Multiplayer issues

[Loinnreach]

I only have few questions which I have gathered while browsing around.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59590
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm11.showMessage?topicID=912.topic

To CA:

If you answer on all of them only with 'yes' or 'no', this would be very helpful.

Will you do something about:

1. improvments regarding sync, lag and connection in both lobby and in
battle.Cant imagine why we can have timeout hosting games in the lobby,

2. more friendier chat features in the lobby then in RTW/BI. I mean.. chatting
on Internet has never been easier and feature-rich these days,

*A more intimate MP chat lobby - Similar to STW and MTW. Being a separate interface from the normal Gamespy-type lobby. Include features such as private, password-able chat rooms, a permanent ban and ignore feature which is tied to the player-in-question's CD-Key so he cannot avoid it by just changing his username.*


3. better chat-room design.. customisable even better.. font, font size, color,
etc,

4. clan database. For ladder or for general record. Auto prefix/subfix to player
name the clan pre/subfix. Should be linked to individual player database,

*A detailed logfile feature - One similar to that found in the MTW game. A definite must for the MP community. It allows you to learn from others you play against by showing you what units/upgrades have the most success. It also allows, for anyone interested in hosting an MP campaign. to use the results of a battle in updating their campaign info.*


5. selectable game speed (available),

6. de-correlate morale upgrade with experience/valor/honor upgrade. Make it
a separate upgrade with separate cost.

7. selectable game speed (available),

9. host can disable certain factions, certain units, certain upgrades. This
should be save-able, E.g. ban all unit of class-type artillery,

*More host options for setting up MP games - To allow a host to set up exact amounts of currency for the games, set up which factions to allow, set up which weapons may be used or not used.*


9. to be able to give away control of units to other team mates,

10.when joining a game, missing resources will automatically be sent to you
from the hoster,

11.Avatars and clan tags
Both in the lobby and in game banners and chat labels. It's nice to be
more than just a "name".

12.Save and restart games
Dropped games should be auto-saved. In comp, you shouldn't be able to
blame the network,

13.dropping shouldn't even occur. Neither lag, even at 8 players,

14.allow for user-created scenarios to be played in MP,

15.Create specific maps, with specific names to represent the different
provinces in the game - Set up the way STW maps were set up. There
were 60 maps with specific names. This allowed for easy discussion of
tactics and also allowed for an MP campaign game to be hosted in a
turnbased manner,

16.Provide a robust SDK so players can easily make mods and maps for the
game - This will allow for mods to be made in a timely manner. Otherwise it
would take too long to make a mod, other players would have moved on to
a new game by the time it was released. Maps are another item which add
some variety to the game which keeps things interesting for the MP
community.

*Once again I'm asking you (CA) if you can at least answer with only 'yes' or
'no' if there is no other option to reveal anything else.

I will here add as well add one idea which was mentioned by Kocmoc:



Own CA-server with some good implanted gamesystems like:

I thought about a selfworking rebalancing system, everyone speak about balance and such, but u will never see a good balance with lie k100 units. Thatswhy my idea,
we need a comp-system with a fest-amount of cash, after that the mostused untis gets every 100 used units 1 cashamount higher, the units who are not used gets 1 cashamount cheaper. With time the units who are more used gets step by stem more expensiv and the other cheaper… if u think about this u will notice, that the system will rebalance itself.

u could even implant a killratiosystem for missles, lets say u want that a unit can be maximal kill 200 enemy units….now the devs never can outplay this game, so the system itself makes missles stronger or less stronger the same way the “cashs-unit-system” works.

Anyway there are much more ways to rebalance the game by itself, if u use an own server.

Luck…since version one, the luck did increased more and more. We face today a game where, some battles are so random that u sometimes cant know, if u win that or not.
We made many playtests, and sometimes the outcomes was so different that it spoiled the whole idea of this game. I wont go too much into detail, but when u have the same situation and ur win/loss ration is 50/50 than there is something wrong.



p.s. Can mods pin this topic? I see here around only SP issues and it
would be fair if at least one MP topic would be present here. Thank you.

[sapi]

It's good to see that you are intrested in how the multiplayer game turns out, but have one thing to say.

The totalwar series is a singleplayer series of games, and working on the campaign and the ai and everything to do with it should be ca's priority. Mulitplayer really isnt' that important to me, and i'm sure to a lot of the org members. So the campaign game should definitely get priority...

Just my 2c

[Mithrandir]

It's good to see that you are intrested in how the multiplayer game turns out, but have one thing to say.

The totalwar series is a singleplayer series of games, and working on the campaign and the ai and everything to do with it should be ca's priority. Mulitplayer really isnt' that important to me, and i'm sure to a lot of the org members. So the campaign game should definitely get priority...

Just my 2c

I only played MTW online, so that doesn't go for me.

[ajaxfetish]

Yes, I also have only played single-player, so of course that's what I care most about, but I understand there is a strong multiplayer total war community and they deserve attention as well. Hopefully the game will be everything we all hope for (as if that's even possible, but at least hopefully it will be great!).

Ajax

[x-dANGEr]

I only played R: TW online (At least, for the first 1.5 years).. So yes, I do care hugely about MP, as it's always where I head at start..

[sapi]

It's good to see that you are intrested in how the multiplayer game turns out, but have one thing to say.

The totalwar series is a singleplayer series of games, and working on the campaign and the ai and everything to do with it should be ca's priority. Mulitplayer really isnt' that important to me, and i'm sure to a lot of the org members. So the campaign game should definitely get priority...

Just my 2c
I only played MTW online, so that doesn't go for me.Of course, if the singleplayer game is perfect, than the multiplayer battles will be likewise...:laugh4:

[TosaInu]

Of course, if the singleplayer game is perfect, than the multiplayer battles will be likewise...:laugh4:

That's not necessarily true sapi.

-There are some SP only and MP only bits.

-Unitstats working in SP dont have to work well in MP, because a 10% base imbalance in SP may not be noticed, in MP it will. Not because MP players play the battles better (though playing MP helped me improve), but because those games are focussed on battles only and allow magnification of imbalances: no upkeep costs like in SP, 'no' techtree, no brake on upgrades.

-A noticed 10% imbalance in stats can be used in favour of the SP'er, the AI is not going to complain. But in MP there's always a human that will feel cheated.

[Orda Khan]

Tosa hit the nail squarely on the head!!
No matter how improved the AI could/will be, the things that the SP human will get away with simply will not happen in MP.

The upgrade system definitely adds to the SP experience but it has been a pain in MP.....that is as far as I am concerned. This aspect became very evident in MTW and also to some degree in STW/MI. To get around this problem, people start setting rules and from that point the whole experience begins to deteriorate.
I would love to see seperate stats and ZERO upgrades for MP and save all the past 'cheap, inferior unit pumped to Uber class thanks to equally cheap upgrades' scenarios.
With a given unit cost and a determined over all army cost, the player would have to make interesting choices. Such as....

Buy a smaller army of higher cost units and rely on discipline and management.

Buy a large army of lesser units, hoping that manoeuvre, avoiding direct confrontation and relying on numbers will bring victory.

Buy a balanced army containing a proportionate mix of both unit classes. The hard core of disciplined troops provide the shock element while the lower classes do what they do best.

Unit match ups become more important and the tactical skill used by the player is the most important factor. Add some of the great suggestions made by Lionnreach and the MP experience would be a huge improvement

........Orda

[L'Impresario]

If upgrades are dropped, that would be an extremely positive (IMO) development, but also one that could have serious repercussions.
Although it would be easier to agree on a certain florin level from a technical/statistical point of view, a large portion of MPers has the tendency to prefer games based on elite units and relatively high morale levels.

Another thing ,that would become even more important by the no upgrades approach, is ofcourse unit balance. Naturally, it would be easier for the developers to reach a better level of balance, but any mistake could result in more units getting banned from games, as the stat range will be logically smaller in a valour/honour/experience 0 game.

Furthermore, I tend to believe that many people like this RPGish element that upgrades give to the game, but I shall leave the explanation of such weird attitudes to v4 psychologists:P

[econ21]

Orda - I'd like to see zero upgrades in the SP game too. I don't think they are that historical and tend to favour the player rather than the AI.

[TosaInu]

Regarding upgrades: it should be possible for the host to dis/allow and limit them.

Instead of hardcoding these things like battlefieldupgrades, valour upgrades, weapon/armor upgrades, base morale levels, routing thresholds, fatigue, stamina recovery, flanking bonusses and what not, there should be a config file that's CRC'ed at appropriate times. Players can then mod this to suit their games: whether it's for a SP campaign, a SP custom battle, 2 totally unexperienced players making their first steps online, 2 ultra hardcore vets duking it out together, a MP tourney or just any game.

[Loinnreach]

For the start I will be pleased when CA representative will answer on those 16 questions ('yes' or 'no' are good enough). Then we will have few basics to continue.

[Orda Khan]

Orda - I'd like to see zero upgrades in the SP game too. I don't think they are that historical and tend to favour the player rather than the AI.
I'm all for that as well. To some extent I can appreciate upgrades in some sense but these 'upgrades' tended to be a nation thing as opposed to something that can be achieved via better buildings. Two examples would probably be the Longbow and bodkin headed arrows. There are others such as the Composite bow, Swiss armoured pikes but they are all unique to factions and I like you would rather see them portrayed this way rather than a build your own program.


If upgrades are dropped, that would be an extremely positive (IMO) development, but also one that could have serious repercussions.
Although it would be easier to agree on a certain florin level from a technical/statistical point of view, a large portion of MPers has the tendency to prefer games based on elite units and relatively high morale levels.

Another thing ,that would become even more important by the no upgrades approach, is ofcourse unit balance. Naturally, it would be easier for the developers to reach a better level of balance, but any mistake could result in more units getting banned from games, as the stat range will be logically smaller in a valour/honour/experience 0 game.

Furthermore, I tend to believe that many people like this RPGish element that upgrades give to the game, but I shall leave the explanation of such weird attitudes to v4 psychologists:P

The florin level will of course determine the army. I know what you are saying and the people who prefer elite unit battles could simply host higher florin games.
The stat range would be smaller, yes. Do you think the units at zero were more a problem? Or, like I do, that the upgrade steps seriously unbalance things. At zero level some lesser units will be looking for the redzone as the game starts but surely low morale units existed, which makes things even more interesting by having to 'understand' your armies. No more point, click and sit back to watch the action.
That last part is true, many players have commented how they prefer 'gamey'

......Orda

[sapi]

I'm not nickpicking, i'm clarifying :book: imo

That's not necessarily true sapi.

-There are some SP only and MP only bits.Really? What's a multiplayer only bit? (that's not sarcasm; that's a serious question, as i don't play much multiplayer (in total war games, that is, you shouls see me in fps':laugh4: )


-Unitstats working in SP dont have to work well in MP, because a 10% base imbalance in SP may not be noticed, in MP it will. Not because MP players play the battles better (though playing MP helped me improve), but because those games are focussed on battles only and allow magnification of imbalances: no upkeep costs like in SP, 'no' techtree, no brake on upgrades.Yes, i agree with that, but i was suggesting that the sp would be perfectly balenced (extremely unlikely with the nitpicking players around the world)

-A noticed 10% imbalance in stats can be used in favour of the SP'er, the AI is not going to complain. But in MP there's always a human that will feel cheated.I feel cheated if it works to the ai's advantage :laugh4:


I'm all for that as well. To some extent I can appreciate upgrades in some sense but these 'upgrades' tended to be a nation thing as opposed to something that can be achieved via better buildings. Two examples would probably be the Longbow and bodkin headed arrows. There are others such as the Composite bow, Swiss armoured pikes but they are all unique to factions and I like you would rather see them portrayed this way rather than a build your own program.I agree - upgrades should be completely unrelated to battles (for getting them). I'd love to see technologies having a real impact in battles - i remember aoe2, where if you reasearched flaming arrows, you saw flaming arrows. Stuff like that'd be nice (but ovbiously restricted to singleplayer, unless each player in a mp game could choose 1 upgrade or something.

[Loinnreach]

There could be more then 16 basic issues, but if CA answer on those 16 it is more then enough to know what we can expect for the 'future' of MP in TW series.

There were many things going when STW (Shogun Total War) was relased and multiplayer was important as singleplayer.

Thought there is common opinion by majority of MP supporters, that RTW/BI has not fullfiled all their expectations and that is why there is interest to know what multiplayer options MTW 2 will have.

It is true that TW SP has 98% of the buyers and those 2% are MP ones, but this 2% would only like to know if at least 75% mentioned issues will be addressed or not, so they will be aware what to expect at all.

So far SP in TW series has never disapointed, but MP has. (for example RTW/BI) I see so many SP posts and all the things what people would like to have. If only 15% of all those whishes which are mentioned for SP, would be included (for MP support of course) in MP, then it would be great.

[Orda Khan]

Really? What's a multiplayer only bit?
Well there is no tech tree, no upkeep and your army costs the same as everyone elses.
Stats wise a good example would be the Militia Sergeant of MTW, a lesser unit which cost, IIRC, 175 florins. This unit could be upgraded to v4 quite easily and cheaply whereby they could hack their way through just about anything. Likewise, Pavise Arbalests could also be cheaply upgraded to the point where they would stand up to a frontal charge by cav

......Orda

[Just A Girl]

It's good to see that you are intrested in how the multiplayer game turns out, but have one thing to say.

The totalwar series is a singleplayer series of games, and working on the campaign and the ai and everything to do with it should be ca's priority. Mulitplayer really isnt' that important to me, and i'm sure to a lot of the org members. So the campaign game should definitely get priority...

Just my 2c


The Total wart games Come in to their own When you play MP.

MP is So much better than SP its almost strange to see some 1 talk about SP being the bigest part of the game.

With the poor AI, MP is mostdefinatly the most playable/fun/exiting part of the TW games,

Compared to MP, SP is way to easy.
Mp owns SP with a vengance.

[TosaInu]

I'm not nickpicking, i'm clarifying :book: imo
Really? What's a multiplayer only bit?

Human vs human. That's obvious and a basic difference. Interaction, chat, is one thing.


Yes, i agree with that, but i was suggesting that the sp would be perfectly balenced (extremely unlikely with the nitpicking players around the world)

The original STW seemed very balanced to me when I played SP. Slowly I found out, while playing MP, that it wasn't. Thus, SP'ers may experience balance, while it's only 90% or so. That 10% imbalance will be exploited in MP and make many sad faces.


I feel cheated if it works to the ai's advantage :laugh4:

That's very possible. Others will feel cheated when it works to the AI's disadvantage. But it's still one human vs pc, in MP it's human vs human. When one human wins, another human (normally) loses. An 'unfair' defeat is not going to make the loser happy.

[Wishazu]

I think upgrades should be limited in SP to whenever there is a far reaching technological advancement i.e Gunpowder or perhaps the discovery of a way to make Steel etc. stronger. You could instead have different Weapon catagories for different troops etc. and your men can upgrade when they defeat an army with better equipment(looting the dead) By the end of the Second Punic war most of Hannibals hardcore veteran troops were equipped with Roman weapons and armour

[Orda Khan]

I think upgrades should be limited in SP to whenever there is a far reaching technological advancement i.e Gunpowder or perhaps the discovery of a way to make Steel etc. stronger. You could instead have different Weapon catagories for different troops etc. and your men can upgrade when they defeat an army with better equipment(looting the dead) By the end of the Second Punic war most of Hannibals hardcore veteran troops were equipped with Roman weapons and armour
A good point, a fair reward for defeating a better army

.......Orda

[sapi]

I think upgrades should be limited in SP to whenever there is a far reaching technological advancement i.e Gunpowder or perhaps the discovery of a way to make Steel etc. stronger. You could instead have different Weapon catagories for different troops etc. and your men can upgrade when they defeat an army with better equipment(looting the dead) By the end of the Second Punic war most of Hannibals hardcore veteran troops were equipped with Roman weapons and armour
I agree completely, this would actually make defeating a better army worthwhile...

[z2ei]

The Total wart games Come in to their own When you play MP.

MP is So much better than SP its almost strange to see some 1 talk about SP being the bigest part of the game.

With the poor AI, MP is mostdefinatly the most playable/fun/exiting part of the TW games,

Compared to MP, SP is way to easy.
Mp owns SP with a vengance.

I have to disagree. To me, MP is the least exciting part.

The fun (for me) in a TW game is being able to build an empire, no matter what's lined up against me. MP doesn't cut it for me, because it's just the battle mode. That, and you don't have to deal with the little annoyances from MP, like people spamming one type of unit, or quitting mid-game, or whatever.

Besides, Rome's AI isn't -that- bad. It isn't a genius, but neither was Medieval's.

[Loinnreach]

I would appriciate if people would avoid such comments as z2ei has posted here.

STW was the start of the TW series and IMPORTANT part of it was multiplayer of the game. Only becaus of all enthusiasts from back then dedicated to TW series, a forum like .ORG is exist, otherwise only .COM would probably be on the horizonts.

I would appriciate once more if I would not see here any propaganda. Check SP threads. How many of them? How many pages of SP 'wishes'?

MP only has one post here. Once more I would appriciate if such 'spam' is avoided here.

Thank you.

[Trajanus]

Multiplayer Issue:


I would like to see a choice in map size on offer: If its a big 4v4 battle then a biger map is needed, but for 1v1 you don't want the game to go on for hours while you march towards your opponent and then after 2 hours of watching your men march actually fight the battle.

Give us map size options to make it bigger or smaller based on the number of people participating in the battle.


Based on problems with RTW and hosting due to firewalls and personal LANs they should offer us the chance to set people at participation levels. This could also be VERY useful for tournament use.

Set a participation level for Judge/Host. They get no money or a little and are allied to everyone. Therefore they can move around the map if needed to watch things occur without fear of getting attacked and wont get involved by mistake etc.

[spmetla]

Guys, let's not have a MP vs SP debate in here. Both halves of the game need work and both are important and just because YOU might not play one half of the game does not mean it should be ignored.

[Loinnreach]

Guys, let's not have a MP vs SP debate in here. Both halves of the game need work and both are important and just because YOU might not play one half of the game does not mean it should be ignored.

Agreed. This post is not MP vs SP debate, but only focused on MP features. There are now more then 4 pages of posts dedicated to SP features and I assume that there is as well a place for 1 post regarding MP issues. ~:)

[Orda Khan]

A workable lobby is an absolute must. RTW MP lobby was never very good, 3 seperate lobbies...Friendly, Chat, Comp....What was the point? I would like to see a lobby resembling the old STW lobby and Chat Room format.
Some input from CA staff would be very welcome

......Orda

[spmetla]

And of course I still hope for a mulitplayer campaign mode. At least for LAN so I can play against my friends.

[Puzz3D]

STW has the fewest unit types, least upgrade options (only honor upgrades) and only one set of units from which all players choose their army, and yet it gives the most complex multiplayer gameplay of all the Total War games. Unless CA moves away from the thinking that more unit types and more factions in and of themselves make the multiplayer game better, I don't see the multiplayer game improving in terms of battlefield gameplay.

[buujin]

Im not sure if "complex" is the word u are looking for there Yuuki.

MTW/VI runs off a very similar engine to STW but has many more features and things which variate the combat and effect the base stats such as spear ranks , armour peircing weapons, and shield bonuses.

I dare to imply that rather, in its simplicity you find STW to be the most tactical and most enjoyable of all the Total War games...

but for complexity in gameplay I think that title must go to its successor...

Imo both MTW and STW had far better gameplay than rome and if CA they bring back the older more solid combat mechanics in MTW2 will be very very happy man.

[Puzz3D]

Im not sure if "complex" is the word u are looking for there Yuuki.

MTW/VI runs off a very similar engine to STW but has many more features and things which variate the combat and effect the base stats such as spear ranks , armour peircing weapons, and shield bonuses.

I dare to imply that rather, in its simplicity you find STW to be the most tactical and most enjoyable of all the Total War games...

but for complexity in gameplay I think that title must go to its successor...
I mean complexity in the gameplay. There is a difference between complexity in the gameplay and complexity in the battle engine. It's true that the MTW battle engine is an improved STW engine and has more features, but the tactical gameplay of MTW/VI v2.01 is less complex than STW v1.12. RTW has an even more complex engine (although it is missing a squeezed too tight feature and a man specific distance calculation for ranged shooters), but that didn't translate into a more complex gameplay because the features of the engine weren't sufficiently adjusted relative to one another. The gameplay of RTW is the most simplistic of all the total war games.

If CA continues on the course it has been on, then MTW2 will have the most simplistic battle gameplay of all the total war games. When you see them spending time on "finishing moves", that doesn't bode well for the kind of battle gameplay that is required to restore the complexity of the tactical game to what it once was.

[Orda Khan]

Maybe they will have learned from the experience of deteriorating tactical play and spend the time to ensure that MTW II is the game we all want. I find it no surprise that STW was tactically a far better game, simple is usually far more effective than complex. I still think that this simplicity can be utilised even with 21 factions. There were no upgrades other than honour in STW and their appearance in STW/MI did nothing to improve things, they just introduced a multitude of game spoiling imbalances. Providing units can start with decent enough morale so that there are no chain routs, I see no need for any upgrades in MP, not even honour/valour. I hope CA will strive to achieve a good MP experience. Overly strong or too weak factions will not do. Unique faction units and variety of use among factions will keep the game interesting. Most important is a user friendly Lobby and a reliable server

.......Orda

[BHCWarman88]

It's good to see that you are intrested in how the multiplayer game turns out, but have one thing to say.

The totalwar series is a singleplayer series of games, and working on the campaign and the ai and everything to do with it should be ca's priority. Mulitplayer really isnt' that important to me, and i'm sure to a lot of the org members. So the campaign game should definitely get priority...

Just my 2c

so, Work 90% of your time on SP, and only 10% on MP?? I think BOTH, SP and MP, should get equal Priority. if you don't like MP, or if it not important to you, that alright. we all can say our Options, but MP should be worked on euqally with SP,if not More, because RTW's SP sucked, STW's and MTW's SP was cool. I fell in love with STW, but RTW SP sucked. BI's SP was kinda better..

[Puzz3D]

Work 90% of your time on SP, and only 10% on MP??
According to what GilJaysmith said, RTW got 15% of the work. That's enough if you have someone working on it that knows what they are doing. It's pretty strange that total war demos are not MP since they are only battles. MP shouldn't be something left to get working after the game is released as it was with RTW and MTW.

[Duke John]

but MP should be worked on euqally with SP,if not More, because RTW's SP sucked,
Well according to many MP was bad, so your reasoning is flawed as apparently the whole game is bad (as both SP and MP is bad). I'm gonna whine more time that MP could have been alot more fun with a mod, but such an insane idea is of course refused by the MP community. The MP community does need to get more united if it wants to get the fullest out of TW games. A bit of tweaking will always make it better so, the SP community knows that and is embracing the mods that patches alot of bugs. That the MP community does not do this is not the wisest thing to do in my opinion.

[Puzz3D]

The MP community does need to get more united if it wants to get the fullest out of TW games. A bit of tweaking will always make it better so, the SP community knows that and is embracing the mods that patches alot of bugs. That the MP community does not do this is not the wisest thing to do in my opinion.
Don't let CA off the hook, by saying it's up to the community to make the game play properly. Besides, you cannot get a concensus of opinion on which mod to use in MP, and some issues can't be fixed in a mod. The official release should play well enough that mods are unnecessary.

[Duke John]

The official release should play well enough that mods are unnecessary.
The game plays well enough for some people, it might be good enough for CA.
Others have a different opinion. What is their solution? Wait 2 years for the next engine and hope that it will be better. I admire their patience.

[Puzz3D]

The game plays well enough for some people, it might be good enough for CA. Others have a different opinion. What is their solution? Wait 2 years for the next engine and hope that it will be better. I admire their patience.
The Community Mod, STWmod and DUXmod for MTW/VI which all provide good gameplay are failures because most players won't use them. Even the existing STW community uses the official v1.02 stat rather than mods. There is no other choice than to wait for CA to bring the gameplay back up to the level it was in original STW or until another game not developed by CA does it.

[Myrddraal]

The Community Mod, STWmod and DUXmod for MTW/VI which all provide good gameplay are failures because most players won't use them.

Thats exactly what DJ is saying. If the MP community accepted to play with a mod, then life would be easier. Thats all....

[Duke John]

Puzz3D, I know that you have tried your best making MP better using mods. NTW has/had a big enough MP community to form clans. NTW2 will again be designed for MP and I am sure that enough players will come online to have a few games. Sure it won't be possible to play a NTW2 MP game whenever you like, but that is a sacrifice most are willing to make to play a balanced game in their favourite period. So I can't understand why there isn't at least a small group of players who does this for the roman period.

Perhaps the MP community should ask for an easy way to switch between mods while staying in the lobby... which was already possible in a way with M:TW :wall:

[Puzz3D]

If the MP community accepted to play with a mod, then life would be easier.
That's never going to happen.


So I can't understand why there isn't at least a small group of players who does this for the roman period.
Because the MTW/VI battle engine is better, and you have control over the important stats (except fatigue rate). So, that's the one that got the most work put into it by players interested in bring the gameplay up to the highest level.

[Orda Khan]

So I can't understand why there isn't at least a small group of players who does this for the roman period.
This would have been possible if people had stayed around and made a bit of effort, unfortunately they did not. When all is said and done, the MP game should be a working feature when the game is released, it was not and most players simply quit

........Orda

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Puzz3D, I know that you have tried your best making MP better using mods. NTW has/had a big enough MP community to form clans. NTW2 will again be designed for MP and I am sure that enough players will come online to have a few games. Sure it won't be possible to play a NTW2 MP game whenever you like, but that is a sacrifice most are willing to make to play a balanced game in their favourite period. So I can't understand why there isn't at least a small group of players who does this for the roman period.

Perhaps the MP community should ask for an easy way to switch between mods while staying in the lobby... which was already possible in a way with M:TW :wall:

There were a few RTW MP mod, they had no success at all, and some small groups of people did try to create and push mods. I guess the difference between MP mod and SP mod is that, in MP, everyone got an idea of what is balanced or not balanced... There are HUGE questions and debates about what is needed to make the game better in MP.
In SP, well, you can pretty much mod it yourself, and well, if it plays fun, even if it is not balanced, it matters less, since anyway, playing vs AI is not balanced to start with.
Of course, good SP modders will try to achieve a good balance between spears, infantry, missile, cavalry... But, to be honest, even if they are not successfull, chances are it won't show up too badly and it won't make much of a difference.
In MP, unbalanced units WILL make a difference. Badly.

You also need to understand that many players just want to get a game, play a while... Waiting in lobby for that 6th player for a modded 3v3 is not a good experience.

A switch in lobby to play mod/ unmodded games would be good.
Even better would be to play with the host (possibly modded) unit file, with a clear indication for all players that those files are modded and that they are playing a modded game.

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Because the MTW/VI battle engine is better, and you have control over the important stats (except fatigue rate). So, that's the one that got the most work put into it by players interested in bring the gameplay up to the highest level.

I don't know if MTW/VI is a better engine, but I'd definitly agree it's far easier to mod MTW into a balance game than RTW.

Way too much stuff working into odd ways in RTW.

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

My wish list for MTW2 MP:

- good lobby/ MP specific features; ignore that works, observer mode, chat with multiple people without 10 000 clicks
- compared to RTW/BI, less chaos on battle; in RTW, compared to MTW/VI, where I could predict what would happen when one unit was moving/ fighting, when a unit would break, RTW/BI is chaotic: sometimes unit breaks for no reason, and overall, with its fast speed and killrate, it seems very, very chaotic and unpredictable. In test games, with similar units doing 1v1, I could get very random results.
Part of a strategy game is the ability to plan, since results are VERY random, what can be planned?
I think a slower game would be more interesting and less random; or if random, that randomness would be less damaging.
If I got a fight between tow units of similar strenght, I want to be able to know they'll fight 2 min until half strenght then one will rout with some good odd to be right.
In RTW, one may route in 10 sec, or in 5 min. And even if of similar strenght, the end result might be very unbalanced.
- better balance: since MTW 1.1, CA has not been able to make a good anti cavalry infantry units that works...

Louis,

[Orda Khan]

IMO, original MTW was much better than the eventual VI disappointment

.....Orda

[Puzz3D]

IMO, original MTW was much better than the eventual VI disappointment
VI got rid of the swipe (infinite charge bug), and got rid of the battlefield upgrades.


Louis,

RTW/BI has battlefield upgrades which alters the balance of the units. This also means that shooters get better melee ability from the kills they get with their ranged weapon. Why would killing with a bow make you better with your sword?

RTW/BI doesn't have a squeezed too tight combat penalty.

It has a delay before units respond to orders (good luck trying to counter enemy attacking moves).

It has no visual obstruction effect for shooters in deep ranks.

It has no distance calculation for shooters in deep ranks (if the front man can shoot, all the men shoot even if the unit is 20 ranks deep).

Units run 1.5x faster with low fatigue rate, and go into slow motion animation when fighting. This reduces the number of combat cycles which increases the uncertainty as you pointed out.

The maps are smaller than MTW.

The normal unit size was reduced to 67% of what it was in MTW to maintain framerate. This is another factor which increases the uncertainty of combat. Some uncertainty in the combat is good, but too much is bad.

You don't have separate control of hold formation and hold position.

You may not have morale boost for covered flanks. It's never been revealed if this is still a function in RTW/BI.

The velocity of arrows is too high causing the trajectory to be too low.

The AI changes your army formation into a line when you move your army if it consideres it unformed. This means you can't maintain unusual formations.

You can't have subgroups.

You can't point to where you want a unit to face and have it rotate to face that direction.

I haven't been ablt to figure out how to "about face" my army with a single command without the right and left side units marching to the opposite flank.

The fatigue indicator is gone from the unit icons.

[x-dANGEr]

All the formation matters you adressed can be solved simply. If you're afraid of ruining your army's formation, just group them, advance them, then ungroup.

[Puzz3D]

All the formation matters you adressed can be solved simply. If you're afraid of ruining your army's formation, just group them, advance them, then ungroup.
I loose all my groups doing that.

[Orda Khan]

I loose all my groups doing that.
Group army, drag and drop works every time. Make sub groups and drag and drop each group if you want to make sub groups. Either way your army maintains whatever formation you choose

......Orda

[Puzz3D]

Group army, drag and drop works every time. Make sub groups and drag and drop each group if you want to make sub groups. Either way your army maintains whatever formation you choose.
Sure I can move each individual group, but that's less efficient to how movement was done in the previous engine where you could move your whole army forward with a single click and maintain formation without erasing and then recreating the individual groups.

[Orda Khan]

I used to try playing RTW like MTW too but it is a different game and controls have changed. The use of sub groups is really only required when about to engage, up until that point I leave my army as a whole. Archers, infantry and cav or whatever group choice can be asigned at this point or not, it is just as easy not to even bother. Any unit or units can be given individual orders and after a foray can be brought back to original formation with drag and drop, it is that easy

.......Orda

[Puzz3D]

I used to try playing RTW like MTW too but it is a different game and controls have changed. The use of sub groups is really only required when about to engage, up until that point I leave my army as a whole. Archers, infantry and cav or whatever group choice can be asigned at this point or not, it is just as easy not to even bother. Any unit or units can be given individual orders and after a foray can be brought back to original formation with drag and drop, it is that easy
That's right. It's easier not to bother with groups. You call that a better movement system? I don't. Also, don't forget the previous engine allowed subgroups within groups. There were two independent levels of grouping. You could do some sophisticated maneuvers with that system far beyond simply putting all archers, infantry and cavalry in 3 homogeneous groups.

The right click for moving units is a big improvement, and it was requested many times over the years by players. We had a patch to STW, the MI add-on, a patch to MI, MTW, a patch to MTW, a VI add-on and a patch to that, and in all that time CA never put in the right click requested. Now the game uses right click, but no player asked for an AI that would change the army formation when you moved it or for the subgroup feature to be removed.

Now all I have to do is redraw my groups each time I want to move them. I could do that in the previous engine, but I didn't use it much until it was time to regroup the army because it has a drawback. If your cursor hits the edge of the screen when you go to redraw, the camera moves. That disorients the player, and you have to take time to reposition the camera. I've played this game enough online to know you can't afford that kind of inefficiency when moving units and remain competitive at the highest level.

[Orda Khan]

I could do that in the previous engine, but I didn't use it much until it was time to regroup the army because it has a drawback.
Yes it was a drawback because if you did, the group did not maintain its formation, in RTW and BI it does. Groups and sub groups are only required when about to engage, until that point the army is marching as a whole and these groups do not need to be homogeneous either. There is no inefficiency, only different commands

.........Orda

[Puzz3D]

Yes it was a drawback because if you did, the group did not maintain its formation, in RTW and BI it does. Groups and sub groups are only required when about to engage, until that point the army is marching as a whole and these groups do not need to be homogeneous either. There is no inefficiency, only different commands
It could be seen as good that the group doesn't maintain its formation on a redraw. That allows you to gather scattered units without changing the grouping. If you want to maintain the formation, you can use a click movement command.

In RTW/BI there is no way to move multiple groups simultaneously with a single command. The AI will disolve the individual formations and make a single formation out of the combined units. This happens with either a click movement command or redraw a command.

Marching your army as one group is bad because they march at the rate of the slowest unit. That means the whole army incurs more fatigue than necessary.

The player alone doesn't determine when he's about to engage. The opponent has a say in that as well. Once you make the individual groups in RTW/BI, you can't make any more whole army movements unless the army is in a formation the AI likes.

Whole army rotation was a problem in the previous engine for the same reason that any whole army movment of any kind is a problem in RTW/BI. It's the fact that you have to group the whole army as one group. At least in the previous engine you could have a whole army group and individual subgroups at the same time. RTW/BI doesn't have subgroups.

[Orda Khan]

It could be seen as good that the group doesn't maintain its formation on a redraw. That allows you to gather scattered units without changing the grouping.
If you drag and drop a group in MTW, the selected units form a line. Doing the same in RTW or BI the units are drawn out in the original formation of that group. Scattered units can be gathered in this way without changing grouping. Even units not belonging to that group can be rounded up in this way, in which case a line will be formed. After that, drag and drop the group into its formation and issue whatever command to the others.

Marching your army as one group is bad because they march at the rate of the slowest unit. That means the whole army incurs more fatigue than necessary.
Try putting a unit into 'shieldwall' mode and march the whole army as a group, you will find that the shieldwall unit arrives at the destination a long time after the rest.

The player alone doesn't determine when he's about to engage. The opponent has a say in that as well.
True, but there is a point where engagement is inevitable and the player should realise that

........Orda

[Puzz3D]

Try putting a unit into 'shieldwall' mode and march the whole army as a group, you will find that the shieldwall unit arrives at the destination a long time after the rest.
I tested infantry and cavalry in RTW. When you group them, they both walk at the same speed. When you don't group them, the cavalry walk faster than the infantry. I didn't test phalanx or shield wall modes.



True, but there is a point where engagement is inevitable and the player should realise that.
I make whole army moves until the skirmishers are engaged. I do that because I've already set the precise distance between the skirmishers and the supporting infantry and cavalry. In RTW, I have to make my individual groups after getting into skirmisher range which means I'm already in the strike range of enemy cavalry while I'm fiddling around making the groups.

The AI that changes your formation is not needed by experienced players. It was put in there for players who don't know how to move their army around and keep it organized. There isn't even a switch to turn such a beginner's feature off.

[Duke John]

Marching your army as one group is bad because they march at the rate of the slowest unit. That means the whole army incurs more fatigue than necessary.
I disagree. If I put my cavalry behind my infantry I definitely do not want to them get in front during simple march moves. The fatigue system is flawed not the marching one. They should not break one feature to patch another.


The AI that changes your formation is not needed by experienced players.
I don't think that it is controlled by an AI. The R:TW engine probably simply does not store any formation data if the units are not grouped together. If you place multiple units the engine consequently has no idea how the units should be placed and selects an appropiate group formation.

[Orda Khan]

Something I have noticed with the drag and drop feature is that each unit walks to the appointed destination. Moving the group by other means may cause some units to run to maintain formation. With a number of groups within the army and selecting all, it is still possible to use alt/right click and they arrive maintaining their position. Using the < and > keys the whole army can rotate facing with no detriment to the formation. I also noticed that units do not necessarily move according to the slowest unit, moving laterally especially, the infantry are slower than cavalry. I always keep my units out of enemy missile range and once the army is deployed, my archers are grouped and moved into range. At this point, my army can be moved using drag and drop, into a position to provide support for my archers. There really is ample time to do this and still counter any foray by enemy cav

........Orda

[Puzz3D]

With a number of groups within the army and selecting all, it is still possible to use alt/right click and they arrive maintaining their position.
It depends on the formation. I tried moving two groups with a space between them using alt/right click, and the AI reformed my two groups into a single line group. Also, the AI doesn't recognize an echelon formation as organized. It will change it every time.



I always keep my units out of enemy missile range and once the army is deployed, my archers are grouped and moved into range. At this point, my army can be moved using drag and drop, into a position to provide support for my archers. There really is ample time to do this and still counter any foray by enemy cav.
You loose your spacing when you do that, and with the speed of cav your archers are vulnerable until you re-establish the spacing. Also, if you see enemy cav coming in and try to intercept it, your cav doesn't move for 2 seconds. That makes the spacing even more critical.

The best method to maintain a whole army formation probably is as you say to keep the army in a single group at all times, and give individual unit commands during engagement. That gives up the use of individual groups to avoid the beginner level feature of the AI deciding your formation. Alternatively, you can use multiple groups and always move them independently.

[Orda Khan]

It depends on the formation. I tried moving two groups with a space between them using alt/right click, and the AI reformed my two groups into a single line group. Also, the AI doesn't recognize an echelon formation as organized. It will change it every time.
My groups have NEVER been changed, that is unless I make a mistake like forgetting the Alt key.

You loose your spacing when you do that, and with the speed of cav your archers are vulnerable until you re-establish the spacing. Also, if you see enemy cav coming in and try to intercept it, your cav doesn't move for 2 seconds. That makes the spacing even more critical.
My army stops, archers are grouped (approx 1 second) I set their destination to fire and as they begin to march, the rest of my army is moved to support (approx another second) I would not consider my position vulnerable at all. Plus, there are different factors present now so the common Pavs out in front with a big gap between them and your army is not necessarily the best deployment; so my archers may even be in a group with spears, which are able to protect in more ways than one. As for my cav not responding for 2 seconds, I have stated before that I have never seen a 2 second delay in reaction to orders. When cav does delay is when a moving unit is in front of it, the cav waits for a clear path.

One thing is certain, MTW II will not be using the MTW engine

...........Orda

[Puzz3D]

My groups have NEVER been changed, that is unless I make a mistake like forgetting the Alt key.
I just tried moving these two groups forward with alt/right click:

XXX_XXX________________XXX_XXX
__CCC_____________________CCC__

and it got changed into this:

CCC_XXX_XXX_XXX_XXX_CCC




Plus, there are different factors present now so the common Pavs out in front with a big gap between them and your army is not necessarily the best deployment; so my archers may even be in a group with spears, which are able to protect in more ways than one.
Then your spears are going to get shot.



As for my cav not responding for 2 seconds, I have stated before that I have never seen a 2 second delay in reaction to orders. When cav does delay is when a moving unit is in front of it, the cav waits for a clear path.
I just measured the delay with a stopwatch for equites and urban cohorts several times. It's 1.5 seconds and a lot longer than that for cav to get up to running speed. It was the same for a basic movement command or an attack on an enemy unit.

[Duke John]

Some delaying might be caused by the animations. A soldier must first finish it's current walking animation, then the walk to run animation. After that he is at full speed. I don't know how long this delay is but it could be 1 second. Or do you mean click, 1.5 second delay, soldier finishes walking animation, walk to run, runs?

[Orda Khan]

I just tried moving these two groups forward with alt/right click:

XXX_XXX________________XXX_XXX
__CCC_____________________CCC__

and it got changed into this:

CCC_XXX_XXX_XXX_XXX_CCC

T=Tribal cav
L=Lancers
I=Infantry
H=Horse archers

I moved this....

HHH__HHH________________HHH__HHH

TTT_TTT__________________TTT_TTT
__LLL________________________LLL__
________IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_________
Using alt/right click with no problem at all. I then used < and they did a left about face. Then > and they did right about face. Every move, the formation was maintained.

Then your spears are going to get shot.
Again, try using shieldwall for some units of spears (that have that function) and deploy them just in front of your archers. See how many casualties you get.

I just measured the delay with a stopwatch for equites and urban cohorts several times. It's 1.5 seconds and a lot longer than that for cav to get up to running speed. It was the same for a basic movement command or an attack on an enemy unit.
Yes I tested it as well.They did not wait any measurable amount of time before moving. I would not expect horse or man to instantly hit running speed, if the time from moving to running full tilt is only 1.5 seconds I think that is quite good

......Orda

[Kalle]

As far as multiplayer goes I think there can be no doubt RTW is/was so sucky in so many aspects, movement and grouping included (lobby and chat also among other things) that it is the cause of the mp community twisting and turning in fear of utter death and destruction.

There might be more mp players around then there ever was in MTW but there is no mp-community to talk of and if MIITW doesnt improve on RTW the community wont even twist or turn anymore.

Kalle

[Puzz3D]

I moved this....

HHH__HHH________________HHH__HHH

TTT_TTT__________________TTT_TTT
__LLL________________________LLL__
________IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_________
Using alt/right click with no problem at all. I then used < and they did a left about face. Then > and they did right about face. Every move, the formation was maintained.
You grouped them as lines right? I'm trying to do something more sophisticated than that with each wing in its own group.


Again, try using shieldwall for some units of spears (that have that function) and deploy them just in front of your archers. See how many casualties you get.
I play RTW not BI. Regardless of the amount of casualties, the melee infantry is going to be weakened and be at a disadvantage in any ensuing melee.


Yes I tested it as well.They did not wait any measurable amount of time before moving. I would not expect horse or man to instantly hit running speed, if the time from moving to running full tilt is only 1.5 seconds I think that is quite good.
I can measure it. It's 1.5 seconds to start moving, and then an additional acceleration time to full speed. In STW/MTW, cav will be at full speed within 3 seconds. Since running speeds are lower in STW/MTW there is more time to react to a charge by enemy cav. I'm well aware that there are people playing this game who don't want the opponent to have time to react, and CA has decided to satify those players.

[Orda Khan]

[HHH__HHH_]no1_______________[HHH__HHH]no2

[TTT_TTT]__________________[TTT_TTT]
[__LLL___]no3_______________[___LLL__]no4
________ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIno5_________
Group 5 is an infantry line.
1 and 2 are skirmish cav.
3 and 4 are left and right wing cav.

I play RTW not BI. Regardless of the amount of casualties, the melee infantry is going to be weakened and be at a disadvantage in any ensuing melee.
In an online battle, Auxilia Palatina lost 2 men during a long onslaught of arrows. Not only were enemy archers dead or out of arrows, the WRE still had arrows left.

As far as multiplayer goes I think there can be no doubt RTW is/was so sucky in so many aspects, movement and grouping included (lobby and chat also among other things) that it is the cause of the mp community twisting and turning in fear of utter death and destruction.
Speed and stacking were a major issue, the lobby was not very nice. Movement and grouping changed and forced people to learn all over again. Who knows, perhaps MTW II will be different again, at the end of the day we had to learn to use STW and MTW

......Orda

[Puzz3D]

[HHH__HHH_]no1_______________[HHH__HHH]no2

[TTT_TTT]__________________[TTT_TTT]
[__LLL___]no3_______________[___LLL__]no4
________ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIno5_________
Group 5 is an infantry line.
1 and 2 are skirmish cav.
3 and 4 are left and right wing cav.
I see you don't have any foot archers, and you infantry is in the last line out of range of enemy arrows. Those horse archer skirmishers can go into cantabrian circle and become immune to enemy arrows. Horse archers are more mobile than foot archers, so the supporting lancers don't have to be as close as they would for foot archers.



In an online battle, Auxilia Palatina lost 2 men during a long onslaught of arrows. Not only were enemy archers dead or out of arrows, the WRE still had arrows left.
That will happen if the enemy obligingly shoots at the front of heavily armored infantry. I guess the thing to do is put a unit of armored spears right on top of the archer. After all, there isn't any combat penalty or accuracy penalty for doing that. You have to be careful not to spend too much money on the armored spears because it will leave you with inferior melee cav or sword infantry. Although I was trying to play without stacking units, I'll try this.


Who knows, perhaps MTW II will be different again, at the end of the day we had to learn to use STW and MTW.
Different isn't good enough. The standard of play declined with the new RTW engine. CA set the standard, but they didn't maintained it. They don't have to maintain it, but just look at all the great players who left this game.

[Orda Khan]

I see you don't have any foot archers, and you infantry is in the last line out of range of enemy arrows. Those horse archer skirmishers can go into cantabrian circle and become immune to enemy arrows. Horse archers are more mobile than foot archers, so the supporting lancers don't have to be as close as they would for foot archers.
Since I was showing placement and movement of groups, I could just as easily have chosen 20 archers but if you like, I have also deployed like this

--------------------aaaaa_aaaaa_aaaaa_aaaaa_aaaaa
-------------------------sssss_sssss_sssss_sssss
----------------------AAAA_AAAA_AAAA_AAAA_AAAA
--------------------CCCC_CCCC_GGG_CCCC_CCCC_CCCC

a=archers
s=spears
A=infantry
C=cav
g=gen
Supporting cav are some distance away from the archers but they do not need to be the only counter to an attack by enemy cav. The spearmen provided all the necessary support, any cav that attacked was met with a volley of spears and routed very quickly with no archer casualties. In the eventual melee, my cav was free to flank and rear the enemy.

That will happen if the enemy obligingly shoots at the front of heavily armored infantry. I guess the thing to do is put a unit of armored spears right on top of the archer. After all, there isn't any combat penalty or accuracy penalty for doing that. You have to be careful not to spend too much money on the armored spears because it will leave you with inferior melee cav or sword infantry. Although I was trying to play without stacking units, I'll try this.
Because of the lack of penalties for stacking units I NEVER take advantage of this flaw in the game mechanics. You see I readily admit that aspects of this game have become inferior to previous titles but I still believe there is a work around that will provide decent enough playability.

Different isn't good enough. The standard of play declined with the new RTW engine. CA set the standard, but they didn't maintained it. They don't have to maintain it, but just look at all the great players who left this game.
A very valid point, many exceptional players left and what a great shame that was. Had these players decided to put more effort into ways of making the game playable (rules have been enforced since STW) such as hosting no spam, no stacking games, I am convinced that RTW and BI would have been a much better experience. STW and MTW communities discouraged unfair play and a standard was in place so that, by and large, we knew that players would be more inclined to adopt the approach of the majority. Instead of that the mass exodus left countless players, new to the game, to uncover the failings and exploit them.....and there was no core around for them to appreciate that skillful tactics provide a better game than spam.
I gave up playing MP not because of the server and lobby problems but because spam armies turn up so often and regardless of whether they can be beaten with a balanced army, the battle has been ruined, the experience marred. However, really great battles are still possible and I have enjoyed quite a few hard fought encounters of an hour or so long.
My worry now is that those great players will not return and the new game, good or bad, will only be the worse for it

......Orda

[Darren_Shan]

3 cheers 4 multi!!!

LEGENDS WILL OWN ALL!

[Puzz3D]

LEGENDS WILL OWN ALL!
Own all what? All versions of Total War?

Why don't you come play a real game like STWmod or DUXmod where it's not possible to attack your opponent before he can react to your move, and you have to come up with something more sophisticated than killer armies of super units to win?

[x-dANGEr]

Well, I don't know what I'm doing wrong nowadays, but I can't seem to work the alt-click thing. I now simply group, move, then de-group to get a formation moving.

Grouping: For sure it's bugged in RTW/BI (Both versions). I had experiences with it that weren't delightful at all, espiecially in combat. So, I only use this function to move my army, not to engage it. Let's say you have 6 units of Cav grouped together, and their is a bunch of enemy units in front. You order the group to charge the centered unit with a wedge formation, so your cav can pierce through the unit. The funny part is, though, that every unit will act strangely. I haven't figured out how 'precisely' yet, but I think each one will charge what is the closest unit to it.

Orda, you seem to be 'used' to the new grouping system in RTW(BI). Can you describe/detail it please?

@Puzz3D & Orda: Do you guys play MP? I'm just wondering if those experiences you're talking about are coming out of MP or SP.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Thats exactly what DJ is saying. If the MP community accepted to play with a mod, then life would be easier. Thats all....

There are several good reasons for mod not to work well for MP purposes. The main cause is that you would be hard pressed to find 2 MP players agreeing on well... anything :dizzy2:
I mean... read "units tire too fast" :book:

It's a long work to make a mod, it's an even longer work to balance it, and MP balance requirement are WAY more demanding than SP balance requirement.

And then diffusion is a real mess. Playing a MP mod actually means waiting for HOURS in lobby that someone show up for a game.

Is the community at fault for that?

Well, feel free to blame it, but that's how it is. What it means is that there is no second shot for MPers, no hope that it will get better than vanilla.

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Louis,

RTW/BI has battlefield upgrades which alters the balance of the units. This also means that shooters get better melee ability from the kills they get with their ranged weapon. Why would killing with a bow make you better with your sword?

RTW/BI doesn't have a squeezed too tight combat penalty.

It has a delay before units respond to orders (good luck trying to counter enemy attacking moves).

It has no visual obstruction effect for shooters in deep ranks.

It has no distance calculation for shooters in deep ranks (if the front man can shoot, all the men shoot even if the unit is 20 ranks deep).

Units run 1.5x faster with low fatigue rate, and go into slow motion animation when fighting. This reduces the number of combat cycles which increases the uncertainty as you pointed out.

The maps are smaller than MTW.

The normal unit size was reduced to 67% of what it was in MTW to maintain framerate. This is another factor which increases the uncertainty of combat. Some uncertainty in the combat is good, but too much is bad.

You don't have separate control of hold formation and hold position.

You may not have morale boost for covered flanks. It's never been revealed if this is still a function in RTW/BI.

The velocity of arrows is too high causing the trajectory to be too low.

The AI changes your army formation into a line when you move your army if it consideres it unformed. This means you can't maintain unusual formations.

You can't have subgroups.

You can't point to where you want a unit to face and have it rotate to face that direction.

I haven't been ablt to figure out how to "about face" my army with a single command without the right and left side units marching to the opposite flank.

The fatigue indicator is gone from the unit icons.

No question that RTW/BI got many issues compared to MTW/BI and that are very odd in a MP game, battle upgrade being one of them. I am not going to answer all those points, neither will I go into the argument about grouping and subgrouping Hord army with Orda... :)

The game physics is far from perfect, or even far from good. The game balance is horrible. The lobby and the connection is a shame.

I'd disagree with some of your point on interface. I'd agree with others. For me the main interface improvement has been the whole left click/ right click for selection/action: much better than MTW.
But I agree that AI changing player formation is an unwelcome change. Same with squeezing penalty.

There is one point that I forgot to mention: I'd like to be able to play real large battle that does not turn into lag festival.
I got a decent machine, but it's very, very hard to run a large 3v3 game, not to mention a 4v4 game.
4v4 were my favourite back in MTW.

So I really hope that MTW2 will be better optimized and that playing large 4v4 battle will be possible with no lag or delay. Yes, it's demanding, but it was possible!

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

3 cheers 4 multi!!!

LEGENDS WILL OWN ALL!

Is that what MP is down to?

Is there any chance that MP lobby will get back to being the interesting place for deep tactic and balance discussion instead of the current rant festival?

Louis,

[Puzz3D]

Is there any chance that MP lobby will get back to being the interesting place for deep tactic and balance discussion instead of the current rant festival?
RTW/BI is a lost cause. They just turned off foyer chat again, but, even with it turned on, the lack of a private chat window makes operating a clan or having a discussion very difficult. The design of the online foyer in Medieval 2 will show Creative Assembly's degree of commitment to multiplayer.

I've been told that replays in RTW v1.5/BI v1.6 now work, but I haven't tested this myself.



There are several good reasons for mod not to work well for MP purposes. The main cause is that you would be hard pressed to find 2 MP players agreeing on well... anything
I mean... read "units tire too fast"
Well, the way I look at it is you evaluate the available alternatives and play the better ones, but it does take some promotion to get enough people interested so you can have some battles. We've been pretty successful organizing mod games using MSN, and picking up additional players in the foyer. You might have to play more than one mod depending of who is playing what at a particular time.

[Orda Khan]

Orda, you seem to be 'used' to the new grouping system in RTW(BI). Can you describe/detail it please?
Take another look at my reply about moving using alt/right click. If you make a selection of groups, let's say 4 groups within your army of 20 units, by selecting ALL ( ctrl+A ) and alt/right click at the intended destination, your entire army will march to that point and arrive in the same deployment. Using the < and > keys, you can alter their facing but maintain the deployment. Each group can be selected and given separate orders but you will then lose your original deployment, but that was true also in MTW. To overcome this, I found it easier to deploy my units as I wanted and group the entire army and I abandoned alt clicking because it was simpler to just drag and drop the army at their destination. The simplicity of this allows many variables...

1. You are threatened and the current selected destination is unwise. No problem, drag and drop a new destination.

2. During the march you need to send cav on a raid or to assist allies. Select the unit/s required, do not ungroup and issue their orders, the rest of the army will continue to their appointed destination. After your cav have completed their task, select ALL again and drag and drop even if this means no new destination for the army as a whole, your cav will return to their original deployment.

3. Engagement begins. No real need to ungroup, you can select single, multiple units, your spearline, your archers, whatever and issue orders which will be carried out. After which you may want to move to a flank or adjust position and by selecting ALL and using drag and drop, your disorganised units will reform their original deployment.

Most important to remember when doing any of this is selecting ALL, failure to do this WILL affect deployment as dragging and dropping will draw out one line. The method I used in RTW was to select and move all units as a group and once initial engagement began, create separate groups. Hope this helps.


@Puzz3D & Orda: Do you guys play MP? I'm just wondering if those experiences you're talking about are coming out of MP or SP.
Speaking for myself, I was mainly MP but I have notplayed TW now since BI. The whole MP part of the game became a sorry mess, even the Lobby interface was awful. When I look back at the smart and 'professional' look of the STW Lobby, I can not begin to understand what went wrong. STW Lobby was the best of the lot and I hope CA make some effort to recreate it

......Orda

[x-dANGEr]

I know all that, but.. What function does the alt-click thing do? I mean, the way you're describing it, it seems rather complicated than simple. (Complicated considering that in the time you may take doing all that, more than 2 armies can be crushed).


Speaking for myself, I was mainly MP but I have notplayed TW now since BI. The whole MP part of the game became a sorry mess, even the Lobby interface was awful. When I look back at the smart and 'professional' look of the STW Lobby, I can not begin to understand what went wrong. STW Lobby was the best of the lot and I hope CA make some effort to recreate it

I really can't understand what's so wrong about RTW lobby. I played only Medieval before and I only played that SP, being the 9 years old boy I was.

[Puzz3D]

I know all that, but.. What function does the alt-click thing do? I mean, the way you're describing it, it seems rather complicated than simple. (Complicated considering that in the time you may take doing all that, more than 2 armies can be crushed).
I'm also speaking from the multiplayer perspective. In SP, you can pause the game and, even if you play SP without pausing, the AI isn't nearly as aggressive as human players. The point being that you have to be as efficient as possible when moving the units in MP.

You can move multiple groups with ALT right click if they are in a configuration that the AI deems to be organized. If the groups are separated by more than a certain distance, the AI will reorganize them into a single line. If you keep the army in a single group all the time, then you have to choose multiple units individually which is not efficient, but I suppose it is better than having your units move to a place you didn't intend. Drag and drop is ok as well until your cursor hits the edge of the screen and the camera spins around. I have the camera scroll speed on high so I can get around fast enough to play the game, so when the camera spins it spins a lot and it's very disorientating. A compromise method would be to always move groups individually. I think I'd choose that over always using a single group.


[QUOTE=x-dANGEr]I really can't understand what's so wrong about RTW lobby. I played only Medieval before and I only played that SP, being the 9 years old boy I was.
In STW and MTW, you had a private chat window of about 4 lines where you could communicate with a group. In addition to that, in STW you could make your own, password protected, chat rooms and play battles from within those rooms. They could be used for tournaments or clan training or clan meetings. If you put a player on ignore or ban or buddy, the game remembered that between sessions. The text was easier to read than the yellow on black of RTW. Who in their right mind would think yellow on black is good for a long playing session?

The latency of the host was shown for each game in STW and MTW. I know CA's official position is that latency doesn't matter in a broadband game because you aren't supposed to play without a good broadband connection, but the fact is there are people trying to play with low speed or bad connections. The result is that you waste your time if someone with high latency joins your game. Another issue is that in STW, you didn't stay connected to the matchmaking server once the battle launched. In RTW/BI, if you loose connection to GameSpy during a battle you are kicked from the battle. There is no need of that and it leads to more ruined battles and more wasted time for you. It seems to me that CA operates as though they don't care how much time you waste trying to play their game. You don't get time back. It's gone forever.

STW had a rating system, and, although it was flawed, it was something by which players could get a rating. You had the option of playing competitive games which were rated or friendly games which were not rated. In MTW, that was removed, but it was promised that we would get access to the battle results database so that the community could make their own rating system and it could also be used to track tournament results. Well, it never happened. Another feature lost, and everytime I hear some CA PR person say how the game has been improved it really grates on me. They remove features and claim the game is improved while never talking about the lost features.

It's the same in the battle engine. Think about it. What is the 3D battle engine providing in terms of combat? Killing at the spearpoints and some men being tossed in the air. There aren't any damage areas on the 3D men. It's the same 2D combat model except for the spearpoints. The spearpoints proved to be a problem, since the spearmen can never be killed if the enemy can't get past the spearpoints. You never see any spears break. Instead what you see is horses jumping over the spears. You do see swordsmen run between the spears if you click behind the spearunit which is pretty strange looking. I've seen men running with a spearpoint up against their chest and they just slide off and get between the spears still trying to run to that point you clicked. It is effective though in forcing the spearmen to switch to their less effective sword.

[TheViking]

will they make it so we can play the campain im multiplayer, at least when its lan games?

will MTW2 be like MTW with RTW engine? there have to be something else if im going to get it like a MP campain.

there were to many posts, didnt cope reading them all.

[Tempiic]

hmmm fond RTW memories rising. :)

[Lord Adherbal]

let's hope MTW2 has Eras again. Try to imagine how "fun" MTW would've been if there were no eras and the entire selection of units was available in every game.

[Puzz3D]

Adherbal']let's hope MTW2 has Eras again. Try to imagine how "fun" MTW would've been if there were no eras and the entire selection of units was available in every game.
The official silence on these issues is deafening.

[sunsmountain]

Multiplayer stands or falls with balance. Lag, the lobby, and other things are less important to me.

But balancing multiplayer takes time, time they should also spend on improving the battlemap AI. And entering new ideas like the Pope, crusades, and other stuff (glory goals, anyone?)

[x-dANGEr]

Adherbal']let's hope MTW2 has Eras again. Try to imagine how "fun" MTW would've been if there were no eras and the entire selection of units was available in every game.
I think you made a mistake their.. Can you please explain what did you mean? (Let's hope MTW2 has Eras again, imagine how fun MTW would've been if their were no eras.. I see contrary 0-o)

[Duke John]

Adherbal is right. How fun would picking a early Viking army be when facing an army filled with Lancers, Arbalesters and cannons? Oh yeah, the fun is trying to find a counter in a broken system. :wall:

[L'Impresario]

Well I think 2345 florins vikings with experience 6 and weapon 2 upgrades -so that the thrown axes can cause some real damage there- are more than a match for the 2125 florins exp.1 wpn1 lancers. After all, remember that the viks will get the nice AP bonus.
:coffeenews:

[Lord Adherbal]

I think you made a mistake their.. Can you please explain what did you mean? (Let's hope MTW2 has Eras again, imagine how fun MTW would've been if their were no eras.. I see contrary 0-o)


note the " " around fun, it was ment ironically. What's the point of taking early units such as "feudal men at arms" if you can pick "gothic foot knights" aswell. And don't tell me unit costs will balance that, because only one of the 2 units can be cost effective; the other unit is basicly obsolete. Next to that there is the large difference between warfare in MTW's Eras. It's basicly 3 games in one, but without eras that is ruined and you'll get unhistorical armies every time.

[AwesomeArcher]

Another quick question, does anyone know if you will only be able to only have one multiplayer name per cd key? It would simplify things greatly. I think they shold base multiplayer off of AOE III's multiplayer, it is simple yet it has everything you need. Seperate chats, clans built in, stat recording, and ladders showing all sorts of stats. I am sorry if this has been brought up.

[x-dANGEr]

Adherbal']note the " " around fun, it was ment ironically. What's the point of taking early units such as "feudal men at arms" if you can pick "gothic foot knights" aswell. And don't tell me unit costs will balance that, because only one of the 2 units can be cost effective; the other unit is basicly obsolete. Next to that there is the large difference between warfare in MTW's Eras. It's basicly 3 games in one, but without eras that is ruined and you'll get unhistorical armies every time.So you want eras to be in.. Aha..

[sunsmountain]

Deleted my rant. This should be about multiplayer issues.

The most important aspect should be balance, ie all cavalry armies don't crush everything, and one faction shouldn't be the most popular. Elementary.

Given the fact that they have a contract with Gamespy, the multiplayer software is NOT going to change. Finding a multiplayer solution, providing servers, etc., costs money which CA doesn't have. And neither does SEGA. Unfortunately, Gamespy seems a bit unstable. Simply inform them of said fact and hope it changes. If it doesn't, share your comments here.

[Lord Adherbal]

Another quick question, does anyone know if you will only be able to only have one multiplayer name per cd key? It would simplify things greatly. I think they shold base multiplayer off of AOE III's multiplayer, it is simple yet it has everything you need. Seperate chats, clans built in, stat recording, and ladders showing all sorts of stats. I am sorry if this has been brought up.

well Ensemble Studios realises trough fame and money comes from proper MP support, apparently CA does not. I agree with you, but all this is most unlikely.

[Monarch]

[b]In RTW/BI, if you loose connection to GameSpy during a battle you are kicked from the battle[/s]. There is no need of that and it leads to more ruined battles and more wasted time for you. It seems to me that CA operates as though they don't care how much time you waste trying to play their game. You don't get time back. It's gone forever.


If you lose your connection during the setup lobby, then yes the game is screwed. However, during a battle if your GS connection goes then you get this messege "Game Spy connection lost, game will continue but no results will be stored for this battle". If your actually in the battle then the game will continue.

[Puzz3D]

If you lose your connection during the setup lobby, then yes the game is screwed. However, during a battle if your GS connection goes then you get this messege "Game Spy connection lost, game will continue but no results will be stored for this battle". If your actually in the battle then the game will continue.
I don't recall ever seeing that message, but I have seen "lost connection to server" and you are dropped from the battle. In this case, server might refer to the machine hosting the battle.

[Orda Khan]

If a player loses his connection or quits there is a message informing all that the AI controls his army. The game is ruined

.........Orda

[x-dANGEr]

If you lose your connection during the setup lobby, then yes the game is screwed. However, during a battle if your GS connection goes then you get this messege "Game Spy connection lost, game will continue but no results will be stored for this battle". If your actually in the battle then the game will continue.
Yeap, you're right.

Though, I think they mean the 'Player xxxx has possible network problems..' message.

[Callahan9119]

Danger u Bum :) i didnt know u were on the org