Units Charging: Worse in RTW
Skirmishers in General: Worse in RTW
Cavalry Trotting: Worse in RTW
Troops on gradients: Worse in RTW

There are issues with RTW and the game can look silly when viewed from afar, but MTW was hardly perfect by any means.

I'd like to add im currently using the slow down mod, which makes units too way slow when they're fatigued and you usually waste half the timer just getting to the battlefield. Initially though when your troops are fresh and that it seems a lot better.

Huh? Were you trying to chase down routing cav or something in MTW?

Routing speeds were good in MTW. I've never had routing inf units run away from my cav before, except when my cav was exhausted, but that's to be expected in MTW.

BTW I don't have a problem with routing speed in RTW (yet).

[Morindin]

Huh? Were you trying to chase down routing cav or something in MTW?

Routing speeds were good in MTW. I've never had routing inf units run away from my cav before, except when my cav was exhausted, but that's to be expected in MTW.

BTW I don't have a problem with routing speed in RTW (yet).

No I mean routing infantry in MTW all ran as if they were fresh. Your fresh infantry couldnt catch them, you had to use cavalry. In RTW when a unit routs it runs at its current fatigue level, not super human "rout speed".

[Inuyasha12]

I really just think that mtw was a too slow. Im beggining to get used to the battle speeds and they seem more like normal battle speeds. The units do die a little too quickly im afraid but the actual speeds of the units seems fine to me.

Its when they get into battle that units begin dying like crazy, and i think they rout way too fast too. :surrender:

[son of spam]

What gives you the idea that RTW isnt simulating 'hours long battles' ? Have you played the campaign long enough yet to get that are the size of the real life ones that HAD hours long battles?

I seriously doubt anyone has played the game enough to get 10,000's of armies or even 45,000 yet but I have no doubt that they will last just as long, if not longer, than MTW.

I can't imagine a battle of a few hundred men forming one line of battle, which is common in this stage of RTW to last for "hours". Not only would it be highly unrealistic it would be EXTREMELY boring.

I think many peoples judgements are way premature. One thing ive noticed about RTW that will give it potential for longer battles with bigger armies is the fact that routing units dont seem to set off a chain rout through your entire army.

Read my post. I put 'simulating' in quotation marks, not hour-long battles. I feel the game right now is quite unrealistic and more importantly not fun to play.

Besides which my post was not aimed at you, but rather at a previous comment which said adrenaline would provide the speed boost we see in the game.

Anyway, what you seem to be suggesting is that RTW is a 1:1 scale of regular roman combat. I may have missed this somewhere, but please provide me with a link explaining how the Romans conquered Sicily with a couple hundred men.

Obviously the game is on more of a 10:1 or even a 100:1 (that's probably a bit too high) scale. So I expect battles to last a bit longer than 20 seconds when I fight with around 1000 "game men".

[Morindin]

Read my post. I put 'simulating' in quotation marks, not hour-long battles. I feel the game right now is quite unrealistic and more importantly not fun to play.

Besides which my post was not aimed at you, but rather at a previous comment which said adrenaline would provide the speed boost we see in the game.

Anyway, what you seem to be suggesting is that RTW is a 1:1 scale of regular roman combat. I may have missed this somewhere, but please provide me with a link explaining how the Romans conquered Sicily with a couple hundred men.

Obviously the game is on more of a 10:1 or even a 100:1 (that's probably a bit too high) scale. So I expect battles to last a bit longer than 20 seconds when I fight with around 1000 "game men".

Im hardly pointing out that, I am pointing out that RTW in my mind is closer to 1:1 MAN:TIME battles than MTW. It could be a bit slower, but at least when you watch your men fighting up close they dont seem to mill around each other for a prolong period of time seemingly picking dandylions.

If you had 45,000 vs 45,000 battles in RTW im sure they'd last a day at least.

Also my adrenalin post was aimed more at the guy quoting marching speeds. I was simple pointing out that marching speeds are not battle speeds.

Most battles i've had with around 1000 men vs a disciplined equal force lasts about 25 minutes +. Ive had plenty of 5 minute battles against Gauls lead by infants but what do you expect? Sieges in RTW last a long time also, 40 minutes +

You cant just use a "Ratio" system either because the reason RTW battles are over quicker than their real life counterparts is the fact you have ONE line of infantry due to smaller numbers. If you had the larger numbers to make up more lines you could recycle more troops making the battles last longer and not to "Scale".

A man in combat would probably be able to fight for around 12-15 minutes (and that's a trained fit man, with some generosity. I'd probably tire after 5 minutes of straight combat, provided I didnt die in the process) before becoming exhausted. If there is no second line to pull back behind it doesnt matter how big your army is, you'd rout or die.

[Lord of the Isles]

What gives you the idea that RTW isnt simulating 'hours long battles' ? Have you played the campaign long enough yet to get that are the size of the real life ones that HAD hours long battles?

I've no idea what that was supposed to mean.

Arguing with those that disagree with you is par for the course at the Org. Quite new to see someone say "running speed = too fast", then argue with someone who posts supporting that point. I guess all that's left to accomplish is to miss out the middle man and start rebutting your own posts.

[SpencerH]

What about in battle? After all that's what we're talking about. Pumped full of adrenaline marching speeds go out the window.

Adrenaline doesnt turn soldiers carrying armour, spears, helmet etc into world-class cross country runners while trying to maintain a semblance of formation over natural countryside.

To those who like the inf run speeds as they are, good for you. You wont have to mod the game. I dont, so I'll have to hope a way can be found to reduce the run speed of armoured units in formation. I'll probably leave skirmishers and non armoured units alone since, like the cav speeds, they are not too outlandish for a game.

[Underhand]

A man in combat would probably be able to fight for around 12-15 minutes (and that's a trained fit man, with some generosity. I'd probably tire after 5 minutes of straight combat, provided I didnt die in the process) before becoming exhausted. If there is no second line to pull back behind it doesnt matter how big your army is, you'd rout or die.
However, the other side would also tire at a similar rate. Fair enough to say that if one side has reserves and the other doesn't, the side with reserves will likely win, but I doubt that in battle it was wise to replace your front line as soon as the men there became tired. I think that combat took quite a while before reserves were employed, and short periods of fighting were interspersed with slightly longer periods of resting and heckling for both sides. It appears from reading accounts of battles that the side which commited its final reserve last had the advantage, so there would have been a certain skill in judging how late you could leave reinforcement. Too long and your army routs. Too short and your whole army tires.

Indeed, I believe the Romans, in one of their early battles against their fellow latins, concealed their triarii by having them kneel to trick their opponents into committing their final reserve, thinking the Romans had already used theirs. The Romans won that one.

So it's not simply a case of fighting for ten minutes and then being rotated. You'd have to fight for longer than that (provided as you say that you didn't die in the process).

[Tim]

Well, I'm at about 145 B.C, and have fought 50 plus battles. Once we are engaged, every battle last no more that two minutes, and that's being generous. It is too fast. And, I hate to do it, I'm going to violate one of my posting rules, i.e. taking issue with another's view of the game. Someone posted that their battles (non-sieges) last 25 minutes or so ~:rolleyes: I find that hard to believe. This game is great, but the battles have got to be adjusted. They are just too short.

And yet the major problem, as I see it, that has plagued the Total War gamesis present here too; poor Campaign Level AI. As was the case with Medieval, I'm moving into enemy countries totally desolate of any meaningful technology. I'm not talking about barbarians either. I'm mopping the floor with the AI. My BIGGEST problem is managing my cities. If you forget about one for one or two turns, you've got a rebellion on your hands.

[d6veteran]

I have to wonder if some of you are playing larger battles yet.

I played a large siege last night with many reinforcing armies on both sides and the battle went into the night.

I'm enjoying the single player as much as I hoped for.

[Kraxis]

I have to wonder if some of you are playing larger battles yet.

I played a large siege last night with many reinforcing armies on both sides and the battle went into the night.

I'm enjoying the single player as much as I hoped for.

And pausing was at a minimum?

I'm really joining in on either side here, just making certain you guys don't talk past each other...

Ohhh... How replays could have helped here. Both sides could come up with 'proof' within a second almost. Then it would just be a matter of determining which proof was the strongest.

[Puzz3D]

I played a Roman vs Carthage custom 1v1 battle with huge units, 10K denari and a 20% reduction in movement speeds. This put a total of about 5000 men in the battle. The major fighting lasted about 10 minutes, and each side got about 1500 kills. I spent an additional 10 minutes chasing remnants, and exhausion did slow down that process. The movement animations looked fine except for some noticable slipping on walking infantry at times. I didn't notice any lag, but I never had all the units in my field of view at once. For some reason the camera was restricted to the general's view, even though I had selected unlimited camera in the options. I'm going to try more battles with huge units and the 20% speed reduction. BTW, there is no tax for more than 4 of one unit type, and upgrades are very limited at 10k denari as are the better unit types. You can't just load up on all the best units at 10k by a long shot.

[Psyco]

What unit size are you playing on? I'm doing Huge, and the killing and rout speeds, as well as the movement speeds, seem fine. My battles usually take around half an hour, even when there's only about 3000 men on the field. When you get into the bigger battles (4000+), its hard to finish before the timer runs out (still cant find a way to turn that off. Anyone know?). The movement speeds are a bit faster than Medieval, but the fields are larger, so it doesn't make much of a difference. The killing speeds, although quicker than Medieval, feel better than Medieval. With the larger units (160 for most infantry, but up to 220[?]) the difference in killing speeds is negligable.
Thats my 2 cents.

[Red Harvest]

I have to wonder if some of you are playing larger battles yet.

I played a large siege last night with many reinforcing armies on both sides and the battle went into the night.

I'm enjoying the single player as much as I hoped for.

??? With the game imposed timer, how do you get a battle to go into the night? How do you get it to go more than 20 minutes? I've never seen the actual fighting last more than 10 minutes (and most of that is chasing routers.) A long battle with two full stacks usually has less than 60 seconds of melee before the cavalry runs everyone down.

[Morindin]

Well, I'm at about 145 B.C, and have fought 50 plus battles. Once we are engaged, every battle last no more that two minutes, and that's being generous. It is too fast. And, I hate to do it, I'm going to violate one of my posting rules, i.e. taking issue with another's view of the game. Someone posted that their battles (non-sieges) last 25 minutes or so ~:rolleyes: I find that hard to believe. This game is great, but the battles have got to be adjusted. They are just too short.

And yet the major problem, as I see it, that has plagued the Total War gamesis present here too; poor Campaign Level AI. As was the case with Medieval, I'm moving into enemy countries totally desolate of any meaningful technology. I'm not talking about barbarians either. I'm mopping the floor with the AI. My BIGGEST problem is managing my cities. If you forget about one for one or two turns, you've got a rebellion on your hands.

Playing on Hard/Hard the AI is richer and more advanced than I am, and giving me quite a struggle.
Steamrolling the Gauls made me think this game was easy - how wrong was I.

Tweaking the speeds to a 10% reduction works good I find. It takes that edge off and units dont move ridiculously slow when they are fatigued.

I will happily post replays of combat lasting longer than 2 minutes - all multiplayer battles.

[d6veteran]

And pausing was at a minimum?




I haven't paused yet.

[d6veteran]

??? With the game imposed timer, how do you get a battle to go into the night? How do you get it to go more than 20 minutes?

I was refering to a single player battle.

[Red Harvest]

I was refering to a single player battle.

Ahhhh...OK. ~:joker: Some of the descriptions by folks are so contrary to what I've seen that I'm beginning to wonder if CA randomized our installs...

CA Installer (for Customer 1): "OK, he installed in the afternoon on a Thursday, so he gets 20 minute timer, no weather, units rout easily, cav are set to turbo."

CA Installer (for Customer 2): "This person filled out the registration form on a Friday, so they get no timer, lots of weather, and infantry that fight real battles."

[Nigel]

Tweaking the speeds to a 10% reduction works good I find. [...] - all multiplayer battles

Just for my information (dont have the game yet).
You mean to say that you can reduce the overall speed by 10% and go and play MP games with those settings with anyone? Or do both players need the same patch ?

[Morindin]

All my multiplayer games have been prior to tweaking with the config files of course :)

[todorp]

Thanks a lot for the speed mod!

~:cheers: