View Full Version : RTW Multiplayer Rules: A Synopsis
first off, mods can you please move this to Campus Martius as i dont have the right level of Privilages ~:mecry:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello all, not many people in this forum know me as i rarely post here
Im writing this (for want of a better word) Article on the application and effects of rules in multiplayer games of BI and RTW. Many games i have played in require the player to acknowladge a set of rules to even allow themselves to play.
Im basiccly trying to pinpoint the need for rules in an online game, and then say *why* they are not needed for an enjoyable game.
1 Common Rules (to name but a few)
a) Maximum of 8 Cavalry Units.
This is strange, Maximum of 8 units of cavalry limits a Hunic or Sarmation/Roxoloani player in BI (Parthia/Armenia/Numidian in Vanilla) and i feel 8 units of Cav is totaly un-warranted. IF i were to face a game against someone taking 8 units of cavalry i would know to be prepared, largley because my normal armies feautre lots of spearmen anyway (but thats beside the point ~:joker: ) *if* you see someone taking any of the aforementioned armies just take a look at the amount of men they have taken, thats a fairly good indicator of the type of army available. e.g in a large size game a Sarmatian player with 600 men is probably OD'ing on the cav, to counter it take your armies basic spearman choice (Saxon Keel/Barb-Picitish Spearmen/Levy Spearmen etc etc) this provides an effective cunter to cavalry spammers.
Archers are also one of the best ways to counter Cavalry units. 4 Units of Archers with lvl 2 weapon upgrades is a) very cheap b) deadly to cavalry. Hide the Archers behind your main inf, turn off Skirmisher mode and watch your archers pick off the cav one by one. Obviously upgrade the weps to lvl 3 if you can.
b) Maximum of 2 Units of Horse Archers/No Cantabarian Circle
I can see were this is comming from, but again i disagree. As a Burgundii player i find Horse Archers are soemthing i could spend time and energy worryign about, but i dont, for the very simple reason that once they have run out of arrows the main enemy army is most likley 6ft Under, or my army is, this often leaves the Cav Archers in the strange position of being the only 2 units left alive at the end. Many players will send their cav archers out ahead to draw out certain units (cavalry/archers/light inf) of course they will never catch them so is this a good way to spend 600 Denarii?? not really imho, a unit of cheap Barb Cavalry will give the Horse Archers all the chasing they need and also survive the arrow storm that will come its way, at about half the price of the cav archers.
Limiting them too two units actually increases thier effectivness, commanders learn to value them.
Archers have a hard time agianst horse archers due to the Cantabarian Circle, which helps keep your HA alive....indeed it does but in my experiance (stats may not reflect this) they kill less. people may argue with me on this, but i find that a unit of Desert Horsmen (berber cav archers) will kill more than a Circling unit of Sassanid Horse Archers. no idea why, but in my experiance it is the truth ~;)
C) Maximum of 6 Units of Any one Type
I disagree with this totaly and Utterly. Some people say it is to stop people spamming the Plumbatarii, so what? Plumbatarii are only good agianst Infantry charging them head on.....hit em in the side with a unit of Burgundian Lancers, or Clibinarii and watch those Legionaires go running back to Ravenna.
In my Celt army i take 8 units of Gallowglasses, why? beacuse they are good celt infantry. my opponents regularly take many units of Plumbatarii and get jacked off when i take 8 units of Gallows. why? because i have *8* of them. this is of course totaly unfair, compared to the oh so weak Plumbatarii army of doom. now everyone has at one point used Plumbatarii...in fact the first army i used was WRE with 5 Plumbs and a 1st Cohort. i rarely lost a game. now however i use a totaly differant army (ill go into more detail later)
and i enjoy playing it, its never one sided unlike the games withg my Plumbatarii army.
and the point is that i still have very good games with no limits than i do against people who list 10 restrictions on the game.
D) Maximum of 2 Units of Berserkers
I can see what some people are getting at, Berserkers are very good, however they also have the armour of a small rubber duck, shoot em and they fall, they have two HP, but a defence of 9, compare that too a legionaires defence of 25 and we see the differance.
My Burgundii Army in a 10K game looks like this:
Generals Unit: Chosen Horde Swordsmen
2 Units of Lombard Berserkers
6 Units of Burgundii Lancers
2 Units of Barbarian Cavalry
5 Units of Barbarian Spearmen
2 Units of Chosen Axemen
Ok, i lose games sometimes, i also win games. and the Berserkers have *never* won a game for me, i tried using 4 Berserkers, and i ended up losing more than i did with two units, god alon knows why ( :bounce: ) but i did. oh, and with this army i did not build around the rules of units and restrictions, i built it because it is balanced.
Hounds of Culaan - More berserkers, weaker than Lombards but easier to build and cheaper, potentialy you can field more but people restrict them. why?? oh why? they are not game winners, any more than Lombards are, or any more than a ERE army of 3 units of clibinarii is. Berserkersgo...well..berserk, you lose control and they hunt enemies relentlesly, but i prefer direct control over frenzy, and im sure many other people do too.
E) No Artillary
This is the biggie, this and Elephants. The rule of no Artillary is one used in 99% of games you will play. i do not see why they should
not be used, they are not that great. Onagers cant hit moving units at all, and ballistas kill less than Archers do...so why cant we take them? the reason is, and it is the same for every restricted unit, that people cannot figure out valid tactics to beat them. Personally i prefer using light cav to drive the crews away from the machines, other people use Archers/Skirmishers though.
Liek i said earlier, Artillary can be beaten by people who actually think about the overall strategy, and use thier faster units to draw fire away from their main line units, who use archers to pepper the crews, who use light cav to drive the crew away. who can succesfully beat the enemy army without caring about the two units of onagers shooting balls of fire on them. people who can, in a word adapt to new enviroments and short term tactics with a felxibly designed army.
F) No Elephants
The best games i ever played were against |StormyLegion|Sparks persian army with 2 Elephants, 8 Horse Archers and 10 Levy Spearmen, i could not beat, got knows i tried. but the whole fun was that i spent time devising strategy after strategy to alleviate disaster for my Slavs/Germans or Berbers in equal measure.
Elephants can be downed by Legionaires....Romano British Legionaires. Javlins are key, and Flaming Arrows are pretty usful too :tongue: , i still lost but the point was i *nearly* won the game, but i still enjoyed it.
G) Limits on Archers
Lots of Archers are hard to cope with. i recomend using about 3-4 units, but they are not exactly hard to kill, again the wonderful Barbarian Cavalry can facilitate in the removal of most archers. Remember, when archers run they dont shoot.
If someone limits you too 2 units of archers, then the reason is that they have an army that cannot cope with more than two units.
Putting my money were my Mouth is!
The Army i use to play online varies depending on what army i face. If i face Rome, i go for my Celtic Army:
Generals Unit: Noble Cavalry
3 Units of Noble Cavalry
2 Hounds of Culaan
7-8 Gallowglasses with gold/silver weapons
2 Pictish Crossbowmen
2 Kerns
I personally find this army balanced enough to take out some armies, and i do lose my share, i would say i am 50/50, when Hounds charge in conjunction with Gallows then the enemy knows whats hit them :tongue:
Over to the Burgundii
Generals Unit: Chosen Horde Swordsmen
2 Units of Lombard Berserkers
6 Units of Burgundii Lancers
2 Units of Barbarian Cavalry
5 Units of Barbarian Spearmen
2 Units of Chosen Axemen
This army as i have already mentioned is balanced and can cope with cav spammers, and also infantry spammers. It is fun to play with and i am also at 50/50 wins losses with it.the more cavalry in this army shows that Lancers are very useful, in flanking and also Wedge formation into another Cav unit, the +10 Charge Bonus is worth it imho....but i do also love the units design and the fact they are "Lancers". Lancers of course are a very "flash" unit in the British Military History.
Summary
Rules are made by the people the rules help. God knows i am a hypocrite when i say this, i only stopped the Artillary rule today, once i actually looked at my game plan and thought about how *we* are ruining the whole point of online gaming in the RTW Universe. Rules only hinder the person joining the game, not the host, and i think to balance out games of BI and RTW online we should remove the factors designed by us, the players to balance the game.....the rules we impose on our games.
I know i am going to get flak from people saying rules stop people spamming units, but if they take the time to look over what i have just posted then they may, hopefully chaneg their minds.
well, thats my two cents :2cents: (+$50 shipping charge ~:joker: ) and like i said, i hope i can change some old habbits around here. If anyone wants to discuss this with me, then feel free, i can be contacted on MSN at teh_bear@fsmail.net, and any posts here i will do my utmost to respond to (im in Scotland, so Americans and Aussies may have trouble getting me on MSN :tongue: )
Later Folks!!
Orda Khan
11-04-2005, 17:33
Well Grimsta, you will most definitely not be getting any critcism from me. Maybe more people would do well to adopt your approach to a game that should be an enjoyable experience. I have maintained this since I began playing. Rules only ruin the game and as you rightly point out, are imposed mainly to 'help' overcome a supposed problem, that problem being the fact that they cannot overcome it any other way
.....Orda
GAH!
Well said.
Vanya always likes challenges anyways.
Vanya sez... If host fear da rush, host low koku.
Now, if only Vanya could get some Roman Arquebusiers... :bow:
GAH!
thanks for the replies guys, i would have responded sooner but i only just got full membership :charge:
I uploaded some battle replays, ill get a link and post it here ~:cheers:
Im basiccly trying to pinpoint the need for rules in an online game, and then say *why* they are not needed for an enjoyable game.
I'm against rules as well. The game shouldn't need them. If the gameplay without rules deteriorates to armies that can only be countered by the same army, the game is fundamentally flawed and isn't worth playing.
hellenes
11-25-2005, 20:12
I'm against rules as well. The game shouldn't need them. If the gameplay without rules deteriorates to armies that can only be countered by the same army, the game is fundamentally flawed and isn't worth playing.
Correct, and to add something:
Rules were created to play in a flawed and imbalanced game against:
People that you dont know.
People that arent your friends.
People that play ONLY to win.
People that have no lives but only testing the engine for exploits and weaknesses.
And we all know the percentage of such people online...
Hellenes
Jochi Khan
11-25-2005, 21:23
It is now getting so bad that, players joining a game hosted with *no rules* are trying to insist on 'no art' 'no eles' 'xx max cav' etc. etc. etc.
What would happen if you walked onto the football field and told the opposing side "no offside, no penalties and no tackling"
I know what sort of answer you would get.
The game is there to be played, it has it's own rules, you don't make it up as you go along.
Yes unfortunately, there are people who 'must win at all costs'.
But, it has been this way right from Shogun through Medieval and now into Rome.
Jochi
I am in a clan at the moment, but i have all but stopped playing online games due to the shear amount of rules....it really does suck, and i will still play online games, but only against my good friends and people with similar outlooks on the game as myself.
Orda Khan
11-26-2005, 12:00
People that have no lives but only testing the engine for exploits and weaknesses.
That sums up Total War MP. Very well said Hellenes. This is no new phenomenon, every Total War game has been fundamentally flawed and we should remember that. Rules have been, or could have been, applied to any of the series and all these fundamentally flawed games probably were/are not worth playing. On reflection, I have possibly wasted five years by playing this series and all the crap that comes with it. But all the crap is basically introduced by the players not the game. It's the players analytical approach to a game that is supposed to represent historical warfare that ruins MP. I have played many MP games where the approach was to field realistic armies and these were far more enjoyable than the usual
.......Orda
hellenes
11-26-2005, 15:41
That sums up Total War MP. Very well said Hellenes. This is no new phenomenon, every Total War game has been fundamentally flawed and we should remember that. Rules have been, or could have been, applied to any of the series and all these fundamentally flawed games probably were/are not worth playing. On reflection, I have possibly wasted five years by playing this series and all the crap that comes with it. But all the crap is basically introduced by the players not the game. It's the players analytical approach to a game that is supposed to represent historical warfare that ruins MP. I have played many MP games where the approach was to field realistic armies and these were far more enjoyable than the usual
.......Orda
One word:
http://www.blizzard.com/patches/
Hellenes
It's the players analytical approach to a game that is supposed to represent historical warfare that ruins MP.
The game never has been realistic or historically accurate, and isn't intended to be. It is an analytical game not a battle simulator.
There is nothing wrong with trying to take a strong army. It is after all a competitive game. What I'm saying is that every army should have a counterarmy. The game is supposedly designed so that every unit has a counterunit. If that is working properly, an army overloaded with a certain unit will have a counterarmy containing many of the counterunit. As a result, no single army will emerge as the best army.
The plethora of rules being used in RTW multiplayer is due to the poor playblance. Apparently RTW/BI has improved playbalance, but players won't want to give up the rules they've been using for the past year. Past games in the series used less rules which is an indication that those games worked better. Original STW was played without any unit limits. Taking 16 monks in STW was considered cheap, but players like Obake insist that 16 monks could be defeated.
Rodion Romanovich
11-27-2005, 14:43
Rules can have three different functions:
- help newbies from picking spam armies that will be defeated in 10 seconds
- making your own army invincible by choosing rules that exactly fits your faction/army
- playing a certain type of standard game where you think the balance between different units is good
- When I set rules it's because of no.1 and no.3, but I also often open 1vs1 games where I tell the visitor, the challenger, to set the rules. In 2vs2, no.1 is important because if someone gets a newbie ally it's ok as long as the newbie ally doesn't bring 20 elephants and get them running amok through his ally's army after 10 seconds. A 2vs2 game with 1 beginner + 1 good player vs 2 good players or experts works fine if the armies brought aren't too bad.
- No.2 also unfortunately happens often, but it's as simple as just leaving the server if you find the rules boring. If the host plays roman there's at least no fear of an unjust game (maybe a boring game, but not an unjust game) because you can always also pick romans.
I find that some of the most enjoyable games are 12.5k no art no ele, or 15k denarii with no art or ele. I also often limit berserkers, but usually to max 5. Even if I don't think it's fun with more than around 2 berserkers, I like to set the limit of the rule a little higher to make the enemy army more unpredictable. What I want is for the rules to not destroy the possible element of surprise and possibility of the enemy bringing an army you couldn't predict, so that you're forced to bring an own army which is balanced and can fight almost any type of enemy army. As a matter of fact, I use almost the exact same army against all opponents, no matter which faction they choose, for the purpose of getting a both fair, fun and challenging game.
Orda Khan
11-27-2005, 15:03
The game never has been realistic or historically accurate, and isn't intended to be. It is an analytical game not a battle simulator.
Oh.....Puzz3D disagrees with me........no surprise there then.
represent historical warfare
Well this was my quote, which nowhere mentions historical accuracy.
People that have no lives but only testing the engine for exploits and weaknesses.
....And this is the quote by Hellenes that sums up Total War MP. Notice I say Total War and not Rome Total War. I could go on but there really is no point. When I see factions and units from ancient armies all over the game and given the very description of the game and then someone says it does not represent historical warfare, then obviously I am wasting my time. But I suspect some people, like Hellenes, understand what I am saying
.......Orda
hellenes
11-27-2005, 16:08
Oh.....Puzz3D disagrees with me........no surprise there then.
Well this was my quote, which nowhere mentions historical accuracy.
....And this is the quote by Hellenes that sums up Total War MP. Notice I say Total War and not Rome Total War. I could go on but there really is no point. When I see factions and units from ancient armies all over the game and given the very description of the game and then someone says it does not represent historical warfare, then obviously I am wasting my time. But I suspect some people, like Hellenes, understand what I am saying
.......Orda
The game represents WHAT the IGNORANT masses persume as history...
The CA is too lazy or lacks network programmers to understand that single player games die as the internet speed increases... and with the impossibility of an true "AI"...
Maybe they think that MP is the bastard child others dont:
http://www.blizzard.com/patches/
Hellenes
It's the players analytical approach to a game that is supposed to represent historical warfare that ruins MP. I have played many MP games where the approach was to field realistic armies and these were far more enjoyable than the usual
I see no point going into battles with armies that are inferior to those of the opponents. You fielded your "realistic armies" in games where the other players weren't doing that. That ruined MP for you. I don't know where you get the idea that the game is "supposed to represent historical warfare". It doesn't, and even Creative Assembly says it doesn't.
L'Impresario
11-27-2005, 17:29
I think that 2 different opinions regarding the perceived problems in TW are expressed here, which are caused:
a) by players
b)by CA/TW as a series/the marketing department etc
If one's objection about playing the game is a), then he can find a group of similarly minded people, or play SP, alternatively wait for another game with a different MP crowd.
If OTOH its b), then one can try to mend the defficiencies of the game, thus modding and rules could come into play, unless the problems are so extreme for the said individual that TW as a series is to be dismissed until it gets a radical overhaul.
I also find rather unprobable that a game could depict any type of actual warfare-be it medieval (most hard) or classical - without important compromises to gameplay. Ofcourse that isn't to say that I'm pleased by the general RTW approach, but VI MP offers quite satisfying gameplay at a tactical level when the "skill" gap between the teams isn't significant, esp. with some mods and certain florin levels.
I remind you that the game wasn't built around a certain amount of money anyway, and each may have his personal preferences.
Commenting something that Yuuki said, I believe that if a group of people is able to deliver solid teamplay, then any army "inferiority" is somewhat diminished, plus more diverse tactics can be performed - ofcourse straighforward moves come to anyone quite naturally, the challenge lies beyond that. And straying from the standard can often prove very surprising for the opponent.
Orda Khan
11-27-2005, 19:06
Yeah.....I thought so.
OK I will give it one more try for what it's worth.
Yari Samurai.....historical, certainly not modern.
Man-at-Arms....the same.
Roman Cohorts...the same.
Armies meet on a battlefield and fight a battle, which is warfare. And the game is called Total WAR.
Not once did I state that the game is historically accurate!
What I did state was that games that are treated as battles, with more realistic types of armies ( as opposed to the SPAM armies, from any of the TW games ) are far more enjoyable
.......Orda
hellenes
11-27-2005, 19:33
Yeah.....I thought so.
OK I will give it one more try for what it's worth.
Yari Samurai.....historical, certainly not modern.
Man-at-Arms....the same.
Roman Cohorts...the same.
Armies meet on a battlefield and fight a battle, which is warfare. And the game is called Total WAR.
Not once did I state that the game is historically accurate!
What I did state was that games that are treated as battles, with more realistic types of armies ( as opposed to the SPAM armies, from any of the TW games ) are far more enjoyable
.......Orda
Roman cohorts... wearing red, lorica segmenta in 270bc, all looking the same
Head hurlers
Screeching women
Unattackable dogs
Bull$hit warriors
Cheerleaders in mini skirts pretending to be Scythian
"Egyptian" MUMMY ressurected armies
Arcani sadomasochists
Imaginary axemen all over the place
Monks
Priests
Sarmatian funky disco girls
Pink parthians
burning pigs
Spartans in dresses
I think the above explain the behaviour at the RTW mp lobby and the target age group of CA...
Hellenes
L'Impresario
11-27-2005, 20:04
What I did state was that games that are treated as battles, with more realistic types of armies ( as opposed to the SPAM armies, from any of the TW games ) are far more enjoyable
Then as I said, your problem doesn't have to do with the actual game itself, but with your concept of realistic armies and spamming. Therefore you wouldn't be against rules (or even mods) that promote those armies, not? I assume that many tourney rulesets have diversified the game, but I don't play RTW since I last tried 1.2 so...
Else the question would be about the mechanics and the engine, and you'd have to blame CA ;)
Naturally there could be a combination of both. But if it's solely about immersion, then you just can't force everyone to play the same. In the end though, tactics -and balanced armies- depend on the R/P/S system effectiveness.
Orda Khan
11-29-2005, 18:12
I have tried many mods, L'Impresario, as you know and mods for each of the series. The trouble with mods is no different from the trouble with the original game....things are still disputed. As for rules, I do not believe rules do any good when all they achieve is to make people play a certain way. There have been some big improvements made in RTW, HA for example. We see 'No CC' rules because people can no longer target them with archers. I guess these people were happier with the old 'stop and shoot' HA purely because they were easier to deal with. Of course there are the players who look for flaws and exploit them and I suppose we just have to blame human nature for that. Some form of insecurity that makes people search out the winning way so they can prove themselves online. Some may find this perfectly reasonable but I can only speak for myself when I say I find it rather sad. The time involved could surely be used more positively, such as dealing with real life issues.
It has been suggested that I should find a group of people with a similar outlook to the game. I already have. Furthermore, I have made historical battles which play very well both online and SP. Even human versus AI online in these battles is very enjoyable and a real challenge. The AI is far less predictable than human opponents and not as useless as is being made out. I have no doubt that others would critcise them, for whatever reason but having played them I stick by my previous statement that they are far more enjoyable because of the tactics and team work required. Each of these battles have more 'realistic' armies, which is another point...
If anyone thinks I am an ignoramus when it comes to history then they obviously do not know me or cannot understand what I am saying. Look at some of the issues in the list that Hellenes posted. Romans wearing red and all looking the same. Since each faction has to be readily identifiable on the battlefield, then a predominant colour for each faction has to be the easy option. All looking the same....When you zoom in this is very apparent but each unit is a multiple of the same sprite and to have a few hundred individuals is asking a lot. I remember all those white 'Bedsheet Knights' and 'Fluorescent Byzantines' in MTW but I do not recall much critcism. When it comes to the 'silly' units, they do not have to be picked in MP and can be modded out of SP. Historically out of date armour etc is acceptable IMO since we all know the game is not historically accurate and I would challenge anyone to create a game or mod that is. There are too many unknown or presumed facts about history to even begin to paint a picture of what things 'actually looked like' and sources can be very one sided and biased.
So I still think that the MP game is ruined more by people than any fault in the game, I have not played regular MP for ages because of the fact that people stop it from being what it could be and make it what it is
........Orda
Do you reckon you could share those historic battles with the community Orda? i always had a good laugh with the Historic Battles add on pack for RTW origional.
Thanks for the replys guys, it seems that this issue is still a priority among players and i think it does need to be adressed, hell...if CA were to bring out a MP only patch that only affected units for MP and made the game perfecly balanced i would download it, or if they made it so that you could only pick from a selection of pre-defined armies i would also download that, as it would breather life into something that has the potential to be great, but is ruined by Human nature.
:bow:
So I still think that the MP game is ruined more by people than any fault in the game, I have not played regular MP for ages because of the fact that people stop it from being what it could be and make it what it is
Creative Assembly made the game what it is. They made the game so you can buy whatever units you want and upgrade them however you want. They could have made it so that the host decides the army and everyone in the game gets that army, but they didn't. Players utilize what the game system allows with the objective of winning the battle, and they are not going to elect to take realistic armies because those armies are inferior to the non-realistic ones. If this drives the gameplay towards something I don't like, I just don't play. I don't go around saying these people have ruined the game, and have something wrong with them. They are taking advantage of what the game allows, and to stop it you would have to make a rule unless the game is changed by Creative Assembly so that realistic armies work best, and we already know that CA isn't going to do that.
Creative Assembly worked on improving the playbalance in RTW v1.3 which shows the game has playbalance issues. They still haven't brought the game up to what it could be with the last patch, and they are still foot dragging on a new patch to address outright bugs introduced by RTW/BI let alone playbalance issues. The cantabrian circle formation is overly effective, and some of those hunnic horse archers cannot be beaten in melee by light cav at equal cost. Where is the counter unit if foot archers and light cav are useless against them?
hellenes
11-29-2005, 21:48
Historically out of date armour etc is acceptable IMO since we all know the game is not historically accurate and I would challenge anyone to create a game or mod that is. There are too many unknown or presumed facts about history to even begin to paint a picture of what things 'actually looked like' and sources can be very one sided and biased.
While agreening with Puzz3d I have an observation:
1st
If the game is another version of the ignorant masses view on history aka is dumped down fantasy for 12 years olds how one can talk about "historically accurate" armies?
Or also there are too many unknown or presumed facts about army compositions so an army of headhurles, dogs and screeching women is PERFECTLY historically viable.
2nd
What about these guys: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=70 ?
Hellenes
Orda Khan
11-30-2005, 17:50
I am well aware of Europa Barbarorum, it is one of the many mods that I have tried already. Would I stake my wages on their mod being a true reflection of history? No.. and the reasons for this I have already stated in the quote you have used.
Why the appearance of some MTW units have not received the same level of criticism is beyond me. I can only put it down to the fact that MTW, as a game, was acceptable to the masses. It seems that RTW was less favourable and has therefore received ( IMO ) undue criticism.
The cantabrian circle formation is overly effective, and some of those hunnic horse archers cannot be beaten in melee by light cav at equal cost. Where is the counter unit if foot archers and light cav are useless against them?
By 'some' I presume you are talking about Hunnic Elite? Do you think Elite units should be beaten by Light Cav? Should there always be a counter unit? Maybe there is a counter tactic instead
.....Orda
Lord Adherbal
11-30-2005, 18:18
many of the problems could be removed if there would've been a limit on each units type (or class). Having a few overpowered units (= cannot be beaten cost-effectively) isn't such a big problem if one can only buy 1 or 2 of them. This is also proven by games such as Age of Empires: some units beat anything in 1 on 1, but you cannot get a lot of them because they either take very long to train, or take a lot of population slots (meaning you'll be outnumbered). MTW had the 4+ cost penalty and that did help.
But in RTW there is no such limit, so there is no point in buying weaker units. On top of that the speed difference between light (weaker) and heavy (stronger) infantry/cavalry is so small (and both insanely high) that this is nolonger an advantage worth considering. So why buy any weaker units at all if you can buy a whole army of stronger units ? Even if they have good counter-units that doesnt help much, because unless you know the enemy will buy 20 units of type A before the battle starts - so you can buy 10 or so units that counter type A - it is unlikely you will have enough counter units to deal with such a "spam" army.
So either you make the RPS values so extreme that a counter-unit can deal with 2 or 3 of the units it's supposed to counter, or you have to put an artificial number on each unit type/class. Until then the game will largely be decided by the army you buy, and not by the skill of the players.
hellenes
11-30-2005, 22:07
I am well aware of Europa Barbarorum, it is one of the many mods that I have tried already. Would I stake my wages on their mod being a true reflection of history? No.. and the reasons for this I have already stated in the quote you have used.
Why the appearance of some MTW units have not received the same level of criticism is beyond me. I can only put it down to the fact that MTW, as a game, was acceptable to the masses. It seems that RTW was less favourable and has therefore received ( IMO ) undue criticism.
By 'some' I presume you are talking about Hunnic Elite? Do you think Elite units should be beaten by Light Cav? Should there always be a counter unit? Maybe there is a counter tactic instead
.....Orda
Are you a Beta tester for EB?
Lucky you!!!
Ask Khelvan if their mod is a true reflection of history or not...~D ~D ~D
MTW graphics engine didnt leave much space for criticism, and MTW (compared to Rome) is MORE historically accurate.
Also MTW wasnt acceptable to the masses because before the CA turned the eyecandy on, all the current RTW fanboys were calling MTW a "notsorealtimeuglyriskcrap".
But as I said before how one can talk about:
"It's the players analytical approach to a game that is supposed to represent historical warfare that ruins MP. I have played many MP games where the approach was to field realistic armies and these were far more enjoyable than the usual"
When :
"There are too many unknown or presumed facts about history to even begin to paint a picture of what things 'actually looked like' and sources can be very one sided and biased.
How can we know how "realistic armies" were if we express doubt about historical facts and disregard them? Shouldnt we then persume that armies of dogs, pigs, screeching women and druids existed in full military use and thus use them online?
The vanilla battle of Raphia makes me wonder how far the stupidity and the bending to that stupidity can go.
Hellenes
Orda Khan
12-01-2005, 17:07
Ah yes, quotes can be very misrepresentative when only part of the whole quote is used.
The second quote used is part of my reply to Historical Accuracy, which is a far cry from the discussion about SPAM armies and more realistic/believable.
Feel free to bend my words any way you want
.....Orda
hellenes
12-01-2005, 17:59
Ah yes, quotes can be very misrepresentative when only part of the whole quote is used.
The second quote used is part of my reply to Historical Accuracy, which is a far cry from the discussion about SPAM armies and more realistic/believable.
Feel free to bend my words any way you want
.....Orda
More realistic/believable?
What constitutes realism if we disregard the authority and authenticity of Historical sources and state that historical accuracy is an utopia thus justifying the promotion and preaching of FALSE misconceptions that diminish and insult the intelligence (or whats left of that) of the audience?
If historical accuracy is impossible due to alleged ambiguity and non creditability of sources then there is NO ground to challenge the so called "SPAM" armies since the evidence at hand is not credible or reliable.
Meaning that, as I said before, an army of Onagers, Urban Cohorts and Praetorian Cavalry has full "realism" backup since there are NO reliable sources to show that this army is product of someones imagination.
But if one accepts the Historical FACTS as preserved today and tries to align the online gameplay to represent the picture that we have in hard evidence and sources about the warfare at that period IMO a decent level of enjoyment/education/and development of tactical thought will be achieved.
Hellenes
Orda Khan
12-01-2005, 19:12
Yawn
M.Cornelius Marcellus
12-01-2005, 19:24
I see this topics is about rules on MP BI games.
Some say rules are necessary cause the game is unbalanced. Some say that cantabrian, art, ele, berserker are not fair.
My opinion is that BI is the most balanced game of the totalwar series. I mean the one that presents the most number of different factions all competitive.
All factions have strength and weakness.
Lombardi/Burgundi – axes, berserkers, archers, no cantabrian
Eastern empire – plumbatarii, e. archers, no cantabrain
Western empire – plumbatarii, palatine, bad archers, no cantabrian
Sassanid – archers, ele, catafracts, cantabrian, bad infantry
Saxons – hearts, axes, bad archers, no art
Slavs, Hun, Vandals – Good archers and horse achers, cantabrian circle, some good infantry, no art
And so on.
Imo if you play without rules, accepting ele, art, berserker, and so on, the game is various and still balanced. And for this we must thank CA … for this not for other.
Some can spam. And that surely could spoil the game. I saw more than once 10-12 plumbatarii army, and more than once 6-8 eastern archers armies. I saw all elephants too. But usually the spam is tipical of new players and childish persons, because it is not challenging.
So if you are veteran, try to beat it. That’s all.
Marcus
Why the appearance of some MTW units have not received the same level of criticism is beyond me. I can only put it down to the fact that MTW, as a game, was acceptable to the masses. It seems that RTW was less favourable and has therefore received ( IMO ) undue criticism.
More people play RTW online than played MTW. So it seems RTW is the one more acceptable to the masses. RTW also has the most fantasy elements. RTW has also brought back the confounded battlefield upgrades to multiplayer which had been eliminated in MTW/VI as a result of suggestions made right here in these forums. It didn't make sense that towards the end of a battle a unit of 3 men could defeat a unit 10 times larger, and I saw replays demonstrating just that. It also doesn't make sense that a ranged unit gains increased melee capability during a battle because it kills enemies with its ranged weapon. Battlefield upgrades favor strong units because they are more likely to get alot of kills. This exacerbates the issue of overpowered units because they become relatively stronger than less capable units as the battle progresses, and this boost in melee capability doesn't cost the player any money.
By 'some' I presume you are talking about Hunnic Elite? Do you think Elite units should be beaten by Light Cav? Should there always be a counter unit? Maybe there is a counter tactic instead.
I was thinking that every unit should have a counter unit. As long as that's true, the multiplayer system where you can buy as many of whatever you want will self-regulate. The alternative is to restrict purchasing those units that are not balanced relative to the other units so that the armies remain diverse.
I don't think light cav should beat hunnic elite archers. I mentioned that because in another post you said light cav was the counter to horse archers. If the counter to hunnic elite is hunnic elite, then have fun but you won't see me playing the game. It's the same reason you don't see me playing much MTW/VI where the spears and ranged units are so weak that the game devolved into cav/sword armies. I might still play some MTW/VI MP from time to time just for competitive reasons. I choose MTW/VI over RTW/BI because for me the speedup of movement coupled with the delay of units responding to orders, the increase in the number of units to be controlled, the battlefield upgrades and the bad ground textures of RTW/BI all detract from a good playing experience.
My opinion is that BI is the most balanced game of the totalwar series. I mean the one that presents the most number of different factions all competitive.
I place a lot of value on what you say marcus, but even if the game is balanced enough to make counterarmies playable it doesn't help me overcome the other aspects of the game which I find detract from the playing experience. They are the excessive running speeds of units, too many units to control, the delay in response to orders, the battlefield upgrades and the ground textures which make it very hard see your units from a high perspective.
The turning off of the chat in the foyer doesn't bother me much because like Vanya I'm fine with jumping into games at random to play with whoever is there without rules. The early days of MTW before players would only play with their clanmates were fun for their diversity and spontaneity.
Can i just stick my head in here and say thanks to all who responded and who actually care about the multiplayer aspect in RTW/BI....this thread died about 2 weeks ago at TWC :(
Keep up the debate! :charge:
:bow:
Adherbal']But in RTW there is no such limit, so there is no point in buying weaker units. On top of that the speed difference between light (weaker) and heavy (stronger) infantry/cavalry is so small (and both insanely high) that this is nolonger an advantage worth considering. So why buy any weaker units at all if you can buy a whole army of stronger units ? Even if they have good counter-units that doesnt help much, because unless you know the enemy will buy 20 units of type A before the battle starts - so you can buy 10 or so units that counter type A - it is unlikely you will have enough counter units to deal with such a "spam" army.
So either you make the RPS values so extreme that a counter-unit can deal with 2 or 3 of the units it's supposed to counter, or you have to put an artificial number on each unit type/class. Until then the game will largely be decided by the army you buy, and not by the skill of the players.
We made the RPS in Samurai Wars for MTW/VI strong enough that a spear costing 400 is 2x stronger than the best cav which costs 1200. That cavalry unit runs 2x faster than the spear. The sword which is 2.5x stronger than the spear and 20% faster costs 1000. The sword can be killed by the arrows of an archer costing 500 or by the cav costing 1200. We set the money level to 10k which averages 625 per unit. This limits the number of elite units you can buy, and the game also has the 20% surcharge for more than 4 of one type. There are no battlefield upgrades to upset this balance in Samurai Wars, and purchased upgrades are not cost effective. At 10k it's not possible to buy an all cav or all sword army. You can skew your army to be about 50% cav or swords which keeps things interesting, but an army containing 25% of the counterunit should be viable.
This is the kind of playbalance design which Creative Assembly doesn't seem to have time to develop for the vanilla game. The 20% surcharge in MTW/VI on more than 4 of a single unit type was a hedge by the designer against imbalance. Samurai Wars is balanced well enough that it woud play fine without this surcharge feature. Since the kensai unit was impossible to properly balance in this engine, we eliminated it from the Samurai Wars online unit set. That Creative Assembly includes units in multiplayer that are impossible to balance tells you something about where they are when it comes to balancing.
M.Cornelius Marcellus
12-01-2005, 21:09
Hi Yuuki,
after some games i can distinguish my units well, just like a did on VI.
Imo the run speed is higher but it is only a problem to get used to it.
The number of units its the same problem: get used to it. I am old and very slow in clicking, but still i can fight well. And often the best stategy is too move slowly and react slowly but precisely, even in BI.
Unit control in BI is better: no more alt ctrl click ... groups ... just create your formation and drag it. That is all. With this it is simpler even to create a coordinated attack.
What is the real problem imo? Bad chat, bad connection and lags. That is surely the subject where CA give us a very bad low service.
Marcus
Well I did cause a lot of my own problems because I tried to play RTW as I had played MTW and STW. I was using ALT click to move groups and it doesn't work all that well. Dragging the line is faster and works every time. The right click for movement is much better than MTW's left click which often caused you to select a new unit unintentionally. I also turned off banners in RTW which makes it harder to identify your units, and banners should be on for MP. I used a speed slowdown mod in SP for a long time which made it harder to get used to the speed in MP, but have stopped using that and play at regular speed in SP all the time now. I still think units move too fast, but I can play it like that. Maybe I'll try RTW/BI again. RTW v1.3 didn't lag much at all when I tried it in 3v3 with large units, and was very playable. The phalanx even worked well.
Orda Khan
12-02-2005, 18:20
I don't think light cav should beat hunnic elite archers. I mentioned that because in another post you said light cav was the counter to horse archers.
This is not quite true. In the 'shields are better v missiles' thread I suggested a 'tactic' using Light Cav. This was not a one on one counter, it was a trap which may or may not be successful. The attempt would be to get behind the HA, target it frontally and close from the rear with the Light Cav.
I did try to explain my views regarding rules and the game and like GrimSta, I think they only serve to spoil the game. I have played in battles where balanced armies were fielded and I thoroughly enjoyed them. I have played others where SPAM armies were used and the enjoyment factor was zero.
People have chosen to believe I am a BI 'Fan Boy'....They are wrong, there is plenty I would change about RTW or BI but that was true with MTW and STW too. No doubt this will be true of the next TW game, which I do not think I will be buying ( a lot depends on the era CA choose )
I certainly think a lot was lost when the old 'Friendly' and 'Competitive' games were lumped together, the game approach definitely seemed to change, even some people seemed to change. I remember the games I used to host in STW attacking hills, there were even comments here on .Org about how much fun they were. Nowadays it feels like fun is a dirty word so perhaps by not playing Total War MP I am better off
.....Orda
Some of the discussion is far above how and why I play the game. Now I don't play much online RTW, actually not at all- but from my time of playing STW and MTW I will share this
One should play the army that they wish to play. You will find that by playing heavy on one type of unit - your army is unbalanced. You might win lots of battles with that army - but the game loses its luster because you have neglected to experiment and try other troop mixes and nations. What good is it to play with an unbeatable army - no enjoyment nor learning new game tactics with that.
Personally I go for a mix of troops that seem to make tactical sense for the battle in which I am fighting. Am I defending or am I attacking. If I defend - I want more spears and ranged weapons - with Cav and swords to protect the flanks. If I am attacking I want a heavier sword mix - but still bring spears and ranged because of their effects.
If one wants to balance the battle use the amount of money available. That is the best equalizer of the game. Play with an amount that allows the players to have a decent mix of troops without allowing a player to over-equipped or over valor there armies.
In the days of STW that value was a certain amount it allowed for a good mix of troops at low honor levels whiched forced the players to think and fight tactical battles.
With MTW the same applied. The individual who thought about his unit selection, bought his army according to the tactical role his army was to have, and thought about the terrian that the battle was being fought on - was always a pleasure and enjoyable to fight - regardless if I won or lost.
Find the balance that allows one to enjoy the game - forget about setting rules that tell you how many or what type of units to bring. FIght the army you can afford to fight with the money that is allocated for the battle.
Mix and match - constant changing of units is what the multiplayer function allows you.
Find the balance that allows one to enjoy the game - forget about setting rules that tell you how many or what type of units to bring. FIght the army you can afford to fight with the money that is allocated for the battle.
STW was balanced at 5000 koku. This gave an average of 312 koku per unit in a system where the prices of the units ranged from 100 to 600. MTW is also balanced at 5000 florins, but no one will play it there because the morale is 4 points lower than it was in STW where the units were purchased at honor 2 as opposed to valor 0 in MTW. The rout point was also moved from -24 in STW to -16 in MTW (later increased to -18 in VI). So, people play MTW/VI at 10k, but this allows too many elite units, and on top of that the upgrades possible at 10k damages the unit balance especially because ranged units get discounted upgrades. This gives an average of 625 florin per unit in a system where the unit prices range from 100 to 675 if you eliminate the peasants (50) at the low end and lancers (850), swiss armored pikemen (750) and gothic knights (725) at the top end all of which are only available in late era.
STW was balanced at 5000 koku. This gave an average of 312 koku per unit in a system where the prices of the units ranged from 100 to 600. MTW is also balanced at 5000 florins, but no one will play it there because the morale is 4 points lower than it was in STW where the units were purchased at honor 2 as opposed to valor 0 in MTW. The rout point was also moved from -24 in STW to -16 in MTW (later increased to -18 in VI). So, people play MTW/VI at 10k, but this allows too many elite units, and on top of that the upgrades possible at 10k damages the unit balance especially because ranged units get discounted upgrades. This gives an average of 625 florin per unit in a system where the unit prices range from 100 to 675 if you eliminate the peasants (50) at the low end and lancers (850), swiss armored pikemen (750) and gothic knights (725) at the top end all of which are only available in late era.
Yep the 5K games in STW were always good fights.
I found that one can enjoy a good balanced game at 8000K for MI - not many want to play at that value - but it provides for a good balance and reduces the number of elit units that people can bring.
I found my best balance was to bring what I considered the basic army for the time.
mostly low cost troops - spears and arrows, low cost cavarly - with about 1/4 of the army being Medium to elite troops.
What many forget is that most armies in Medievil times were peasant levies or if the lord had lots of money - he might have a better trained militia with spears and bowmen.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.