MTW or VI - Which Is Really The Best Medieval Multiplayer Game? [Archive]

L'Impresario

07-18-2005, 17:38

The winning technique in VI 4v4 high era has already been demonstrated by the Silent Assassins. Due to imbalance in VI, this technique converges to a single method. The replays are available. There is nothing more to be learned about VI 4v4 high era, and I suspect that the same technique works in the other eras as well.

I'm not completely in agreement with a single tactic being the key to win all games in vi, if my understanding of that tactic in the specific context above is correct.
The majority of 4v4s and 3v3 in CWC and similar competitions were played in steppes, and other maps were quite flat as well. I think that a change in competition settings could help a lot and there is always room for improvement in clan tactics; it's just that you need 4-6 people very goal-oriented, willing to spend long hours in order to perform a predetermined routine. This routine may vary but if the opponent hasn't trained much or at all, you don't need to strive for even better coordination - and in more complex maps, esp. large ones the amount of training needed increases geometrically. In the end it's not worth it IMO.
Just learn the basic exploits, when to send all of your cav to your allies' flank, how to block the enemy cav and inf from interfering, and in the end if you're bored of long games,just buy more cav and play in steppes;)

TW_Taiko

07-19-2005, 11:44

Personally, I think MTW and VI are balanced. Every unit can beat every unit if used correctly in MTW or VI. What is your definition of balance ? You want infantry to always beat cavalry and cavalry always beat archer and archer always kill infantry ? Thats not balanced, thats stupid.

Swipe is a bug, not cheat. If everyone know about the bug and know how to counter it, then its not a problem. I use swipe and I expect my opponent to swipe me too.

Host the tourney and let the players who love this game to play... leave behind all the people who say negative about this game.

Tiger_Taiko

L'Impresario

07-19-2005, 13:07

Well , that's a fundamentally flawed assumption.
Balance 101
Everyone can have a definition of balance , but in reality there is only a basic one and it's supposed to be an offspring of logic (and a bit of actual warfare). Spears will win over cav who will beat swords. Missiles will be inflicting some degree of damage as long as they far from the enemy, else die relatively fast. Other toop types will have specialised functions, though they'll still roughly fall in one category.

Inbalance due to game features
Theoretically at v0 the units are balanced as the above sentences are incorporated into the game. Pricing is still a rather complex process. Some say missiles are quite high priced for v0 but I won't delve into this. What I'll mention is the known inbalance due to valour.

Every unit can beat every unit if used correctly in MTW or VI.
This requires a relatively "good" player/team and a "worse" one. If I get 6 spear units 4 cav and 4 swords (and this would approach historical armies in western settings a tiny bit) and the "worse" player gets 6 swords and 7-8 cav, I can win him him but this doesn't mean that the army selection played a big role, rather the difference between my own better time in responsing to enemy movements and positioning, finding more opportunities to flank and/or having better allies in a team game.
This train of thought stems from the fact that valour upgrades are able to equate a large number of non-spear units (which are unwieldy for most players or in great quantities=more than the # of swords in your army). In the end the selection narrows down to 2(+1 axe) units, with the simple criteria of them having better stats and mrl than other infantry , and larger numbers than other swords. Any other selection won't necessarily bring defeat or disaster but it requires more planning and more effective action in-game. In high steppe 10k clan competitions tho, it's a no-no, the sword-cav combo will win, unless there is a certain plan, like having weak inf factions go all or almost alll cav and rushing one side (that's for 4v4s), or keeping their superior inf in check with your own for as long as possible while the attack is made to another point of the map/ or get superior and more massive ,mainly cav, help from allies.
Late Era adds other factors into the calculations, namely guns , maybe pikes as well, who can kill reliably a cav most of the time but surely they ain't indispensible. The thing that arquebusiers can hold their ground for a long time is also an indicator that something is wrong here, as they weren't designed with that purpose in mind. All this stat guessing and calculating results in a not-so-intuitive game. That's why you see new players often getting massacred in almost all situations; their armies might be reasonable from the in-gane descriptions of the units and history, but they aren't cost- and battle-effective in 10k for example. Plus they lack the experience to handle them properly, which reduces their chances of presenting even a slight challenge for the average VI player.

Regarding MTW
The swipe is a bug but it's no worse than the "battle upgrades". Lancers v0wpn1 sure can be quite nice, as VGv0wpn1 or any other very expensive unit. If they are cav and can capture more routers, then things are even more easy.

Love

Host the tourney and let the players who love this game to play... leave behind all the people who say negative about this game.

I think that many people who played the mp game for some while and were at least around during the 200-ppl-in-the-lobby period have no love for it in the way you mean it. It has evolved (?) from the swift and passionate love of the first years to the tender and inexcessive love that time brings, past the days when you close your eyes to faults and imperfections, but when you acknowledge and live with them. Or -as it has been shown repeatedly- divide memories from reality and find a new, fresher mistress ~;)
It's not bad, or anything else for that matter, enjoying a game that undoubtedly is not balanced in its current playing form ~:)

Puzz3D

07-19-2005, 17:00

You could play the tournament with all equal valor units and no other upgrades. As I recall, valor 1 gives a good morale level for VI, and 8500 florins is the amount of money to use for a 5000 florin equivalent game. This effectively limits the number of elite units you can purchase, and you see a wider variety of unit types being used. It's not as good as using a mod, but it's better than the game as it's normally played.

Tomisama

07-20-2005, 03:40

Taking direction from the above poll and contributed statements, I am now starting work on a Clan vs. Clan 4v4, Viking Invasion Revival Tournament.

Had planed to take the Contest Rounds through the Four Eras, on selected Large Custom Maps. And had thought to have a progressive system of Florin, graduating from 5 to 10k, to 15, and 20, in each successive Era Round.

That would be a 5k Viking, 10k Early, etc..

Straight forward and easy to keep straight. Sound challenging to anyone?

Gawain of Orkeny

07-20-2005, 06:03

The winning technique in VI 4v4 high era has already been demonstrated by the Silent Assassins. Due to imbalance in VI, this technique converges to a single method. The replays are available. There is nothing more to be learned about VI 4v4 high era, and I suspect that the same technique works in the other eras as well.

What ever gave you this idea? I the last CWC Silents and RTK tied. It was only through the tie breaking rules that they won. This hardly proves that theirs was the only winning technique. As I was a sort of honorary member of SA and helped them practice and recruit ,this method I think I have some credibility here. It was the same basic thing Surp had used in the Deathby clan. The Silents were good for the same reason every other strong clan was ,good players and practicing together.They practiced their tecnique constantly until it became automatic. When ever we did this we also were almost unbeatable. Its not easy though to find players with the time and dedication to achieve this.SA was a sort of super clan yet we still fought them almost to a standstill. It could easily have gone either way.

L'Impresario

07-20-2005, 11:06

This tourney wasn't CWC, just the Premier League, a 3v3 10k high steppes championship (in which VDM actually finished 3rd in the normal season but for strange reason were placed 4th:P). By then (summer 2004) many clans had had the chance of getting more tourney games together, while some others had almost left VI altogether.
Defending teams had a big advantage in the tourney, I think if a statistic about this was made then it'd be clear that defenders won the majority of games when roughly equal teams played. In the end, as already said a couple of times, automatisation is the magic word, something not all clans can afford to do, I'm sure all know how hard is to get 4 players from vastly different places and convince not to play freely for their enjoyment, but force an authority upon them and make them play out repeatedly your game.
Don't think that Yuuki mentioned that the SA were a superteam , but other clans had to play almost along the same lines if they wanted to win.

As I was a sort of honorary member of SA and helped them practice and recruit
Don't want to create any fuss, as much time has passed since then, but this weird dude that all had come to love and appreciate;) did tell me in March and April 2004 that SA had you and Ichi as members along with other old players, but I didn't actually give it much thought as there was an overly amount of clan intrigue for my stomach at the time and people say a lot of things - even that fellow, he certainly said more than his share heh. Now that you write about being a trainer did remind me this and does clear up some things:)

Puzz3D

07-20-2005, 12:23

What ever gave you this idea? I the last CWC Silents and RTK tied. It was only through the tie breaking rules that they won. This hardly proves that theirs was the only winning technique.
RTK didn't come up with something that beat it. My clan fought them to a close match as well in CWC, but I could see what they were doing and there's no counter for it except the same technique with the same unit selection. It then comes down to who executes better. You haven't said anything that discounts my statement.

How do you square with your RTK clanmates that you helped train a rival clan that then went on to beat your own clan in a tournament?

t1master

07-20-2005, 18:01

are these the power armies that the wolves and tawain cavaliers used in their cwc final? the long rows of pavs, heavy swords/horsies and some longbows? then you create a hot spot and feed it?

Gawain of Orkeny

07-20-2005, 18:27

How do you square with your RTK clanmates that you helped train a rival clan that then went on to beat your own clan in a tournament?

I dint help them train for this tournamnet. I helped Surp get SA started . I didnt participate in any tourney traing but I did help with the intial formation and training. I also didnt plauy for either side when we played eachother.

This tourney wasn't CWC, just the Premier League,

Yup my mistake. Thats the tourney we tied them in. Are you from VDM? If so whats your name. I also helped form that clan you know as well as quite a few others.

are these the power armies that the wolves and tawain cavaliers used in their cwc final? the long rows of pavs, heavy swords/horsies and some longbows? then you create a hot spot and feed it?

No just the opposite. SA use rush armies and just overpower a certain area. Few if any range units are used by them.

Puzz3D

07-20-2005, 18:54

No just the opposite. SA use rush armies and just overpower a certain area. Few if any range units are used by them.
Yes. They used a diamond geometry in 4v4. If you set up against them in a line of 4 armies, they will be able to bring a higher concentration of units to any point on your line whether you defend or attack because the average path length for the diamond to any point is shorter than it is for a line. When you combine that with the fact that they used the most cost effective melee units what are you to do except adopt the same technique? Cavalry was also very important in helping achieving an overwhelming concentration of force. The counter to this strategy would be spears that could decisively defeat calvalry, but MTW/VI doesn't have them. I used swiss halberdiers, and they almost worked to counter the strategy. They are less cost efficient than the swords, but maybe they would have worked if I could have played a little better. The method isn't as effective in 3v3 because you can't make a diamond geometry, but you still have to match them unit for unit.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-20-2005, 19:18

I used swiss halberdiers, and they almost worked to counter the strategy. They are less cost efficient than the swords, but maybe they would have worked if I could have played a little better. The method isn't as effective in 3v3 because you can't make a diamond geometry, but you still have to match them unit for unit.

Yes Halbs were the best thing to use against them. Lional and Kay were very good with them. Again we won as many battles as they did and we didnt use the same strategy as they did. I maintain that our top four players at that time could hold their own or beat SA most of the time. We could have scored many more points but we let many people play. Our first team was almost unbeaten in this tourney.

L'Impresario

07-20-2005, 19:39

That tourney was indeed a nice one as the first 8 places were constantly changing , as teams were almost different after a couple of games, as it was played over a long period of time and the last 10 games (including playoffs) took place during summer iirc.
But it was a 3v3 tourney and rushing was less effective as noted above. The use of a /---\ type of defense was very popular and most defenders could make use of internal lines much better than in 4v4. In VDM's case, the team that ahieved most of our streak of wins used basically cav and sword armies augmented by camels who ended up chewing up more than their share of cav.

Are you from VDM?
Lol, look at my sig Gaw;)

Gawain of Orkeny

07-20-2005, 19:44

Hail Alex my freind. Hey you do realise we sent a very second class team to face you guys dont you. It was far from our best players. If we stayed with only our first team we would have easily won that tourney.

L'Impresario

07-20-2005, 20:00

Well I don't think most teams used their best teams. We didn't use our best team as well and had very little, if any at all, training. It was also the first battle Buu played at any tourney heh I remember your team was Alymere, Yvain and Lional, and while I too worried and occupied about Buu messing up, he in the end made the decisive moves and won the game. I still haven't seen how we played during the last games of that season but I heard that clans started rushing with increasing frequency heh

If we stayed with only our first team we would have easily won that tourney
Dunno about that, most clans were already starting/finishing their exodus from VI and even so games were challenging due to the nature of the tourney. A mediocre team can become good and quite effective if it studies its opponents in a given setting that stays the same.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-20-2005, 20:09

It was also the first battle Buu played at any tourney heh I remember your team was Alymere, Yvain and Lional,

Yup Lional was the only vet there.. Yvain and Aly had just won their tags. If you can go nack and check the record of our first team. Again I dont think they ever lost. Also SA stayed with pretty much the same team all the way throug. People in our clan started to complain that they werent being given a chance while others such as myslef wanted to win a tourny for once instead of finishing second like we did in every CWC but 1. But we gave in as that how RTK play the game.

L'Impresario

07-20-2005, 20:20

*this is getting slight off-topic but anyway*
The tourney escalated into play-offs which in turn ended into 3 final games. Didnt you use the first team for the finals? That would be poor leadership from the King (sows the seeds of dissent heh);)

EDIT: Although on a second thought I'd let the new people play after having trained them to exhaustion; they might 've delivered a powerful surprise as the replays' dl section had 100s of hits ~D

Gawain of Orkeny

07-20-2005, 20:30

Didnt you use the first team for the finals? That would be poor leadership from the King (sows the seeds of dissent heh);)

In a word NO. We have a new King since then in case you havent noticed. It wasnt his fault though. There had been a conflict in RTK after I started recruiting the Pages. There was a split between those who wanted to win and those who want all to particiapte. The way of the RTK has always been fun and fairness over winning. We are the anithisis of the SA. Honor over glory.

Tomisama

07-21-2005, 04:14

Aye, the talk of strategy and tactical teamwork warms the wee cockles of me heart :smitten:

But words about the lack of spear and pike power to provide the rock-paper-scissors balance to the game, makes me sad again.

I’m thinking that a simple modification could fix this problem, and really make a “new game” out of good old MTW/VI. Could even call it Super VI, or SVI for short.

The trick to “successfully” accomplishing this, “has to” bow to the wisdom that there be only “one” revision. That it would have to be a self extracting no-brainer, with a desktop switch-back to standard. And that it would only fix this “one” problem. Nothing more to learn than how to use spears again.

Anything “more”, or “less”, will probably be doomed to the mod grave yard, before it even has a chance to be accepted by the majority of players.

And if it isn’t plug-and-play, with a single, but significantly powerful, and easy to learn change, it will probably never fly, and is not worth doing in the first place.

Anyone up for creating this SVI mod? Do we have any interested in beta testing? I would do my best to promote it with a CWC SVI Competition, and Org front page “Super” announcement with some cool picture and stuff.

What do you say :wideeyed:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-21-2005, 05:10

But words about the lack of spear and pike power to provide the rock-paper-scissors balance to the game, makes me sad again.
I have always maintained that the only thing lacking has been in this area. Just adding more morale to spear units would seem a step in the right direction to me. You can count me in if you need testors. I have so many ideas on how easily MTW could be improved its a shame someone doesnt by the rights and release my improved version. ~D

I love talking about the history and charcters of MTW and VI. So many rememberable people clans and battles.

One thing for sure from looking at this poll is that there is little doubt that VI is the superior game. Those of you who only play MTW please take note.

L'Impresario

07-21-2005, 13:43

There are two schools on how to improve the game:
a) the radical one and most effective, but hard to make and spread as people usually don't want to change something that changes vastly how they use their CMAA "Übermenschen", and
b) the "patch-way", changing less, prone to have small mistakes all over and in theend achieve opposite results.

"A" entails eliminating what causes the general balance problem, not only in spears but among all units: valour and any other upgrades. The Community mod is a good example but it has changes that deviate very much from the standard game apart from the statistical ones.
"B" means changing prices and maybe a minimum of mrl values (or in the extreme attack, defence, speed). Hard to finetune as those ms v3 (a lower quality troop) could still be better than cmaav2 (a high quality one) whatever you do , just one case of the dozens I can think of. One of my clanmates Ein did try to follow this approach but it was during the end of the VI era with people hanging around even more resistant to new idea. As long as we tested it, it was going in the right direction, with only simple changes, like prices and a slight speed upgrade for fast cav, so that the pav fights become somewhat more interesting (an alan charge made with even 1 or 2 points of higher speed surey did look more destructive heh).

Anyway, clans nowdays might be willing to endorse such a mod (even though they few, as is the general VI population) and I'd be happy to do my part, as there aren't much better things to do in VI, but that should be after summer:)

Puzz3D

07-21-2005, 14:22

But words about the lack of spear and pike power to provide the rock-paper-scissors balance to the game, makes me sad again.

I’m thinking that a simple modification could fix this problem, and really make a “new game” out of good old MTW/VI.

You can, to a large degree, correct five problems by playing with the rule of equal valor on all units. This would avoid making a mod. The rock, paper, scissors is there in the valor 0 game, but morale is too low and ranged units too expensive in most player's opinion. When you raise the money above 5000 florins, the swords and ranged units get the most upgrades because swords are relatively cheap and range units get a discount on upgrades. This is what upsets the RPS by allowing swords to beat cav, and turn ranged units into melee units.

If you play with all units at valor 1, all units will get +2 morale which is the morale level at which the game was designed to be played. The problem with low morale in MTW was brought on by the switch from purchasing units at honor 2 in STW to valor 0 in MTW. That's a 4 point difference in morale, and while a hidden +2 morale was put back in VI it is still 2 points less than what it should be.

The discount on ranged unit upgrades, introduced in MTW v1.1, was an attempt to compensate for their weakness in multiplayer. Playing at valor 1 makes ranged units relatively cheaper, but doesn't go overboard allowing ranged units to become highly effective melee units as happens in normal 10k and higher games.

Swords will be better balanced vs cavalry because they won't get more upgrading than the cav knights usually get as they do in 10k and higher games. A good charge is essential for a v1 cav knight to beat a v1 cmaa, but they can do it.

Spears will beat cav and they will not be operating in an environment where high powered swords decimate them so quickly. The sword will still beat a spear with it's hidden +1 attack vs spears, but not as fast. The better spears are suitable against the better cav. The weaker spears are suitable for the weaker cav types, but it will still be costly for a cav knight to take on a weaker spear due to the cost difference. You could argue that spears in VI should have been put back to the original costs they had in MTW v1.0.

Finally, you limit the number of elite units that get used by keeping the money level to 8500 florins or slightly higher per player. This effect breaks down at 10k. Fewer elite units gives lesser units a chance to be used. We played many test games using this system back in MTW v1.1, and there were a greater variety of units being used in the battles. We pretty well eliminated the next step up in morale as offering better gameplay because the morale was too high and undermined the effectiveness of flanking.

Using this equal valor system might have an adverse affect on the balance of some factions. As I recall, the Turks aren't quite as good. So, someone who likes using the Turks won't like playing this way. You will run into this same kind of issue with a mod, and you will still have the upgrade system destroying the unit balance the mod is trying to create.

A problem with mods is that there no way to make them easy to install since European and USA versions of the game use different game folders and using the registry key to find the folder isn't reliable either.

L'Impresario

07-21-2005, 14:32

Installing mods like the "La Reconquista" or the Comm Mod was a piece of cake so far, and only one click away from late period.

Anyway V1 for all unit will create significant problems with ck, lancers, goths and the like being able to create chains routs in secs if encountered in groups large than 2. I also don't think strictly anti-cav units like halberdiers will be able to withstand a single charge with mrl2 from a v1 ck. Ofcourse a solution is lower florin levels but then some expensive units like jhi or almughavars for example won't be worth it.Needless to say with a little testing it can be checked.

Puzz3D

07-21-2005, 18:04

Installing mods like the "La Reconquista" or the Comm Mod was a piece of cake so far, and only one click away from late period.
Ask CBR how much time we spent helping people install mods for MTW. For some people it's a piece of cake, but for others it can take hours to get a mod installed.

Anyway V1 for all unit will create significant problems with ck, lancers, goths and the like being able to create chains routs in secs if encountered in groups large than 2.
First of all, you would keep the money low so you won't have large groups of elite units, and second, you will have to use spears to stop them. That's the whole point. Swords will no longer work against cav. A ck is going to cost 1147 florins, and if you are playing at 8500 you won't see many of them. Lancers and Goths are even more expensive. Those units could be quite effective, but you will have to be good with them.

I also don't think strictly anti-cav units like halberdiers will be able to withstand a single charge with mrl2 from a v1 ck. Ofcourse a solution is lower florin levels but then some expensive units like jhi or almughavars for example won't be worth it. Needless to say with a little testing it can be checked.
Well, that's true about basic halberdiers, but you don't need them and why should they be able to stop an elite cav unit anyway? Halberdiers do not break the cav charge the way spears do. You want to bring them in after the cav charge has been stopped by someting else. They would be useful against lesser cav and you'll be seeing lesser cav. The expense of the jhi is why the Turks take a hit since they don't have a good alternative anti-cav unit as I recall, and you can no longer pump the combo units to be top melee infantry. We played battles with this valor 1 rule, and they were good. As I recall, the Turk problem was the main objection to it.

I can play Samurai Wars where everyone has the same unit choice, and there are only 14 unit types. The battles are very good. If some of the 100 unit types in MTW/VI are made non-useful by playing at equal valor, I don't think it matters. Look at how many non-useful units there already are in the normal MTW/VI game. The majority of the units are not useful. With the equal valor rule you increase the number of useful units. If Turks are no longer competitive, then don't use them. Faction balance is a whole other can of worms. You have to weigh these things against making a new mod and getting everyone to install it, and the fact that the release of BI is coming up fast. The release of the RTW v1.2 patch killed Samurai Wars and killed a CWC tournament that was using Samurai Wars.

L'Impresario

07-21-2005, 20:04

First of all, you would keep the money low so you won't have large groups of elite units, and second, you will have to use spears to stop them. That's the whole point
That's somewhat problematic as the assortment of spear units can't exactly match the power of a ckv1. The strongest spears are OFS (italian infantry) and Saracens which costwise aren't exactly the best choice, as 680 florins and mrl 4 don't ensure that they can hold that good , for they need lots of time to start inflicting serious casualties to heavy cav, who won't rout very easily with mrl10.

Well, that's true about basic halberdiers, but you don't need them and why should they be able to stop an elite cav unit anyway?
Yes I agree but you don't have a way of making them very useful this way, and there are not many units who can could be used to finish up a good cav in reasonable time, without spending florins at the elite cav's level.
I don't think Turks are in that bad condition tho. They just can't have many choices in offense, but the mrl penalties that heavy fire by their hybrids can cause to mrl4-6 inf are not negligible. Still not comparable cav or inf, but this was the case in vanilla anyway, you 'll have to win by playing differently than euros.
Eitherway as I said, the v1 rule at say 8k could be way better than the current 10k-15k game variety-wise, even if after a while some units will be discarded from the game .

Puzz3D

07-21-2005, 21:40

That's somewhat problematic as the assortment of spear units can't exactly match the power of a ckv1. The strongest spears are OFS (italian infantry) and Saracens which costwise aren't exactly the best choice, as 680 florins and mrl 4 don't ensure that they can hold that good , for they need lots of time to start inflicting serious casualties to heavy cav, who won't rout very easily with mrl10.
You have to maintain the integrity of the spear battleline, and you have to accept that the cavalry can pull back and reform for another charge at a different spot. OFS won't rout if you keep their flanks covered, and they will take very few losses from a CK. CK is a 5/5 and OFS something like a 3/11 vs cav with the rank bonuses included, and the CK's charge bonus is negated. The OFS is twice as good as the CK in combat power. Spears are implemented as a defensive unit, and their low rate of casualties helps keep their morale up. Also, there are no high powered swords around which can rout spears in seconds. Even chiv seargents are effective, but harder to use because they have less morale. After the cav charge is stopped by a spear, you could possible bring in a halbedier to get some quick kills on the cav unit or maybe hit the heavy cav from the flank with a light cav unit. I played many games at 5000 florins with valor 0 OFS, and they work without routing. CBR used to use chiv seargents in those 5k games.

Players are going to try to break the spear line with cav charges at first, but once you stop it several times they will have to switch to a different tactic. Stopping sword attacks on a spear line is going to requite the use of additional units, and you might have to reposition the spears to cover the flanks if you send in your cav to take on the swords since you won't have any viable units to protect your flanks with cav and spears both commited to the line.

Yes I agree but you don't have a way of making them very useful this way, and there are not many units who can could be used to finish up a good cav in reasonable time, without spending florins at the elite cav's level.
That's right. You won't be knocking out cav knights quickly, and they are going to make multiple charges on you which you have to parry if you are playing defensively. They won't break you if you get the right units matched up against them and you maintain a good formation of units which provide morale support to the unit that's fighting. That CK is worth 1147 florins, and even if it kills a whole OFS worth 680 florins and in the process is itself decimated, you've gained 467 florins.

Eitherway as I said, the v1 rule at say 8k could be way better than the current 10k-15k game variety-wise, even if after a while some units will be discarded from the game .
Well I think it offeres a significant improvement to the gameplay with a very simple rule, and you don't need a mod to use it. We could do some test battles to demontrate how well it works.

L'Impresario

07-21-2005, 22:16

I didn't say tho that a good player will charge any spears, t's just that you could have a static line that the player with the v1 CK might opt to bypass it and strike at another point. The mobility of a CK is worth double the cost of an OFS.The ck can ofcourse fail at striking at the weak link (non-spears that is) and this just shows how defenders can get a really big advantage if the attacker is forced to launch an offensive while using cav as the main force (actually using any force). Generaly tho, with OFS and CK, the cav user has the option not to give battle most of the time.

CBR

07-21-2005, 22:47

I have used Feudal Sergeants to stop a heavy cavalry charge. Using valor 1 on all units can be done as a simple rule and would improve balance but would still have some probs with the lower morale units.

CBR

Gawain of Orkeny

07-22-2005, 00:35

Ask CBR how much time we spent helping people install mods for MTW. For some people it's a piece of cake, but for others it can take hours to get a mod installed.

Or days and even weeks. It took me over a month and lots of help from CBR to install the STW mod. Im such a noob. ~;)

Tomisama

07-22-2005, 01:15

So, if I am getting the jist of all of the above.

The most effective balancer, is also the simplest to implement.

In-game rules of mandatory v1 for all units, and florin set to 8k per player.

Am I understanding correctly?

If so, would this formula change for different eras :anxious:

L'Impresario

07-22-2005, 02:01

Well, I see it this way after some quick calculations and armies I made.
8k for early is too much, for high it's good I guess, maybe some 100s florins over the needed amount, and for late too few.
Heh that's how it appears to me right now, shame that I won't actually have the chance to test 'em soon.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-22-2005, 02:04

You know its a real shane the Re Conquista mod never really caught on. It was like a totaly new game and the Celtis put a hell of a lot of work into it. I loved how there were so many new units. That though seemed to be the problem as it was hard to figure out what was best. But then thats also what makes it so interesting. You never knew what you were going to face. To bad we cant get everyone to download it and have a touney there. It would sure even things up as pretty much everyone would be a noob. I like CBRs mod also. Its much more balanced.

L'Impresario

07-22-2005, 14:58

I think "La Reconquista" was the most successful mod in VI/MTW history in terms of games played. I remember browsing through my logfiles a year ago and seeing that I had over 150 games with it, and I wasn't particularly looking for them. This may have lasted for a month or two, then the gradual collapse of the "VI community" couldn't help any alternative playing style , and not many players can agree on one , apart from the one they think they're good at.
I sometimes like mods with many new units as they give me the illusion that there can be a closer approximation of real historical forces that took part in the battles of a given period, and also offer more options, but in the end if they remain unbalanced the gameplay won't improve at all.
PS. I 'm getting annoyed by people who create infantry (or even cav) units with 20 or less men for their mods grrrr :)

CBR

07-22-2005, 15:34

I remember making a spreadsheet with all Reconquista units to find the best units, only took a few hours ~:) But it was without doubt a lot of work to make the mod and most likely the mod that had most people playing it.

I guess its a question of design philosophy but since I started looking at stats and modding just after MTW 1.1 came out in early November 2002 I quickly saw that balance could only be done if upgrades were removed.

There is not much point in having say 30 different sword units if they can all be upgraded to have same power for same cost, and if a few are better the rest are just there to clutter up your army selection screen.

Its hell for those who dont have the interest in studying stats and upgrades and it gives number crunchers the advantage until all others starts using the same armies.

My own mods like MPwars series (Italian Wars, Crusader Wars and Eastern Wars) and The Community Mod were all done with the idea of using no upgrades and Samurai Wars is based on the same principle. I found that when people accepted the no upgrade bit the army selection and gameplay was a lot more intuitive and varied than MTW/VI.

CBR

Puzz3D

07-22-2005, 18:27

My own mods like MPwars series (Italian Wars, Crusader Wars and Eastern Wars) and The Community Mod were all done with the idea of using no upgrades and Samurai Wars is based on the same principle. I found that when people accepted the no upgrade bit the army selection and gameplay was a lot more intuitive and varied than MTW/VI.
I actually made a version of Samurai Wars which allowed upgrades, and it was play tested quite a bit with various MP'ers. In the end, this version was discarded in favor of the one which didn't use upgrades because the gameplay was more balanced and intuitive without the upgrades. The final straw for the upgrade version of Samurai Wars was when Mitch was able to purchase an army stacked with upgraded guns which cavalry couldn't counter. Sound familiar? There is no need to study unit stats in Samurai Wars because it adheres to a simple rock, paper scissors system. The RPS is maintained throught a battle in MTW/VI's engine because the battlefield upgrades were removed from MP.

Despite a relatively limited unit selection which is the same for everyone and the fact that you can see exactly what you are up against by looking at the opponet's units on the battlefield, the battles are not at all easy to play. You can only win by outmaneuving your opponent and you need a variety of unit types. Armies stacked with one or two particular unit types will not do it for you because there are effective counterunits, and you are likely to be facing enough of those counterunits to make things very difficult for your stacked army because taking a balanced army is not a disadvantage the way it is in MTW/VI. If a balanced army with 4 yari spears and other assorted units can defeat an all cav army, you aren't going to see many all cav armies. If you try a cav/sword army in Samurai Wars, a cav/sword/spear army will beat you because either the cav or the swords will be better in the cav/sword/spear army since spears are cheaper than swords. All you have to do is avoid engaging the swords with your spears, and that's an issue of maneuver. The cav/sword/spear army will have enough cav and swords to engage all the swords in the cav/sword army.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-23-2005, 00:58

Bye the way I played a few 8k v1 max games with the Hunters last night.Spears still dont seem that good but are certainly better. It seems similar to Sam wars.Ill see if I can get a few more games and people to try it tonight.

Tomisama

07-23-2005, 05:52

All units valor 1, with no upgrades?

Early 5k, High 7k, Late 9k?

What about Viking era florin?

I will be looking to do some testing this weekend also :grin:

P.S. Something in my head keeps telling me that range, cavalry, swords, and spears, should have different valors. I’m not exactly sure what they should be, maybe:

Range v0
Cavalry v1
Swords v2
Spears v3

Don’t know where that is coming from (maybe just need some sleep :zzz:)

L'Impresario

07-23-2005, 11:11

Not a bad idea, but how exactly are you going to have enough spears and pikes v3, when they cost a fortune;)

Puzz3D

07-23-2005, 14:25

I think you need 8500 florins for high era a little less for early and a little more for late.

L'Impresario

07-23-2005, 14:50

In early,you can get 4 units of the best quality in cav,swords and spears with less than 7000. At more th.an 7k Russians become really, really powerful.
In high at 8k you have to make some tough choices regarding the elite units you 'll take, in other words, you have to select which part of your army you want to boost.Doesn't look bad, here's a token english force: KnTmpl, 3 x FK, 1 Hob, 2 x OFS, 2 x CS, 2 x FMAA, 1 CMAA, 1 LB, 3 x XBs. Total Florins spent: 7965.
For late I tried to make an army with 9k, where the pure melee-inf mrl averages 6 and the cav one about 7.5. More support missile units than other eras tho. An example: GothK, 2 x CK, 2 x MountS, 2 x CMAA, 1 FMAA, 2 x SwPik, 1 Pikm, 2 x PavArb, 1 Arb, 2 x Arqs. Total Florins spent : 8970. Ofocurse there are about 6-7 first class units here.

Anyway, hadn't had the chance to try v1 games yet.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-23-2005, 21:40

Range v0
Cavalry v1
Swords v2
Spears v3

What of pole axes, militia sarge,billmen, halbds, pike and the like 3?

Tomisama

07-23-2005, 22:02

What of pole axes, militia sarge,billmen, halbds, pike and the like 3?
They would come under spears. "Spears" is a general cover-all for anti cavalry units.

I would like to explore that more, but for starters thought I'd run this up for your review. The valor thing could be changed after testing if necessary (as any part of the following).

CWC Special - Sunday Knights - Back To The Future Tournament

MTW/VI v1.2, 4v4, Clan Teams, Valor One, High Era, 34k (8500 per player), No Artillery, Custom Large Maps, Lush, Clear Weather, No Specified Attacker Or Defender, One Hour Time Limit, Admin Supervised Round Robin. The Team with the most wins of the day, takes the Championship.

Meet one Sunday afternoon, and get-r-done!

Sound like fun :book:

Puzz3D

07-24-2005, 13:15

Tomi,

You don't need to change valor on unit types like that. v1 orderfoot and v1 chiv sergeants easily defeat v1 chiv knights inflicting a casualty rate of about 2:1. Feudal sergeants (200 florins) have trouble beating a chiv knight (675 florins), but it's still good against less expensive cav. Regular spearmen are probably only good against the weakest cav, but all these spear types will beat cav costing approximately twice as much. Saracen spearmen have some trouble with chiv knights, but they are fine in desert since chiv knights will fatigue fast in the desert. Also, if you make maa swords v2, then v1 cav knights won't beat them, and v2 swords are going to have trouble beating the v3 spears.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-24-2005, 14:21

The best fix is CBRs com mod. My problem is I want to make more units usable. So far everything seems to make less units usable. I think 1v max with upgrades allowed at what ever florin level we determine . You could limit upgrades on swords if you like to even things out a bit. Also if you use the 0 arc etc rule where would lbs and many other dual units fit in. V1 max is easiest to implement.

L'Impresario

07-24-2005, 14:40

As I 've said many times, V1 max (even without upgrades) isn't a solution cause you end up getting the same armies like in normal 10-15k VI, with only a reduction in morale for the infantry units.
All will go for v0 heavy cav so they can buy lots of it, and money will be left when the cav sales are over. Then if wpn and arm upgrades are allowed, certainly they 'll cause severe unbalance: why take cmaa v1 when you can take a fmaav1 wpn1 which is equal in stats and costs less? Just for the +2 mrl? And how will you know how many upgrades that fmaa will have? This will be a ridiculous guessing game as the only differentiation in the usage of the usual sword units will be their wpn/arm upgrades. And as spears have generally higher prices they are quite more expensive to upgrade.
It's quite obvious that we'll see the same 5-6 units being used , with the exception of some new easily upgradeable missile units, prolly the newest exploit in fashion.
Please do tell which units will be usable in v1 max with wpn/arm upgrades allowed that aren't usable in v1 only.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-24-2005, 15:59

why take cmaa v1 when you can take a fmaav1 wpn1 which is equal in stats and costs less? Just for the +2 mrl? And how will you know how many upgrades that fmaa will have?

You could limit upgrades on swords if you like to even things out a bit.

~;)

I also believe theres a logfile where the upgradess are shown. Otherwise how will you know if any units have upgrades? Allowing upgrades allows more different units to be used. V1 max and lower florins makes sure none are really over powering .

L'Impresario

07-24-2005, 16:37

I guess you didn't understand my example. Even if you take limited upgrades for swords they'll still be cheaper as the difference between a v1 wpn1 sword and a v1 wpn2 spear is significant , esp. in lower florin games. I'll give you another one(and there are more than a few out there) regarding the unsuitability of your proposal in making more units usable: Why take cs when you can take ofs? And you can handle a mrl4 unit decently why not take ms instead of fk?

I also believe theres a logfile where the upgradess are shown
That's not my point. I was refering to the in-game movement which are determined largely by what units you face. So people would be very amused and start to happily giggle when they see that the "noob" enemy threw a byz inf at the standard v1 to be slaughtered by their their v1 wpn3 arm2 woodsman..what fun

I can presume you haven't really understood the reason why it's an obligatory v1 and not v2 wpn1 and free arm upgrades or whatever else.
The concept is not to use the upgrades which allow weak units to eventually become better than elite ones. Also to make players choose their armies based on value and not mathematical calculations regarding which unit gets the better upgrades at the lowest price. This can help new players get better armies as "intuitive" is the magic word and goal here. You get what you pay for. And what you pay for is dependant on the florin level. At certain florin levels you can get a good mrl average of fighting units (that being 5-6) and still be forced to select a lot lesser units to augment the "good" ones.
Gawd, this has been so talked to death ...

Tomisama

07-24-2005, 20:38

After a brief study (please correct me if I am wrong):

It seems that what “valor one across the board” does, is brings all units above moral 0, except some peasant units (forgive me if someone else already said that). This keeps everyone on the field long enough to perform their specialty, without changing their original character too much.

Adding upgrades after that fact, only enhances specific features, but does not change that base morale. And upgrades are controlled by low florin levels, requiring trade-offs with total units deployed to make any significant alterations.

I know, bla-bla-bla. Just wanted you to know that I do my homework ~:cool:

My side trip through variable valors for different troop types. Spawned from a “feeling” that such modification would somehow balance things. What I found was, that it was true! But I had it a bit wrong, should have been something like this.

Cavalry v0
Sword v3
Spear v3
Range v4

The balance that this brings, at least for a simple English CK, Pav, FMAA, Billman army, was a common morale 8 for all. Interesting, but probably not useable in any way.

Again just doing my homework.

“To upgrade or not to upgrade, that is the question. Whether is nobler in the mind to suffer inherent florin spending imbalances, or to allow arms variations on the valor one theme?”

Will have to give both a try and see what kind of problems are created.

Going to be testing v1, High at 8500 this afternoon. Please join in a game or two, and we’ll see if this puppy barks :duel:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-24-2005, 22:51

“To upgrade or not to upgrade, that is the question. Whether is nobler in the mind to suffer inherent florin spending imbalances, or to allow arms variations on the valor one theme?”

Well asllowing upgrades is certainly earier to police. Also at 8k I could only afford to upgrade 2 archers and thats because i didnt take pavs. The low florins eliminates many upgrades.

Puzz3D

07-25-2005, 12:51

The problem with allowing upgrades is that ranged units and sword units pay less for their upgrades. That means those are the unit types that will get upgraded which reduces the effectiveness of cavalry on those unit types. The RPS system is undermined by the upgrades. For example, a cmaa with 1w1a equals a chiv knight in combat power, is a lot less expensive than the chiv knight and only slightly more expensive than an orderfoot spear.

The cost system in MTW is messed up. Spears should be the least expensive unit, swords the middle priced unit and cavalry the most expensive unit. It's not like that in MTW because swords are the least expensive unit. For example, cmaa (250), orderfoot (400) and chiv knight (675).

Gawain of Orkeny

07-25-2005, 14:57

The problem with allowing upgrades is that ranged units and sword units pay less for their upgrades. That means those are the unit types that will get upgraded which reduces the effectiveness of cavalry on those unit types.

Again at the florin levels were using theres very little money left for upgrades. The sword units seem much less awsome. We had some real good practice games last night at 8.5k v1 max being the only rules.

Puzz3D

07-25-2005, 16:01

Again at the florin levels were using theres very little money left for upgrades. The sword units seem much less awsome. We had some real good practice games last night at 8.5k v1 max being the only rules.
I played a lot of 5k games in MTW/VI, and it eventually became apparent that sword based armies would beat sword/spear armies. The sword based army gets better cav. It's still an issue even with a v1 no upgrades rule, and is caused by the relatively low price of swords. I guess a mod is really the only way to fix this tendency in the game.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-25-2005, 16:27

I played a lot of 5k games in MTW/VI, and it eventually became apparent that sword based armies would beat sword/spear armies. The sword based army gets better cav. It's still an issue even with a v1 no upgrades rule, and is caused by the relatively low price of swords. I guess a mod is really the only way to fix this tendency in the game.

Yup. Spears are still not useful no matter what we do it seems.

You hit the nail on the head with this one

The cost system in MTW is messed up. Spears should be the least expensive unit, swords the middle priced unit and cavalry the most expensive unit. It's not like that in MTW because swords are the least expensive unit. For example, cmaa (250), orderfoot (400) and chiv knight (675).

Just switch the cost of spears and swords.

Tomisama

07-25-2005, 17:09

Just switch the cost of spears and swords.
Even if you change the cost, that will not change their lack of effectiveness on the field.

The Order Foot Solders require an upgrade to defeat CK. Either weapon 1 or armor 1 will be required to do their job, even though there are 100 of them. Now it should not be this way, but you have to start from where you are.

And while I am talking about “shoulds”. I know we call it rock-paper-scissors, but there are a four elements in my consideration of the matter. Considering units of the same size, my “should” says range defeats swords, swords defeat spears, spears defeat cavalry, cavalry defeats range. That at least was the formula at one time, I thought? But I am getting old :tongue2:

I am off work today, so am going ahead and start serious work on this Valor One Tourney. There is no reason we can’t light the fire, even though we don’t have all the sticks in it yet. The valor one part is the only part so far that is in stone, so will use that in advertising.

Please note that by all of the indications, that this will be a very large affair. Much larger than you would initially think. I am expecting upwards to 16 Clans to participate (everyone I talk to is in love with the idea). And with that many, looking at the standard CWC format (yes they “are” there, some just hiding in Rome :wink:).

The one day event round robin was a cool idea, but in setting the valor one standard requires a semi starting-over for most folks (new armys and practice with them). In order to make it worth the effort, there has to be more than one day of battles.

CBR

07-25-2005, 17:55

Order foot can easily defeat CK. The main problem is the too low morale on lots of units. Thats why I used a compressed morale range in the Community mod of 5-9 instead of the 0-8 in the default game.

There are several ways of doing a RPS system and just to complicate things in MTW/VI we have polearms and spears that both are good v cavalry but in different ways ~:)

CBR

Tomisama

07-25-2005, 20:38

In tests this morning, the Knights only lost when stationary. They always won when charging. Maybe I did something wrong? It wasn’t totally scientific, just some quick custom battles. You’re the cavalry expert :bow:

Yes, complexities on complexity with all the variations of ant-cav. And there’s armor piercing and not, to be considered. What a mess :dizzy2:

But let’s get together and have some fun with this MTW/VI revitalization idea. The game is no more or less perfect than it was through the years of the CWC Medieval tournaments. And the Valor One convention will eliminate outrageous morale pump-ups, and give us a new game in many ways. What do you say :charge:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-25-2005, 21:10

I say we may have to make a 7 cav max rule ~;)

Tomisama

07-25-2005, 22:58

Oh oh! cav to powerful in comparison to the balance of the unit types, right. Spamming has migrated from Rome. And all of the same arguments for limit numbers will follow also, right?

I’m sorry, but I would rather play it straight up (selectable valor), than try to deal with this again.

Let’s just play the game, as we always have. It was good enough before. It is better than Rome. So let’s just do it!

Let’s just have some fun ~:joker:

CBR

07-25-2005, 22:59

Well I just had 10 battles with CK in 4 ranks charging OF and another 10 with CK in 1 1/2 ranks so I could overlap the flanks. The first 10 was a clear win to the OF with losses anywhere between 4 and 16. The other 10 was 50/50.

Of course if you really want a good statistic you want 100+ tests, and custom battles have valor gain during battle that might make them different compared to a MP battle.

But all in all it shows that CK cant expect to win against OF except if they can overlap or the OF routs because of morale penalties (seen that happen lots of times because of friendlies routing or outnumber penalty etc) or if they can make a rear attack of course.

Not sure how you did the tests but I just charged the CK right into the OF with time speeded up. And used a small flat custom map I have.

CBR

Puzz3D

07-26-2005, 00:04

Oh oh! cav to powerful in comparison to the balance of the unit types, right. Spamming has migrated from Rome. And all of the same arguments for limit numbers will follow also, right?
This is why the equal v1 on all is different from v1 max. At v1 max, you've just translated the 10k unit selection to lower morale. Using v1 on all and no upgrades the elite cav is expensive so you can't take very many. Also, sword and ranged die faster to the cav.

Tomi is probably right. It's still flawed enough that you might as well play regular with different florin amounts for each era. You'll get the most players involved that way.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-26-2005, 00:13

Well we could make a two spear minimum rule ~D

Tomisama

07-26-2005, 01:52

If you really want to bring the game down to earth, try “all” cav at 0 valor, “all” else at v1.

That is the great equalizer, if there is one at all.

Please at least give it a look.

Baring an overwhelming response to that idea, I think we have to go back to regular play.

You'll get the most players involved that way.Perhaps lower florin than the 10k norm?

Gawain of Orkeny

07-26-2005, 02:31

Gobby

07-26-2005, 10:10

Appreciated a change from the 10k with the concept of 1 val max based @ 8500k
makes for an intersting game with the chalenge of balanceing units

Orda Khan

07-26-2005, 20:45

It makes no difference. MTW or VI are both flawed

......Orda

Gawain of Orkeny

07-27-2005, 02:41

Thanks for brightening our day.

Tomisama

07-27-2005, 04:39

I can see that on heavy cav bit not on things like mounted sarges or Alans. How about a limit on what you can spend on a unit? Like 675 per cav etc. That would leave out a few cav like Goths lancers and boyars though.Ok, too limiting for the light cavalries.

Going back to valor one “all” for a moment. How about lowering the florin level?

Now try to make an all valor one high era army out of 5000 florin.

Scary, but it can be done, and with choices.

Hey, this is starting to look like the real deal to me.

Anyone in agreement?

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/storage/Picture1.jpg

P.S. You could still make a cavalry heavy army out of 5k. But if it was stipulated that each player had to have all 16 units, the cav you could buy would be severely limited.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-27-2005, 06:48

We played some games tonight at 8.5k, 7 cav max. v1 max. We allowed v2 spears. Spears finally seemed to work well. Also Muslim factions seemed to be very competitive.

Puzz3D

07-27-2005, 12:28

Tomi,

In high era, I think 5000 for v1 is too low because it eliminates all the elite cav, and you are left with cav that cannot defeat swords such as v1 cmaa. I didn't look at early era.

Gawain's idea of 8500, v1 max but alowwing v2 spears is interesting. I would also allow v2 halberdiers.

Tomisama

07-27-2005, 13:14

Gawain's idea of 8500, v1 max but alowwing v2 spears is interesting. I would also allow v2 halberdiers.Want to try it out, but does sound real good ~:)

If the above works out, are we back to 8k Early, 8.5 High, 9k Late?

And if we are going to do “max”, which allows v0 units, making more money available for others, and upgrades. I think we need to insist on a full 16 unit army.

So, valor 1 max with 2 max for spear, 7 max cav, 16 unit min, at 8,8.5, and 9k for eras?

Puzz3D

07-27-2005, 18:56

Wouldn't 7k early, 8k high and 9k late better track the average cost difference of an army in each of those eras, and also slighly adjust downward for the fact that you can take v0 units. You also need an amount for viking era possibly 8k.

Is the 7 max on cav really necessary or even useful? Some of the factions like Russian and Egyptian depend on cav because their melee infantry is relatively weak. 4 v0 chiv knights (675 each) + 4 v0 teutonic knights (675 each) + 4 v1 cmaa (425 each) + 4 v1 fmaa (298 each) = 8292 florins. That's basically the western army, minus one fmaa or one cav knight at 8k, that has to be countered.

The v1 max rule does help factions such as Turks because they can then use the expensive JHI at v0. It also makes possible the use of the expensive Boyars at v0 for Russian. Most ranged units will probably be used at v0 which should improve their cost/benefit ratio. Pumping up combo archer/melee units into highly effective melee units won't work with a v1 max rule, so these factions might remain weak relative to western factions. However, in a 4v4 game there are team strategies that can take advantage of one highly mobile but relatively weak army.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-27-2005, 21:46

Is the 7 max on cav really necessary or even useful? Some of the factions like Russian and Egyptian depend on cav because their melee infantry is relatively weak

Otherwise you will have many peep using all cav. Besides by allowing v2 spears these armies inf isnt so weak any more. Ive been using Egypt with 4 v2 saracens. You can also take V1 abys and upgrade them.

Tomisama

07-28-2005, 02:17

To my thinking having valor 2 spears really eliminates the need for a cavalry max limit.

Hey, you bring em, we’ll hoist em :knight:

And I believe all of the other suggestions made here and on line, are either directly or indirectly self fulfilling regulatories (made up word).

Also, considering v0 option, I see the 8k providing better control over excessive upgrades.

The Viking era? It really has never made the interest chart for CWC contests, and I don’t think it should be included here either.

At least to me, that leaves us with:

v1 max - v2 max spear* - no art

7k – 8k – 9k

*All units with an anti cavalry rating (will make a list).

Straight forward, simple, easily managed, and most important “sellable”!

Are we there yet?

~:handball:

Tomisama

07-28-2005, 03:52

List of units with special anti cavalry ratings.

1. Almughavars
2. ArmouredSpearmen
3. Billmen
4. ChivalricFootKnights
5. ChivalricSergeants
6. FeudalSergeants
7. GothicSergeants
8. Halbardiers
9. ItalianLightInfantry
10. JanissaryHeavyInfantry
11. MuwahidFoot
12. NegroSpearmen
13. OrderFootSoldiers
14. Pikemen
15. RoundShieldSpearmen
16. RusSpearmen
17. SaracenInfantry
18. Spearmen
19. SwissArmouredPikemen
20. SwissHalbardiers
21. SwissPikemen

Please note: The Byzantine have none of the above in any era.

A must have tool to help with army building decisions.
http://www.clanwarscomp.org/tools/VIArmyBuilderPlus.zip

zaphod

07-28-2005, 14:39

or you could classify spears according to whether they have a rank bonus, or possibly unit size - 99 and above - which would include byz inf.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-28-2005, 14:47

Thats the last thing we want is V2 byz inf on the field.

Puzz3D

07-28-2005, 17:29

Seems like the Byz faction will loose a bit of power, but they may still be pretty good. The varangian guard unit is good at v0, and they have pretty good cav such as Byz lancers. Byz inf will have low morale which will be a weakness, but you can get their combat power up with weapon or armor upgrades since they aren't too expensive.

Low morale units can fight for a very long time because with most units limited to v1 max you don't get large mismatches in combat power. However, you do have to be more careful about protecting flanks, otherwise you will see quick routing. Also, 2 or more players ganging up on one are going to benefit more from the outnumbered morale penalty than they do in a higher florin game such as 10k and above. Attrition is going to be somewhat less important and position somewhat more important.

CBR

07-28-2005, 17:55

The Byz are really a cav faction anyway. Its only because of the upgrades that some people are used to buying loads of infantry for that faction.

CBR

zaphod

07-28-2005, 18:03

Unless I am much mistaken, weapon or armour upgrades are not allowed for pumping up units (byz inf). However a v1 vg could be pressed into service to counter cav.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-28-2005, 20:27

Unless I am much mistaken, weapon or armour upgrades are not allowed for pumping up units (byz inf).

You are very much mistaken.

zaphod

07-28-2005, 20:57

zaphod

07-28-2005, 20:58

Tsk, crap prose using granted twice.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-28-2005, 22:32

Puzz3D

07-29-2005, 02:56

Hmm, but that would mean i could take a v1w1a1 cmaa rather than a v2 cmma. Granted there is a 2 morale drop but it's still a big bang for the buck killing machine. Granted there is the problem with taking more than 4 infantry, but it doesn't automatically mean you are going to take spears.
Yes that's true, but v1w1a1 cmaa cost 780 florins while v2 cmaa only costs 723 florins, so the cmaa are more expensive with a v1 max rule and lower in morale as you pointed out. This will help spears and cav compete against swords. I made some quick tests in custom, and a v0 chiv knight costing 675 lost to a v1w1a1 cmaa, but a v0w1 ck costing 898 routed that same cmaa unit on contact with a good charge, and I ran that test twice to be sure. It looks like the v0w1 ck looses to the cmaa if it doesn't charge at all. That same v0w1 ck looses to a v2 feudal sergeant costing 577 at about a 1:1 casualty rate. Of course, the v1w1a1 cmaa will defeat the v2 feudal sergeant. So, the relative costs appear to be in the correct order with the spear the cheapest, the sword middle priced and the cav most expensive, although, the spears are a bit more expensive than I think they should have to be to beat the cav, and the sword cost isn't centered between the spear and the sword.

Note: I diverted the AI's general with my own, so the tests were made with non-general units.

Tomisama

07-29-2005, 04:19

Sounds like we might have struck gold here. Not perfect, but better, and fairly easy to implement.

One problem still remaining, is clearly identifying which units we are allowing a valor 2 max on. To say “spears” maybe falls a bit short. Open for suggestions on this.

Basically we are talking about all troops wielding spears, halbs and pikes. Not to be confused with javelin carriers or peasants with spears, who do not have any special rating against cavalry.

As far as I know there is only one other unit that has a spear without a rating, the Murabitin Infantry for some reason have no anti-cav weapon or armor boosts.

Two tools can help making this identification. The Army Builder and online Logfile Reader. Both display stats with parentheses () denoting special abilities against cavalry.

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/tools/VIArmyBuilderPlus.zip

http://clan.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/ba/pctscore.pl

Of course there will be rules and instructions which I will be happy to draft as soon as I have confirmation of the v1 max w v2 max ac (anti-cav?) format.

If ye hast any reservations, please post now :smoking:

Puzz3D

07-29-2005, 06:21

CBR and I had a high era battle using the proposed rules at 8k on a flat map. He had Germany with 3 xbows, 7 cav knights, 4 swords and 2 spears. I had English with 3 xbows, 3 cav knights, 4 swords, 4 spears and 2 billmen. I was able to advance and win a close battle which I thought was good since I had picked a good army to go against a cav heavy army. The swords were v1 cmaa, and the spears v2 feudal sergeants. I used v2 billmen, and went light on the cav with 1 chiv knight and 2 feudal knights. Now if CBR had taken more swords and less cav, I would have been in trouble because the army I took wouldn't have matched up well against that. In that case, I would have needed fewer spears and more cav to have a good counterarmy.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-29-2005, 07:01

Well thats what I was after. Now everyone isnt going to take clones as armies. You never know what you will face. I would think that you would have to work more as a team to get the right matchups. A sort of combined army. Its nice to finally see spear units on the field operating in a some what reasonable fashion.

So you see in reality this is my first love much as I love the tavern. The Org ,VI and those who play it are the real reason Im here.

Tomisama

07-30-2005, 01:01

One problem still remaining, is clearly identifying which units we are allowing a valor 2 max on. To say “spears” maybe falls a bit short. Open for suggestions on this.The simplest solution to defining which infantry units are limited to valor one max, and those that are allowed a two valor max, is the unit icon.

If they have a spear, halb, or pike, they are eligible for v2.

That will include all of the anti-cav special abilities units, “except” OrderFootSoldiers (there is always one – no great loss). But will include the Murabitin Infantry and all of the peasants with spears, who have no anti-cav rating, but need a break anyway.

Everyone else is valor one max.

I believe that this is as clear a definition as can be had. Requires no special study to use. And will be truly beneficial to the game.

:bow:

Spears, halbs, and pikes valor two max?

Gawain of Orkeny

07-30-2005, 02:12

That will include all of the anti-cav special abilities units, “except” OrderFootSoldiers (there is always one – no great loss).

Are you saying no v2 order? I fail to see any reason for such a rule. If there ever was a spear unit thats the best one.

But will include the Murabitin Infantry

I doubt anyone can afford v2 Murabitin Infantry.

Tomisama

07-30-2005, 03:58

The problem is having a clear simple explanation for “all” folks. I mean, even for vets this is a total reorganization in thinking. And new people may or may not have trouble understanding what in the world we are talking about! We’ll have to see…

I guess we could say if the unit icon has a spear, halb, or pike, you can take it v2 if you wish. And that includes OrderFoot, even if you can’t see their spear in their icon.

Good enough :smile:

Puzz3D

07-30-2005, 15:25

Spear, halb or pike. I think that's clear enough. The orderfoot is grouped with the other spears in the unit selection screen which helps to identify it as a spear. Also, there is the text description "bonus vs cavalry" when you hold the mouse over the units.

Now all we have to do is get the name of the tournament changed to: KNIGHTS OF LOW VALOR ~:)

Tomisama

07-30-2005, 16:04

Not exactly inspiring :laugh:

Thanks Yuuki :grin:

Now the maps (I have well over a thousand).

Thinking of special pack with 12 and a Tie Breaker.

Each of the 3 Contests will need 4 different terrain challenges. And I’m hoping to find a reasonably flat custom Tie Breaker, with at least “some” character but no real advantages (if there is one).

All suggestions welcome.

Hunter KIng George

07-31-2005, 16:39

Ok a recap on this...rule will be v1 max on all sword, cav, missile units and v2 max on all others? If this is correct would it be easier stated this way? Also is there a limit on number of units allowed? Need to know been playing this everyday too many confused...with clarity of rules. We need to keep it simple...

Gawain of Orkeny

07-31-2005, 17:02

Ok a recap on this...rule will be v1 max on all sword, cav, missile units and v2 max on all others?

No thats not right. Pole arms do not get 2v. Only units with an anti cav rating can have 2v.

Also is there a limit on number of units allowed?

Yes 16 ~D

Need to know been playing this everyday too many confused...with clarity of rules. We need to keep it simple...

It cant be much simpler. All units v1 or less unless they have an anti cav rating then their max is V2. Thats it and no arty of course. Theres a list here of what may have 2V anything else gets 1 or 0.

Tomisama

07-31-2005, 18:07

Only units with an anti cav rating can have 2v.Apologies to Sir Gawain, but please let me update you all on this.

Distilled from above discussions:

The simplest solution who is allowed a two valor max, is the unit icon.

If they have a spear, halb, or pike, in their unit icon, they are eligible for v2.

This includes all "bonus vs. cavalry" units, plus some peasant spears.

The only spear unit without a visible spear in their unit icon is the OrderFootSoldier, but you can see that they have an anti-cav bonus by holding your mouse over the unit, and they are included.

Tools to help with building your armys and evaluating your choices after the battle:

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/tools/VIArmyBuilderPlus.zip

http://clan.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/ba/pctscore.pl

Both display stats with parentheses () denoting special abilities against cavalry.

Hunter KIng George

07-31-2005, 18:09

Gaw m8, I saw the list I believe polearms are included unless my understanding of polearms is wrong...aren't they footknights, halbs, billmen, janissary heavy infantry...any others? Those four are on the list. And on the subject of number of units, I was actually really asking if for example, a 7 cav max rule would still be into effect? Because I thought that idea was disbanded and many players were still using that rule last night. Thanks for responding.

Tomisama

07-31-2005, 18:18

Please see post above your last Your Highness (we both posted at the same time) .

What we are really dealing with here is boosting anti-cavalry units. Pole arms can cover anything with a stick on it (axe, mace, clubs, maybe even a javelin), so it was not used as a definition.

It is all about spears and "spear type" weapons. You know, the the one horses hate :charge:

P.S. There are no limits on the number of cavalry you can take. Having "real" spears will will keep that in check.

Another tool to help make unit choice decissions.

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/tools/Yas_units_master_201f.zip

Hunter KIng George

07-31-2005, 19:25

Thanks Tomi, I got it (u beat me by 2 min) ~:) I appreciate the quick response. I will spread the word around...

Puzz3D

07-31-2005, 22:57

The simplest solution who is allowed a two valor max, is the unit icon.

If they have a spear, halb, or pike, in their unit icon, they are eligible for v2.

This includes all "bonus vs. cavalry" units, plus some peasant spears.
I just checked the game and these are the mouse over text messages:

spears are "defend well vs cavalry"
pikes are "defend very well vs cavalry"
halbs are "bonus attacking cavalry"

I think this is all you have to know. Also, the messages are imformative because spears and pikes anti-cav bonus is mostly defensive, and halbs anti-cav bonus is mostly offensive. Spears and pikes also cancel the cavalry's charge bonus, but halbs do not cancel it.

There are problems in using the unit icon as the indicator. For instance, slav warriors have a spear, but they don't get an anti-cav bonus. Also, poleaxes and polearms look similar, but only ploearms get an anti-cav bonus. Units such as urban malitia and malitia sergeants have poleaxes and don't get an anti-cav bonus. I think the safest thing is to use the mouse over messages.

Tomisama

08-01-2005, 00:11

Good work Yuuki ~:)

Will use that as a reference.

Played all three eras today. Still don’t feel like I know what I’m doing, but the valor modified game is a lot of fun. Everyone really likes it! The bad part is, that now I don’t want to go back to standard play ~:eek:

Gawain of Orkeny

08-02-2005, 07:08

Puzz3D

08-03-2005, 01:25

No Specified Attacker Or Defender, One Hour Time Limit, Admin Supervised Round Robin. The Team with the most wins of the day, takes the Championship.

Meet one Sunday afternoon, and get-r-done!
It that what the Knights of Valor tournament is? I thought it was a standard CWC elimination either best of 5 or best of 3 with the tie break game on a flat map. We have until the release of BI to complete the tournament.

Tomisama

08-03-2005, 02:08

We tried quite a few games tonight in every era using V1 max on swords and cav only. V2 on all other units. It seemed to work even better adding more useful units. Its also far easier to implement. Everyone seemed to like it better. Also if we are going to use hills a few more v2 units would help.

A lot of sincere study and many test games have already gone into the anti-cav boost fix. Getting it to the stage of being acceptable and agreeable to all was a bit of a phenomenon in it’s self. The reason it has succeeded thus far, is because it addresses a long needed balancing of troop types, bringing spears, halbs, and pikes up to par.

Even being truly beneficial (and not to mention a lot of fun), the “v1 max with v2 ac max” will still be a hard sell, if it can be done at all.

Raising all non sword infantry to valor two, may have been fun for a few games as something different. But effectively only reduces swords to be equal to axes, and less than clubs.

With the wheels already in motion to form a Clan vs. Clan 4v4 Competition, I’m afraid we will have to stick to the anti-cav valor two max, which is truly a needed improvement. Or, have a no-rules default, negotiate your own rule-set for every match. Up to you...

Tomisama

08-03-2005, 02:27

It that what the Knights of Valor tournament is? I thought it was a standard CWC elimination either best of 5 or best of 3 with the tie break game on a flat map. We have until the release of BI to complete the tournament.
The “original” vision was for a simple one day round-robin, maybe 3,4 Clans max. But in the process of experimenting with valor ideas, it became clear that there is truly a market out there for a full CWC Competition.

This was never, at least to my mind, a filler until Barbarian thing. The MTW/VI community will stand on it’s own, regardless as to what happens to Rome. There are many whole Clans as well as individuals who never went to RTW.

This tournament is for them :bow:

(but we can play in it too)

~;)

Gawain of Orkeny

08-03-2005, 04:18

Even being truly beneficial (and not to mention a lot of fun), the “v1 max with v2 ac max” will still be a hard sell, if it can be done at all.

Weve been playing it for two days and its pretty much unanimous that its better and easier to understand. Its not a hard sell at all.

Tomisama

08-03-2005, 12:42

Weve been playing it for two days and its pretty much unanimous that its better and easier to understand. Its not a hard sell at all.
Guess what I’m talking about here is not just a few games, or even a whole contest, but “rejuvenating” the MTW/VI community with a “new standard”. Getting the attention back of those who have left, and rebuilding that community is my dream.

Folks have been playing without valor limits for over two “years”! Trying to bring them all under this new tent is surely an up hill fight.

Look, as much as it is against my better judgment to change the Contest Rules once they are posted. If all concerned here will agree to the following, I think we will satisfy everyone’s concerns and goals, and I will make the change.

Valor two max with valor one cavalry max.

Straight up, no more changes. We all support it, and try to win people to it.

What do you say?

~:handball:

Gawain of Orkeny

08-03-2005, 14:45

Valor two max with valor one cavalry max.

Straight up, no more changes. We all support it, and try to win people to it.

What do you say?

No good v2 swords will rule just like before. V1 max on swords is needed. This destroys the balance we were seeking and throws a monkey wrench into the whole works. Ive been playing 10 games a day working this out. I dont just pop in for a game like you do no offense. Now you are going to go with something that no one has even tried and say thats the rules?

Puzz3D

08-03-2005, 17:21

Valor two max with valor one cavalry max.
That rule simply weakens cavalry relative to all other unit types. The goal of v1 max with v2 max on anti-cav units is to establish as much as possible a rock, paper, scissors (RPS) gameplay.

infantry --> cavalry --> ranged --> infantry

Since some units get a specific anti-cav bonus (Longjohn said it's non-historical in MTW but is there to enhance the gameplay), you can break this down further.

spears --> cav --> ranged --> spears
spears --> cav --> swords --> spears

If you make rules which allow v2 on ranged and other non-anti-cav units, the RPS will be weakened and could flip the wrong way for some unit matchups. At the very least, it will mean that cavalry will take longer to beat the units it's supposed to beat. That will be the trade off in making axes, poleaxes, clubs and ranged units more effective in melee. Besides, you can already pump inexpensive units with weapon and armor upgrades, and ranged units still get their discount on these upgrades.

If you are seeing too much elite cav at 8k v1 max, the thing to do is force all cav to be v1.

Gawain of Orkeny

08-03-2005, 18:03

If you are seeing too much elite cav at 8k v1 max, the thing to do is force all cav to be v1.

So then you are saying no one will take knights or boyars as they would be too expensive? Do we really want to eliminate these units ?

If you make rules which allow v2 on ranged and other non-anti-cav units, the RPS will be weakened and could flip the wrong way for some unit matchups. At the very least, it will mean that cavalry will take longer to beat the units it's supposed to beat. That will be the trade off in making axes, poleaxes, clubs and ranged units more effective in melee

Yes its a bit of a trade off but not significant IMO.

Besides, you can already pump inexpensive units with weapon and armor upgrades, and ranged units still get their discount on these upgrades.

Not enough. For one thing their morale remains too low. The other is for instance with my english army I could take them all v1 a3 w3 and still have plenty of money left. Making other units v2 increases the number of units that you can use and increases varitey of armies which is the main goal for me at least. Its been great fun lately seeing so many different approaches to these rules.

The way I see it either the orginal v1 max v2 anti cav or v1 max sword and cav v2 others is the way to go. However if you go with the first a 7 cav limit might be a good thing.

AggonyDuck

08-03-2005, 18:44

Are Camels considered to be cav or anti-cav when it comes to upgrades?

Gawain of Orkeny

08-03-2005, 18:56

Cav

Puzz3D

08-03-2005, 23:12

So then you are saying no one will take knights or boyars as they would be too expensive? Do we really want to eliminate these units ?
Well, I'm wasn't sure why non anti-cav infantry was being made stronger.

For one thing their morale remains too low. The other is for instance with my english army I could take them all v1 a3 w3 and still have plenty of money left. Making other units v2 increases the number of units that you can use and increases varitey of armies which is the main goal for me at least.
The low morale, non anti-cav, melee infantry are: byzantine inf, highland clandsmen, militia sergeants, peasants, slav warriors, urban malitia and the woodsman. I don't know about byz inf, but the others could go to v2 without any problems. A faction like Russians would definitely benefit by allowing v2.

Some factions will be weakened by keeping all ranged units at v1 max. You'd have to look at those factions and decide which specific ranged units are meant to be used in melee and could be allowed to go to v2 keeping in mind that their weapon and armor upgrades are going to be less expensive. Mongol Warriors might be a candidate for v2, but at v2w3 and a cost of 879 they are going to be stronger in melee than a v1 varangian guard costing 850 against low armored units. So, that's the type of thing you'd want to consider.

Some factions are meant to be mostly cavalry factions, and that is going to put them in a more difficult position since anti-cav infantry is going to be a bit better. Certain factions might become non-competitive, and have to be viewed that way. Due to the weakness of archers ranged fire, Mongols never were quite competitive anyway IMO, and to some degree this problem extended to some other factions as well.

ichi

08-03-2005, 23:36

There's a balance between simplicity of rules and maximizing balance. IMO the V1 max (2V for anti-cav) with a 7 cav max, no arty, is the best balance. Simple rules, but does a great job of balancing and making more units desirable.

ichi :bow:

Gawain of Orkeny

08-04-2005, 01:56

Some factions will be weakened by keeping all ranged units at v1 max.

In the v1 max sword and cav v2 all others they can be 2.

AggonyDuck

08-04-2005, 03:08

Gawain of Orkeny

08-04-2005, 03:15

They do both.

AggonyDuck

08-04-2005, 03:18

According to you yes, but how about the rest?

To me the answer is no, the balance is different and so are the cost-efficient units, but at the core it's still the same game.

Tomisama

08-04-2005, 03:19

You win.

We'll make it a no-rules default.

Clan Emissaries can negotiate for each Match, as they always have in all CWC Competitions.

:duel:

Salute!

Gawain of Orkeny

08-04-2005, 03:25

You win Gawain.

We'll make it a no-rules default.

What is that supposed to mean? We go back to regular play. In that case we are all losers.

Clan Emissaries can negotiate for each Match, as they always have in all CWC Competitions.

Thats why I stopped participating in CWC the rules sucked (no offense)and I had no recourse. If we go back to the regualr rules I guess Ill sit this one out as well.

AggonyDuck

08-04-2005, 03:32

This is the reason why I should keep my mouth shut. This wasn't exactly the result that I was hoping for, atleast directly. I'd advise you to actually have a default rule setting that can be modified during negotiations as the two clans want it to be. Also the thing about valour limits ain't all that bad as long as it can be removed with a mutual agreement.

ichi

08-04-2005, 03:38

Gah!

The V1 max (V2 anticav) make the game a lot more like Shogun, melee is much quicker and flanking is crucial. There is a wider spectrum of units that can function satisfactorily.

A couple of factions don't appear to work real well in a few eras, but it may be that I just haven't seen someone solve the puzzle of the Byz or the Russians. I know that I've seen a lot more spears, poles, and cav archers in these games than usual.

I'd hate to see this wonderful attempt to reinvigorate VI lost do to a simple disagreement or misunderstanding.

My understanding is that the original plan was to go with V1 max (anticav V2, no arty). We should try that as the basis. If teams want to negotiate V2 allowances for missile troops or MiliSargs, I say let 'em, but lets have V1 Max (anticav V2, no arty) as the starting point.

ichi :bow:

AggonyDuck

08-04-2005, 03:41

But actually none of this matters if the tourney doesn't get enough participants. Currently there are two clans signed in and I believe there are perhaps 2-3 other potential clans who might join the tourney in VI. So unless some of the older clans decide to actually join this tournament, it will then be quite a small tournament. :help:

Gawain of Orkeny

08-04-2005, 03:41

Thats why I love you Ichi ever the voice of reason. ~:cheers:

Tomisama

08-04-2005, 04:00

You can make your own rules anyway you want.

Isn't that what you want?

You want v1 swords and cav, and v2 everything else?

Make it so.

I'll run the contest, you make the rules.

~:cheers:

AggonyDuck

08-04-2005, 04:07

Sounds good, although a suggestion on what kind of rules you would wish us to use would be good too. ~:)

Gawain of Orkeny

08-04-2005, 08:34

You can make your own rules anyway you want.

Isn't that what you want?

You want v1 swords and cav, and v2 everything else?

Make it so.

I'll run the contest, you make the rules.

Now were talking ~;)

Much better we work together to make this happen. I dont want to "make" the rules but I would like a consensus. Ive worked hard to try an even things out and make them interesting. It seems we have 4 choices. V1 max all except anti cav. V1 max all swords and cav v2 max all others. Or either one with a 7 cav limit. It would be nice if the emissaries could vote on those. I however prefer the v1 max v2 rest. From playing it so much I think this is what most of the others who helped develope these rules like.At least thats what theve all told me.The 7 cav is ok with me cause thats all I use ~D

Puzz3D

08-04-2005, 13:18

In the v1 max sword and cav v2 all others they can be 2.
I just tried a v2a1 militia sergeant (598 florins) vs v0 chiv knight (675 florins) in custom battle, and the mil sergeant won easily killing the knights at a rate of 4 to 1. The only chance the chiv knight has against this unit is to rout it on contact which it can do with a good charge since a v2 mil sergeant has morale 4.

v2 vikings (505 florins) have morale 8 and only one combat point weaker than v2a1 mil sergeant. I found a few other units like this as well. If units like this can stop cav, then the need for spears is going to drop away. All the spears and sowrds will be operating between morale 2 and 6, so why do we need non-sword infantry operating at morale 8? The v2 idea for non-swords might work, but I think it's borderline. I wonder what's going to happen to all the middle cost cav like Byz Lancers.

Tomisama

08-04-2005, 15:46

I dont want to "make" the rules but I would like a consensus.

“We” had a consensus, and you agreed.

No thats not right. Pole arms do not get 2v. Only units with an anti cav rating can have 2v.
It cant be much simpler. All units v1 or less unless they have an anti cav rating then their max is V2. Thats it and no arty of course. Theres a list here of what may have 2V anything else gets 1 or 0.
The Rules were posted.

Then “you” decided to change the rule. No one else reporting to this forum was involved, or has ever agreed to that change.

I'll run the contest, you make the rules.
Was referring to:

We'll make it a no-rules default.

Clan Emissaries can negotiate for each Match, as they always have in all CWC Competitions.
Now that Rule is posted.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=51604

http://p219.ezboard.com/fclanwars3540frm60.showMessage?topicID=1.topic

Just wanted to be sure we were all on the same page “this time”.

(no offences taken or intended)

:bow:

Puzz3D

08-04-2005, 16:55

I just want to raise the question: Do these rules actually make the game anymore enjoyable and does it actually help the balance at all?

Also I am extremily unhappy with the max cav rules that were added. I've always been a cavalry focused player and simply 7 cav and 3 of them cav archers doesn't cut it. (especially the limit on cavalry archers)

Btw has anyone considered that these rules are actually quite a turn-off for some of the remaining VI-clans?
The 7 max on cav has come about because of the v1 max rule. It's an indication that letting spears go to v2 is not solving the problem. With a v1 across the board for all units, you don't need a rule to limit the number of cav because the florins act to limit the elite cav to 1 or 2 units per army. Remember in MTW v1.0 chiv knights cost 875 and Spanish lancers were 1100, and cav didn't get any pushback on spears. With all v1, the middle cav has a chance and the spears don't have to be as good, so you don't need them at v2. The elite infantry is also limited by the money which gives more of a chance to middle infantry, but the fact that swords like fmaa and cmaa are relatively cheap is a persistent issue. Cheap swords were an intentional design choice, but spears were better and cheaper in MTW v1.0, so swords had to flank them or hit seams between the spears to win, and cav had to flank as well.

The objections to all v1 have traditionally been that certain factions are weakened by it, and the morale is lower than the standard 10k game. You could go to all v2 and use 15k, but the morale is then so high that flanking is less effective and units fight longer. That actually gives you more time to flank, but you have to flank in force to be effective.

A lot of players have left MTW/VI because they are tired of the cav/sword thing. I tried for six months to use 4 spear units in MTW/VI, and I finally just gave up. If the idea is to bring some of these players back for a tournament, something different has to be offered. If it's just a tournamnt for the present MTW/VI players, then you can just play by the normal rules that are currently in use. We got along fine in STW with a single faction, and every tournament was packed with players long after the game had been released. If you can get a dozen units in one faction working properly in MTW/VI, you don't need any of the other factions or units. More units and more factions does not necessarily mean a better game.

Gawain of Orkeny

08-04-2005, 18:49

Gah Puzz I just realised your Yuuki. What the hell do you know about TW? ~D Hows it going old friend?

The 7 max on cav has come about because of the v1 max rule. It's an indication that letting spears go to v2 is not solving the problem.

No the spears do work much better but cav is still more manoverable and faster. By taking a lot of cav people can send it either left ot right faster than your spears can counter. The 7 cav rule is not needed but some people hate to see those 12 and 13 cav armies. Believe me v2 spears stop vo CK. Weve been playing this for a while now and almost to a man we agree its far more balanced and fun and has greatly improved play. There are so many people who dont even want to play regular rules anymore after trying this.Bye the way I almost always take 3 spears now.

Puzz3D

08-04-2005, 20:21

Hows it going old friend?
I'm doing quite well Gawain. thx.

No the spears do work much better but cav is still more manoverable and faster. By taking a lot of cav people can send it either left or right faster than your spears can counter.
Yes, and this inability to hold a flank may have to do with the way the outnumbered penalty interacts with the relatively high cost and low morale of anti-cav units. One on one, a v0 orderfoot or v1 chiv sergeant can beat a v0 chiv knight, but in a mass attack the lower morale of the anti-cav units will cause them to rout. Until you can stop about twice the number of cav units with anti-cav infantry, that quick rush to one side with cav is going to be quite effective. One solution is to make the cav knights very expensive with a v1 minimum rule. Another is to allow anti-cav to go to v2, but v2 anti-cav is going to be quite expensive, so you still need the limit on cav. Why not limit cav knights to 2 per army and allow all the medium and light cav a player wants? The outnumbered penalty won't kick in because the medium cav doesn't "outclass" the anti-cav infantry which is one of the requirements to inflict the outnumbered penalty.

I know a lot of players don't want to play with less than morale 8 on their melee units, but I thnk the game is playable in the 4 to 8 range and allows flanking to be very effective. For some reason, the battle engine only seems to work well over a limited range of morale values of about 4 points. I suppose some players prefer a range of 6 to 10 rather than 4 to 8. I'm willing to play the game in either range. With the 6 to 10 range you can better utilize a tactical reserve, but flanking has to be done with several units to be effective. A single cav unit flanking is probably not going to have much effect, and ranged units will have less ability to rout enemy units with their ranged fire.

AggonyDuck

08-04-2005, 20:36

Puzz3D

08-04-2005, 21:47

The real problem in here ain't with the morale of the spears or the lack of maneuverability. The problem is the fact that spears are only useful for holding and slowly killing cavalry. The spears will kill the cavalry that they face in head on confrontations, but they do it too slowly and have a hard time catching the cavalry.
Infantry is never going to catch cavalry.

Compared to Yaris in STW the true ineffiency of the VI spears becomes apparent. This will not change by using a different florin level, because the problem lies in the unit, not in the florins used. (although spears are somewhat useful in low florins due to being one of the few unit types who can hold a heavy cav charge)
Spears in MTW are more like naginata were in STW. MTW has polearm anti-cav units that kill cav faster than spears do. For instance, a halbardier has 7/7 (att/def) vs a chiv knight's 5/5 and a swiss halbardier has 9/4. Compare that to a yari samurai in STW which has 8/2 vs heavy cav's 2/6. It's just that the polearms don't break the cav charge the way yari samurai do.

Gawain of Orkeny

08-05-2005, 07:34

Tried some games tonight using rule two heavy cav max. This seems morerealistic. I dont think there were to many armies that had half their army made of elite mounted knights. Two or three should be more than enuff. Id like to see this made an opitional rule. Its too late to implement it now I think
.People will get pissed if we keep changing. But giving a list of options amybe acceptable. The emissaries could hammer out the details. If no agreement is reached you go to default rules.

Jochi Khan

08-05-2005, 13:19

What happened to the...MTW/VI is the best TW game.

This thread is taking on the old school yard chant...It's my ball I decide who is going to play.

Tomi you deserve a medal for all the work you do, but this doesn't look as if it is going to bring the 'old clans' back to VI. Too much swapping and changing.

Jochi

Tiger_Tamerlane

08-05-2005, 14:57

Gawain of Orkeny

08-05-2005, 16:00

And we are having fun doing it. I havent enjoyed this games so much in a year or more.

Tomisama

08-05-2005, 16:05

Thanks Jochi. My pleasure most of the time :wink:

Yes I know only too well how changes effect the success of a project, be it contest rules or game mod. The game developers have adopted a one time patch philosophy, most likely based the same understanding.

Once you officially say something, that every time you change it after that, you loose peoples attention. You might be able to get away with it one time, but human nature is such that it wishes to avoid confusion, and if you continue, they will turn away.

Over a hundred posts ago, the criteria for this project was established. We were considering a mod at the time, but the goal was, and is still the same.

But words about the lack of spear and pike power to provide the rock-paper-scissors balance to the game, makes me sad again.

I’m thinking that a simple modification could fix this problem, and really make a “new game” out of good old MTW/VI. Could even call it Super VI, or SVI for short.

The trick to “successfully” accomplishing this, “has to” bow to the wisdom that there be only “one” revision. That it would have to be a self extracting no-brainer, with a desktop switch-back to standard. And that it would only fix this “one” problem. Nothing more to learn than how to use spears again.

Anything “more”, or “less”, will probably be doomed to the mod grave yard, before it even has a chance to be accepted by the majority of players.

And if it isn’t plug-and-play, with a single, but significantly powerful, and easy to learn change, it will probably never fly, and is not worth doing in the first place.
The working result was rule-set that set valour one as the overall maximum, but allowed valour two for units with an anti-cavalry bonus.

Though I went through several days of insanity, reverting to a no-rules scenario (apologies :shame: ), the v1 max v2 anti-cav max no art, is now and will continue to be the official base rule for this competition.

In base rule meaning that those three things “can not” be changed. The subsequent 7 cavalry max and other suggestions relating to troop type quantity limits, are negotiable. But not the base rule valour maxes, they are critical to the mission that is unashamedly my ulterior motive in all this.

Guess what I’m talking about here is not just a few games, or even a whole contest, but “rejuvenating” the MTW/VI community with a “new standard”. Getting the attention back of those who have left, and rebuilding that community is my dream.
Again my apologies for stepping off course. It will not happen again (at least concerning this :tongue: ). Thank you for your support…

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/storage/ceremony11.jpg

Jochi Khan

08-05-2005, 17:47

Forget the old clan`s.They are dead,disbanded,or not avaible to get enough
ppl together to play a good match.Some of them have switched to other
games (WoW,Guild Wars,Everquest2 or RTW).Forget them,i have done it
for a while now. We trying to rebuild a new comunity,not to get any of the
old clans back.

I would suggest that you re-read post #121 on page 5 of this thread.
and the last quote of Tomi's post above.

The whole idea of this competition WAS to try to get the old clans back playing with the present community. (Please correct me if I am wrong Tomi)
Nothing to do with building a new community.

Jochi

Tomisama

08-06-2005, 16:39

There is a continuing supply of folks discovering MTW. I Guess that will continue as long as MTW is on the shelf. Grooming them and harvesting to play in VI is already an ongoing noble project for some :bow:

But that stream has always been there, trickling people into the MTW and VI. There is nothing that can be done to increase the flow. We may get a boost every time the prices go down more, but mostly it will stay the same.

Unfortunately that input flow is about equal to the flow of folks leaving. For the most part it is a maintenance drip. Just enough to keep the patient alive.

The only way to grow the community is to try to get people back from wherever they have gone. Yes the old Clans are gone. But there are a lot of ex-players out there who could come back and join current Clans, or form new ones. The increase in main body numbers would also encourage more people to stay. A total win-win situation :grin:

What would bring them back? They already know that Medieval was, and “still is” the best game on the planet for serious multiplayer fun. But they have already played it to death, so what’s to come back to?

We would have to “reinvent” the game. Not too much, don’t want to make it too difficult to learn the new stuff. Just fix the biggest remaining problem with it. Throw in some “all new” maps, expertly crafted to enhance the multiplayer experience. A super new Contest to bring their blood to a boil, and off we go.

I only hope we haven’t missed the window of opportunity to do this, of muffed up the chance to do it right. The only way to find out for sure, is to press on.

“Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” ~;)

ichi

08-06-2005, 21:14

Tomi you're such a stud

Gawain of Orkeny

08-07-2005, 00:35

We would have to “reinvent” the game. Not too much, don’t want to make it too difficult to learn the new stuff. Just fix the biggest remaining problem with it. Throw in some “all new” maps, expertly crafted to enhance the multiplayer experience. A super new Contest to bring their blood to a boil, and off we go.

I say its already been done and Its called La Reconquista. I know I never even tries half the Factions nor Units. I would really like to see it ressurected. So much work was put into it. Its like a new game. If anyone else still have it installed and would care to play it please let me know.

t1master

08-08-2005, 19:27

there is always rome. ~;)

Gawain of Orkeny

08-08-2005, 22:43

there is always rome

Blasphemey. Who wants to go backwards ~D

Shields

08-09-2005, 12:10

Master Tomi leave it to Shields he will do some buttkicking and get the old m8s back for a bit of fun,

Although Nicky aka yoguish tends to kick me more then anyone *sniffles*

And Tomi is right about old peeps comin back and joining new clans and old alike

There is still Aggonies Tigers and Bears oh my! and then there is heerbaan as well and of course the loveable huggable Gawain of Orkney or Suffolk whatever :D is here in town to den.

Anyway Shields will begin popping and doing more spamming for the glory of the CWC because he is bored and talking in third person :bow:
:dizzy2:

Hunter KIng George

08-09-2005, 14:35

Um no, It's actually Hunters, Tigers, and Bears! This is my cheesy line ~:) and I'm sticking to it...

Tiger_Tamerlane

08-09-2005, 19:54

Have the Bears register for the CWC Tournament ? Aggony have.
Anybody have talk with the SC (Scared(upps Sacred) Company) ? I know
they are able to play a Vi tournament and if my info`s right IPL is able to
play too.

Hf

AggonyDuck

08-10-2005, 01:26

The Bears didn't really fancy the rules(Bottom didn't), although I suppose they might be persuaded. But that's easier said than done. ~;)
But actually I'm not that sure of their current decision regarding the tourney.

Tomisama

08-10-2005, 03:43

Have stopped by Sacred Company’s and Imperum Polskie’s sites (among many others), spreading the news :charge:

I hope Bottom will at least give it a try :yes:

Very important to have him on board on this.

Really don’t want anyone else to miss this major event either.

It has all the potential to be the greatest competition we have ever had.

Oh yes, the official maps for the contest, are the Realm maps by Orda Khan.

Thanks Orda, and Thanks again Yuuki, for the selection.

If you have Mappack3, you already have them.

If you don’t, I’ve put together a map pack of all ten.

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/tools/realm_map_pack.zip

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/storage/ceremony11.jpg

Tiger_Tamerlane

08-10-2005, 09:52

Bottom !!!!! Get ur bearbutt in this tourney !!! :bow:

Puzz3D

08-10-2005, 12:29

Oh yes, the official maps for the contest, are the Realm maps by Orda Khan.
I would recommend that Realm001 and Realm002 not be used. The other 8 should be ok.

Tomisama

08-10-2005, 12:51

I would recommend that Realm001 and Realm002 not be used. The other 8 should be ok.True, we may not use them all. But the maps will come from this pack.

The Bears didn't really fancy the rulesTo be sure we are all considering the same rule-set, please refer to the following as the exclusive source for that information.

The Valour Rules (specification and explanation)

http://p219.ezboard.com/fclanwars3540frm61.showMessage?topicID=4.topic

Knights Of Valor Competition Rules

http://p219.ezboard.com/fclanwars3540frm62.showMessage?topicID=1.topic

And other information important to this Competition

http://p219.ezboard.com/fclanwars3540frm61

:bow:

7Bear7Bottom

08-13-2005, 19:37

Hi guys,

The Bears are concidering entering a team, we are just trying to figure on who, as for not liking the rules, it's not really all about that.

We are just concerned with the limited faction selection that was available.

Where alot of our players enjoy using the none Euro factions, the cav becomes very hard to find in order to compete with the chiv, templar, and hoplar knights.

But with the many rule changes, we were waiting to see when the rules would be settled.

Are the rules now settled?

Puzz3D

08-13-2005, 20:49

Where alot of our players enjoy using the none Euro factions, the cav becomes very hard to find in order to compete with the chiv, templar, and hoplar knights.

But with the many rule changes, we were waiting to see when the rules would be settled.

Are the rules now settled?
I think the rules are settled, but they are to the detriment on the non-western factions because of the ability to field the v0 mounted knights that you mention. Russian is a special case because it was weak under any of the proposed rules.

Gawain of Orkeny

08-13-2005, 21:53

Russian is a special case because it was weak under any of the proposed rules.

Russians are at least as strong as before if not stronger. V 0 boyars are quite strong and russian spears also work well . Vikings also are quite good. In fact in early muslim factions are quite strong.

7Bear7Bottom

08-14-2005, 00:33

But they only have Boyars and that is it, the rest is low moral waist, and the only way you could win, is take 4 rus spears, 4 woods men, 4 urban, and 4 slave warriors in early at val 2 and rush. :duel:

Puzz3D

08-14-2005, 10:01

Russians are at least as strong as before if not stronger.
They are weaker than western factions in high and late. For example in high era:

Russian 8k army:
2 v0 boyars
4 v0 pav xbows
4 v2 armored spearmen
2 v2 halbardiers
4 v1 alan cav

German 8k army:
2 v0 chiv knights
4 v0 pav xbows
4 v1 chiv maa
2 v2 feudal spearman
4 v0 teutonic knights

The combat power in the cav is considerably less for the Russian, and the overall morale of the army is less than the German army. The Russian would have to be effective with the alan cav by using their speed advantage.

7Bear7Bottom

08-14-2005, 15:51

Tomi, it seems Scar is lost somewhere in WOW. :furious3:

Do you mind granting me entrance to the CWC forum for now?

Thanks :bow:

Tomisama

08-14-2005, 16:29

No problem ~;)

But you will have to post in a public section of our forum first, so that I can raise your board status internally.

http://p219.ezboard.com/fclanwars3540frm22.showMessageRange?topicID=1.topic&start=81&stop=88

CrackedAxe

08-14-2005, 17:20

ichi

08-14-2005, 18:42

The numbers can be low, but seem to be holding. We usually have enough for some good games.

ichi :bow:

Gawain of Orkeny

08-14-2005, 19:24

In fact the numbers in VI have been growing. At night VI players out number MTW players. Also people are coming from RTW and liking both games.

AggonyDuck

08-14-2005, 23:31

The situation is actually reversed doing GMT noons, where 90% of the players are on MTW and getting a game on VI is quite hard. ~;)

Tiger_Tamerlane

08-15-2005, 10:43

Install both. Play mornings MTW and evenings VI ~:)
And m8,the lobby is so less,because many ppl are "away" for "6 months" .

Puzz3D

08-17-2005, 20:41

I played four 4v4 online battles under the KoV rules two nights ago, and the battles were good. I'd just like to remind players that sword infantry is not likely to stop cavalry under these rules, and that once a rout starts you're in big trouble. So, it's quite important to avoid getting your swords matched up against enemy cav unless it's in trees.

Tomisama

08-18-2005, 02:19

Aye, and that’s where yer spears (and halbs and pikes) come in ~;)

Really this valour one concept with enhanced anti-cavalry is a beautiful thing. But the balance it creates in the over all scheme of things does all but demand that you bring a balanced army. And you need to understand that, if you are going to be successful playing it.

In my opinion limiting swords and raising spears brings a feel to the game similar to that of Shogun. And the results of reducing the morale gap, puts the emphasis more on generalship and teamwork, than on pumped up unit selections.

This may not be for everyone, maybe just for the more serious gamer, I don’t know. But I do believe that it provides a more realistic challenge, for whoever will brave it.

Nine Clans have stepped into the Knights Of Valour arena to play by the Valor Rules proscribed for this Tournament. And with the two more that have promised participation bringing us to nine Clans, that leaves only five slots open.

Please don’t hesitate if you have any intentions of being included in this event. Sign Up Today!

http://p219.ezboard.com/bclanwars3540

:charge:

If your Clan has no CWC Emissary, or they are unavailable right now, any Clan member can fill in and post on our public forums (Visitor's Gate - All Welcome). We will work out the details later ~:cheers:

CrackedAxe

08-21-2005, 13:46

Thankfully, you guys were right about VI being the more popular choice for the evening player (GMT). I've had some great battles now and am really enjoying being back into it. So whats this KoV thing all about? Is it a mod? Sounds interesting. I like the idea of the more balanced armies.

CBR

08-21-2005, 14:02

Hey CrackedAxe

Knights of Valor is a simple set of rules. All units can have max one valor except anticav units that can have valor 2. Anticav are spear units and halberdiers (chiv foot knights, billmen, JHI, swiss halbs and halbs)

The rules have been made to ensure that the anticav units wont be overrun by pumped up sword units and that sword units are not strong enough to handle cav as we see when playing with no rules.

That makes for a more balanced army setup and better gameplay.

CBR

CrackedAxe

08-21-2005, 15:42

Thanks CBR. So are these tourney rules only? Or are people hosting standalone games with these rules in the MP lobby? I wouldn't mind trying this out but I've never been in a clan.

Gawain of Orkeny

08-21-2005, 15:52

Thanks CBR. So are these tourney rules only? Or are people hosting standalone games with these rules in the MP lobby? I wouldn't mind trying this out but I've never been in a clan.

Well not to brag but as the inventor of these rules I host stand alone games using them quite often. Just look for a game called tourney test or if you see me online ask and Ill host one.

EatYerGreens

08-26-2005, 20:36

Were are all the VI players? I came back to the MP lobby after a six month absence, dying to get back in, only to find no VI games and all the guys there on MTW only! Not one would take my advice that VI is so much better. Is this the end of the VI MP community?

Not sure if this is the right thread but I made my first foray into MP today and had a rollicking good time, even when I bollixed things up big time.

After some tweaking, I managed to host behind a Mcfirewall and had no trouble hosting some 3v3s (3Ghz P4, 1 Gig RAM, ADSL).

You'll be pleased to learn that I'm doing this in VI.

It was tricky getting much more than 1v1 in the early afternoon but it picked up later, equal numbers of MTW and VI players. Weekend's coming and I'm hooked, so expect to see me there soon. Just excuse the noobness. ~;)

I'm finding the SP battles against AI are absolutely no preparation whatsoever for this lark and am having to re-learn a whole bunch of stuff.

In spite of that, I was on the winning side more often than not but I got heavily clobbered in the casualties stakes, so I put that down to getting good team mates. I was chuffed to finish the last 2v2 with 10 units still on the field.