View Full Version : Creative Assembly Multiplayer blog is up
http://totalwardev.blogspot.com/
Enjoy :2thumbsup:
Sun of Chersonesos
10-04-2006, 16:54
oo thanks
Sun of Chersonesos
10-04-2006, 17:11
interesting, a lot of secrets revealed about multiplayer there, much more balanced, host has control so no more max 6 unit type or whatever, i also like the look of those scenario's
Blobbing officially defined!
For those that responded to the last blog and were a little confused about blobbing definitions, the only issue I see with blobbing is that currently you can place one of your units on top of another of your units for combat advantage. We have done all we can to ensure that when a number of units are located on top of one another they are penalized and fight poorly. This is done through mechanics not combat modifiers and looks and feels very realistic and more importantly, balanced. Unit’s will be able to move on top of each other to ensure they can move through tight squeezes but they won’t be able to fight effectively when they do so.
:2thumbsup:
Furious Mental
10-04-2006, 17:22
"We have done all we can to ensure that when a number of units are located on top of one another they are penalized and fight poorly."
Interesting
Well, according to my reading of the blog, blobbing seems to have two definitions - stacking one unit on-top of another to make a blob with no disadvantages; and massing cavalry together in a group (blob) to throw against the enemy. Neither apparently is going to pay off in M2TW, which is good news and progress over RTW.
I've never tried multiplayer, but some of the changes from RTW mentioned sound welcome from a single player perspective: e.g. making cavalry dependent on the charge, increasing their vulnerability to missiles and nerfing the Cantabrian circle a little.
It sounds great. That's an interesting solution to the gamespeed issue that retains the fast gameplay for those that want it. If the fatigue and morale levels are well chosen, I would expect many former multiplayers to return to online play.
This is done through mechanics not combat modifiers...
Not only a solution but a realistic one! Excellent, this is hopeful news.
Basileus
10-04-2006, 18:15
Goods news, i wont get my hopes up though need to try it first.
That's an interesting solution to the gamespeed issue that retains the fast gameplay for those that want it.
Crikey, I don't want to rain on your parade when you are making a rare upbeat post, but are you sure there is a solution to the gamespeed issue in the blog? I totally missed it on the first reading, read your post and went back - all I can find is a reference to four unit size settings, with the larger ones taking longer to play. But it's by no means obvious that a larger a unit size will be associated with slower movement speeds or kill rates. A larger unit size will lead to a longer game just because there is more to kill.
Or am I missing something here?
x-dANGEr
10-04-2006, 18:25
Anxious.. TOo damn anxious..
Though, am worried about the unit size thing..
Well, they certainly have worked and thought more about MP for M2TW so that is good. The added max unit stuff is something I dont like though as its not needed for the 10K that they have balanced the game for.
With the unit sizes I have seen in screenshots, large and huge setting is gonna be off limit for 4v4 games anyway: huge will be impossible and large only for uber high end pc's.
CBR
ChewieTobbacca
10-04-2006, 19:05
The added amx unit stuff is good though to prevent people who like to spam certain units that are very powerful if money isn't an issue
Yes but if money isnt the issue the game isnt going to be balanced anyway. Some faction will always have the most powerful unit, leaving the other factions with upgrading weaker units. Max 4 did not save MTW from being unbalanced because of that. Having no max just makes the unbalance more obvious but its still there.
CBR
Nobunaga
10-04-2006, 19:14
happy days :2thumbsup:
Guillaume le Batard
10-04-2006, 19:17
"This is done through mechanics not combat modifiers... "
Not only a solution but a realistic one! Excellent, this is hopeful news.
Can anyone help me out, and explain to me what the difference between mechanics and modifiers is, and why this is a good thing?
Guillaume
Can anyone help me out, and explain to me what the difference between mechanics and modifiers is, and why this is a good thing?
Guillaume
I guess he means that by modifier its done in an artificial way by giving units a a negative combat modifier. By mechanic its done by say making soldiers move out and not fight at all or something similar. The modifier is a direct (but more abstract) way of doing it and the mechanic is an indirect way trying to achieve the same result and in this case he sees the mechanic as the best way.
CBR
DukeofSerbia
10-04-2006, 19:28
Elephants for Timurids look good.
Cavalry Balance: No longer is there a need to cap cavalry, they kill on the charge but when they stop they are easy targets. Like infantry they cannot be selected and moved as an indestructible mass ”blob”. If you find your cavalry surrounded by enemy units and try and get out of there - bad luck, you are just too big to be missed, even peasants will thrust at your mount. Best of all missiles love cavalry, such big juicy targets, how can you miss.
Peasants/Serfs can't beat knights in any situation in open battle (except if is not in marche).
screwtype
10-04-2006, 19:35
Crikey, I don't want to rain on your parade when you are making a rare upbeat post, but are you sure there is a solution to the gamespeed issue in the blog? I totally missed it on the first reading, read your post and went back - all I can find is a reference to four unit size settings, with the larger ones taking longer to play. But it's by no means obvious that a larger a unit size will be associated with slower movement speeds or kill rates. A larger unit size will lead to a longer game just because there is more to kill.
Or am I missing something here?
Yes, it's hard to interpret what that paragraph means. Actually, I'm rather concerned that it says the "RTW speed" will be in there at all - because the standard RTW speed is a farce in my view. And if the only thing that is there to give you more time to react is more soldiers to kill, this sounds like very bad news indeed.
And even if combat *is* slower with larger unit sizes - which seems doubtful when I think about it - then it's still no consolation for people with lower spec machines who can't play using the bigger unit sizes.
Atrocious punctuation from CA. "era's" indeed.
That said, I'm optimistic about most of the things.
I remember one CA dev (in early RTW days) telling people just to use larger unit size if they thought killing speed was too high. I guess that opinion has not changed. ~:)
CBR
Sun of Chersonesos
10-04-2006, 19:57
Anxious.. TOo damn anxious..
Though, am worried about the unit size thing..
i agree, it said that something like the small size was a bit larger than RTW's medium, in which case it's not necessarily small and i cant imagine what these huge will be like.
CeltiberoMordred
10-04-2006, 20:28
If half of this stuff is true, it will be worth coming back to multiplayer :).
I miss they don't tell anything about max. number of players (6/8), nor if we can play against same faction (French Vs French).
I will wait for those fatigue and morale modifiers, but overall they are very good news.
Bob the Insane
10-04-2006, 20:39
Peasants/Serfs can't beat knights in any situation in open battle (except if is not in marche).
I am sure the the lone knight surrounded by a 100 or so angry peasants with pitch forks would not be too quick to agree with you there...
I think it would be only right that the best unit used poorly would/should be vunerable to even the worst unit used correctly...
CeltiberoMordred
10-04-2006, 20:43
A standing horse is easy to kill as well...
screwtype
10-04-2006, 20:48
I remember one CA dev (in early RTW days) telling people just to use larger unit size if they thought killing speed was too high. I guess that opinion has not changed. ~:)
CBR
I'm afraid you're right. After all the hype, it sounds from this blog as though they have well and truly abandoned their original fanbase in favour of the RTS paradigm.
I hope that's not the case, but that's what this sounds like to me.
Which means that once again we would have to rely on the modders to try and find kludgy fixes to the ridiculous game speed. If that's how things turn out, I may finally have to part company with the TW series.
Dam, I was thinking I'd get this on mid range settings, but I now I know small unit size is same as normal on rome, I guess that just dropped to low :/
Apart from that, this blog has made my day. Especially info abou maknig the annoying game unbalancing upgrades less useful.
Bob the Insane
10-04-2006, 20:52
I think the kill speed will have slowed down, at least a little. Otherwise there would be no time to complete those fancy new animations and kill moves... :laugh4:
t1master
10-04-2006, 21:01
just need the demo to see how the battles play out....
did they mention anything about the lobby and being able to make sense of the chat, both in game and in the lobby.
i think a few more old timers would have stuck around if chat was more userfriendly in rtw...
I think old timers would work out how to press t for chat mate ;)
I think it was more the game they where put off by, not the chat system ;)
gunslinger
10-04-2006, 21:24
I'm not usually one to blather on and on about what I hope they will do with the game,but if they are going to make cavalry virtually defenceless when they're not charging, then I hope they also include a command for charging and immediately withdrawing (from that fight, not the battle). I guess another option would be to make cavalry strong enough to charge straight through several ranks of infantry, killing some and just running past others. Even in MTW single player, you could get into trouble if you let your cavalry charge a flank, and then didn't stick around to micromanage it back out of there. You could give it an order to run to another spot on the battlefield, but as soon as a unit took a swing at them, your cavalry would stop and fight.
Sounds like they've also gotten away from the rock, paper, scissors thing. There's no reason I can think of that armored men on armored horses weilding swords and/or lances shouldn't be able to fight a stand-up battle against armored men on the ground weilding swords, or clubs, or axes, or pitchforks, etc.
Of course a horde of peasants should be able to deal with a single knight, but no way should a unit or two of peasants be able to deal with a unit of knights, even if it is a prolonged static battle.
the 3v2 seige game sounds like ace fun!
Ituralde
10-04-2006, 21:32
It sounds great.
Hearing that from Puzz3D. Never thought it could happen...
I really like the stuff he's talking about and for the first time I might really go into the TW Multiplayer experience big time. With M:TW I didn't have a connection to the internet, with R:TW the gameplay bugged me off.
M2:TW seems to be progressing well. Only problem I have now is to get a computer that will let me play it online without lags due to the bad performance of my system. :dizzy2:
Cheers!
Ituralde
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
10-04-2006, 22:45
We'll see...
Sure it's better news that if they had done nothing to fix all that, but it's still not going to make me buy it on release. I'll need to hear from Yuuki, Mordred and CBR once the game is out before I consider buying it.
A lot of that shall have been done a long time ago :embarassed:
Louis,
Units Size & Game Pace: In M2TW we have set 4 playable unit sizes so that all types of game speeds can be realized. On small you will have a unit size slightly bigger than RTW’s normal that will play very similar, fast and furious. On normal you will get a unit size similar to MTW’s normal, that plays fast but gives you a little more time to incorporate more tactics. On large and huge you will still get games with a nice pace but they will be a tactical extravaganza showcasing lots of death and destruction.
Crikey, I don't want to rain on your parade when you are making a rare upbeat post, but are you sure there is a solution to the gamespeed issue in the blog? I totally missed it on the first reading, read your post and went back - all I can find is a reference to four unit size settings, with the larger ones taking longer to play. But it's by no means obvious that a larger a unit size will be associated with slower movement speeds or kill rates. A larger unit size will lead to a longer game just because there is more to kill.
Or am I missing something here?
I interpreted "game speed" to be both movement and fighting speed. The adjustable speed setting affects everything including momement, and all CA has to do is link the unit size selected to a speed setting. I'm assuming here that they have made reasonable walk/run speed ratios.
Even if it isn't the case, we know the movement speeds have been slowed to some extent from the reports and brief video of the preview in Germany. It's also clear that the unit size doesn't change by a factor of 2 on each step as it did in RTW because small is larger than RTW normal and normal is similar to MTW normal. In RTW, going from normal (40) to large (80) skipped over MTW's normal (60). So I'm thinking that M2TW large will be around 80.
Palamedes has played MTW online. I don't see how he can say large unit size will be a "tactical extravaganza" if it doesn't approach that of MTW. He was supposedly hired by CA to help them bring back the tactical gameplay that was lost in RTW. Since they are addressing things such as overlapping units and worrying about upgrades unbalancing the game, I can't imagine them sabotaging that effort by not providing a game speed that allows for substantial tactical thinking during a battle.
Well, Puzz3D, no disrespect, but the world has turned upside down when you are more optimistic about M2TW than I. But in the text you quote there is no clear reference to their being settings for game speed - the main text only talks about adjusting unit size. I agree that an "adjustable speed setting" would be the easy and obvious solution to the debate about whether RTW was too fast (let the players pick the speed they are prefer). But do you have any information such a setting is in the game? What you quote does not convince me it is.
I am more open to the idea that M2TW will play slower anyway, without an adjustable setting, but I'd need to play the demo to be sure.
Well, Puzz3D, no disrespect, but the world has turned upside down when you are more optimistic about M2TW than I. But in the text you quote there is no clear reference to their being settings for game speed - the main text only talks about adjusting unit size. I agree that an "adjustable speed setting" would be the easy and obvious solution to the debate about whether RTW was too fast (let the players pick the speed they are prefer). But do you have any information such a setting is in the game? What you quote does not convince me it is.
I am more open to the idea that M2TW will play slower anyway, without an adjustable setting, but I'd need to play the demo to be sure.
There was a big difference between normal and huge init size in RTW. GilJaysmith suggesed playing on huge in answer to players saying the gameplay was too fast. It didn't work. It was still too fast. Palamedes knows this. How can he be claiming that battles with large unit size in M2TW are a tactical extravaganza? His paragraph indicates that both types of players will be satisfied, by choosing the appropriate unit size. I think there has to be something to this other than simply larger unit size because that solution didn't work in RTW.
I can see a gamespeed setting in the pictures. So, there is a gamespeed setting. I suspect it cannot be set below 1.0 by the player, but the game could do it based on the unit size selected. Palamedes is using the term "gamespeed". I hope he isn't making a new definition for this term for his blog.
How can he be claiming that battles with large unit size in M2TW are a tactical extravaganza?
If one sets the standards low enough, even slower killing/routing will mean wonders to tactics ~:)
I really doubt its something advanced as different movement setting, just because of different unit size. I think its pretty simple: the more men per unit the more ranks and the longer it takes before a units gets killed off. And that certainly works in RTW and was IIRC what GilJaysmith was thinking about when he recommended increasing unit size.
Some of us hardcore people thinks in terms of movement rate AND kill rate, but I guess some people just put that together into one term like battlespeed, gamespeed or whatever.
CBR
Strangely, I find myself agreeing with Puzz (I say "strangely" because I've not been terribly optimistic person in regards to the game either). I also took Palamedes to mean that the actual battle speeds has been reduced, and not that the pace would be slower simply because units are larger. Were it otherwise, I'm quite certain Palamedes would've said so.
As econ and others have pointed out, however, playing the demo should give us a pretty good idea one way or the other.
Hunter KIng George
10-05-2006, 02:49
Well overall seems like terrific news! I am estastic with the news of their efforts to solve some of the issues surrounding MP! I will remain optimistic and hope for the best! :cool:
Nobunaga
10-05-2006, 03:27
we can judge by the demo when it is out
Polemists
10-05-2006, 05:06
Yea i tried to argue that once but these people need something to do between now and Oct 14-30. So they like to speculate and juggle :juggle2:
Great news, great news indeed. I played a scarce few games in MTW online, but the ones I do I remember and cherish. I remember having a classical battle in a 3v3, in which my opponent and I dueled out with skirmishers and Pavise's for a bit when our fellow teammates launched massive attacks at each other from the start. Suffice to say, I came out on top, just barely, and mopped up the battlefield with my intact army. My allies and enemies across the field had all but annihilated each other in the melee.
In RTW, my only memories are people spamming 15 Egyptian pharaoh cavalry and 5 Egyptian royal archers, and never being able to beat the vicious blobs or cheap tactics that ruled.
This news on the return to the MTW kind of multiplayer is heartening, and I hope that it will play out more like MTW, and not RTW.
And guys, how about instead of speculating about combat speeds and such and tearing into each other's opinions, we wait for the next Blog? He has clearly stated that the next blog will be about morale and fatigue. And considering they most likely know most people the frequent a developer blog are hardcore fans, his statement that we'll love the upcoming news seems like a good sign to me.
screwtype
10-05-2006, 15:08
I also took Palamedes to mean that the actual battle speeds has been reduced, and not that the pace would be slower simply because units are larger. Were it otherwise, I'm quite certain Palamedes would've said so.
I honestly think you guys are kidding yourselves. I cannot see CA taking the time to create different game speeds for different unit sizes. They've already told us a dozen times that kill speeds and so on are synchronized to soldier animations. How could they program different kill speeds in such circumstances? It would be a nightmare.
Nope. This is just about larger unit sizes taking longer to defeat in my opinion. And I'm sceptical that this will lead to a "tactical extravaganza" for the simple reason that while there are more soldiers to kill, there also more soldiers to do the killing. So I can't see that larger unit sizes will have that much of an effect on the game.
Which means in turn that the game is still going to be much too fast for the average tactical gamer. Naturally I'm hoping this is not the case, but it seems to be the logical conclusion from what's been said in this blog.
Anyhow, as others have said, the demo will clear up a lot of these questions one way or another. Hopefully it's not too far away now...
Duke John
10-05-2006, 15:19
The reason that huge size will result in slower gameplay and that it allows you to think over your tactics is simple: the games will lag as hell! :wink:
Larger unit size is nothing more than larger unit size. Don't get your hopes up that it introduces some extra modifiers to speed or morale. If it does then I can't understand why those modifiers aren't being seperated from unit size setting.
I honestly think you guys are kidding yourselves. I cannot see CA taking the time to create different game speeds for different unit sizes. They've already told us a dozen times that kill speeds and so on are synchronized to soldier animations. How could they program different kill speeds in such circumstances? It would be a nightmare.
They already have different gamespeeds, and it slows down or speeds up everything including animations. If they don't offer a slower speed setting, it's because they don't want to. How can Palamedes use a term like "tactical extravaganza" if the gameplay is going to remain like RTW? RTW wasn't a tactical extravaganza with huge units, and Palamedes knows it.
Anyhow, as others have said, the demo will clear up a lot of these questions one way or another. Hopefully it's not too far away now...
The demo has no multiplayer, no campaign, unfinished AI, unfinished battle mechanics, jacked up units and scripted battles. I played the RTW demo, and it did not prepare me for the absolutely abysmal RTW multiplayer.
Orda Khan
10-05-2006, 16:35
The reason that huge size will result in slower gameplay and that it allows you to think over your tactics is simple: the games will lag as hell! :wink:
Larger unit size is nothing more than larger unit size. Don't get your hopes up that it introduces some extra modifiers to speed or morale. If it does then I can't understand why those modifiers aren't being seperated from unit size setting.
Took the words out of my mouth. The tactical extravaganza will be trying to control the curser
........Orda
screwtype
10-05-2006, 16:35
They already have different gamespeeds, and it slows down or speeds up everything including animations. If they don't offer a slower speed setting, it's because they don't want to. How can Palamedes use a term like "tactical extravaganza" if the gameplay is going to remain like RTW? RTW wasn't a tactical extravaganza with huge units, and Palamedes knows it.
Yeah but that sort of gamespeed change just speeds up everything across the board. If they had a mode that was actually slower than x1, that would mean units would be moving, firing and attacking in slow motion. Is that a viable solution for the speed problem? Doesn't sound like much of one to me.
The demo has no multiplayer, no campaign, unfinished AI, unfinished battle mechanics, jacked up units and scripted battles. I played the RTW demo, and it did not prepare me for the absolutely abysmal RTW multiplayer.
Technically you may be correct, but experientially, I found little difference between the RTW demo and the game when it was first released. So the demo certainly gave me an adequate sample of what the game itself would be like.
Multiplayer is obviously a different kettle of fish, but you MP guys soon found the battles to be too fast just as the SP crowd did. So it's not as though you are going to learn nothing from the demo. Indeed I suspect you'll be just as keen to get hold of your copy of the demo as the rest of us Puzz ~;)
Well at least it can't be worse than RTW MP. If a 0.1b mod can improve on the original game, you know something is seriously wrong with it. Hopefully some people got their knuckles wracked.
screwtype
10-05-2006, 16:40
Took the words out of my mouth. The tactical extravaganza will be trying to control the curser
........Orda
What a bunch of cynics! :laugh4:
Yeah but that sort of gamespeed change just speeds up everything across the board. If they had a mode that was actually slower than x1, that would mean units would be moving, firing and attacking in slow motion. Is that a viable solution for the speed problem? Doesn't sound like much of one to me.
Since x1 is fast and furious, x0.7 would not be slow motion. If they don't provide that, they are clearly not interested in attracting the type of player to which the game originally appealed.
Multiplayer is obviously a different kettle of fish, but you MP guys soon found the battles to be too fast just as the SP crowd did. So it's not as though you are going to learn nothing from the demo. Indeed I suspect you'll be just as keen to get hold of your copy of the demo as the rest of us Puzz.
I'm not going to base my decision to purchase the game on the demo.
screwtype
10-05-2006, 19:00
Since x1 is fast and furious, x0.7 would not be slow motion. If they don't provide that, they are clearly not interested in attracting the type of player to which the game originally appealed.
Well yes, I guess that is a possibility. I'd certainly love to see something like that, I just don't want to get my hopes up until I've heard something definite I guess.
I'm not going to base my decision to purchase the game on the demo.
Me either. I'll be waiting to hear what your opinion is ~:)
SirGrotius
10-05-2006, 22:42
the 3v2 seige game sounds like ace fun!
Well said!
This blog was interesting, thanks for bringing it up.
Well, just let you guys know (as it seems it is not obvious) that it is one of the most skilled and experienced MP players doing the game balancing (and wrote this blog). Not me ... ~;p (which is a big change compared to rtw)
So have faith, as I have, that MTW2 will be much different than rtw or bi, I hope even better than MTW.
so Simurgh you can preorder your copy, you too CBR and Yuuki ~;)
Also tell Marco to visit the RTK forums more often, you can come too ~D
Nobunaga
10-06-2006, 02:14
but what if the talk was only for the sake of good publicity
Polemists
10-06-2006, 04:45
haha I on other hand already love the game and long as demo isn't horrible I'll buy it. I mean your only other option is wait for mods, or go back to older games. Not like there's a flood of Total War games.
I'm personally very happy. I see some new features and better testing. So huzzah to CA :2thumbsup:
I'm pleased with this. It seems the developers have addressed most of not all of the main issues that MP fans found wrong with RTW. They look to be taking our concerns seriously.
People are getting too fired up about the unit speed issue its already been perviously stated that the standard unit speeds have been lowered. If you play STW or MTW on small units in multiplayer that will be pretty fast and furious too i bet.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
10-06-2006, 09:29
Well, just let you guys know (as it seems it is not obvious) that it is one of the most skilled and experienced MP players doing the game balancing (and wrote this blog). Not me ... ~;p (which is a big change compared to rtw)
So have faith, as I have, that MTW2 will be much different than rtw or bi, I hope even better than MTW.
so Simurgh you can preorder your copy, you too CBR and Yuuki ~;)
Also tell Marco to visit the RTK forums more often, you can come too ~D
No way I preorder it... I'll wait a couple of months before looking at it.
There were enough argument about what good balance was in MTW among the vets from those days that I would not trust any of them to achieve a balance that would get a large approval :dizzy2:
I would trust none of the MTW MP players to balance MTW2 on his own.
Not to mention, I was not aware there were any skilled and experienced players within RTK :inquisitive: ...
(well, if you still have contact with them, send my greetings to Aelwyn, Lamorak and Marco... and I remember a few games with Gareth and Goedfrey too; let's hope we'll all meet soon again on a battlefield)
Louis,
No way I preorder it... I'll wait a couple of months before looking at it.
Then you will be waiting for too long ~;p
Of course, I dont want to force you to preorder anything, it is just a statement that I am lot more optimistic than most of you guys. ~;)
There were enough argument about what good balance was in MTW among the vets from those days that I would not trust any of them to achieve a balance that would get a large approval :dizzy2:
I would trust none of the MTW MP players to balance MTW2 on his own.
This is fair enough. However, I assume any of those proposed solution to MTW were better than the rtw gameplay.
Not to mention, I was not aware there were any skilled and experienced players within RTK :inquisitive: ...
I did not hear this part ... ~;p
(well, if you still have contact with them, send my greetings to Aelwyn, Lamorak and Marco... and I remember a few games with Gareth and Goedfrey too; let's hope we'll all meet soon again on a battlefield)
Louis,
Aelwyn is still in RTK though inactive, Lamorak visited a few month ago, Marco, hm ask CBR or Yuuki ... I have not heard much about Garteh and Goedfrey.
I too hope to meet you soon on the battlefield and if you install the NTW2 mod for rtw then we can do it even today ~D (provided you have rtw at all ~;p ). It is a very good mod, completely different game from rtw or even from bi, maps are beautiful and functional, terrain is important again ... well I could go on praising this mod for a few more paragraps but you really need to try it. It is a shooting game of course, so somewhat similar to shogun but still different enough. All credit to the Lordz ofc ~;)
People are getting too fired up about the unit speed issue its already been perviously stated that the standard unit speeds have been lowered. If you play STW or MTW on small units in multiplayer that will be pretty fast and furious too i bet.
We just dont know how much its lowered. They could do a 5% reduction and claim they have listened to the community but that is not gonna make me run out and buy the game.
CBR
t1master
10-06-2006, 16:20
gareth and goedfry are still alive and well... gareth still plays ntw occasionally, and goedfry is busy filling the ranks of his castle with babies, ready to carry on his father's name :)
Official statement from the SEGA site:
"Bigger and better battles. Improved combat choreography, larger armies, quicker pace, and spectacular finishing moves make this the most visceral and exciting Total War ever."
In light of this, I would now interpret Palamedes', "On small you will have a unit size slightly bigger than RTW’s normal that will play very similar, fast and furious.", to mean faster than RTW.
Myrddraal
10-06-2006, 18:16
Hmmm. Conflicting stuff...
CeltiberoMordred
10-06-2006, 21:21
Official statement from the SEGA site:
"Bigger and better battles. Improved combat choreography, larger armies, quicker pace, and spectacular finishing moves make this the most visceral and exciting Total War ever."
Quicker pace might means faster combat animations. In RTW most modders had to decrease the delay between strikes because they found it slow and not realistic or eye candy.
Just an idea.
Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)
10-06-2006, 21:30
I never played multi.player
Quicker pace might means faster combat animations. In RTW most modders had to decrease the delay between strikes because they found it slow and not realistic or eye candy.
Just an idea.
Don't forget that SEGA will exert pressure on CA to change the game to how SEGA thinks it should be. Activision did the same thing and got changes, and they didn't even own CA. Some of the changes that Activision insisted on in MTW were removed by CA in a patch. Despite what Palamedes says and what the demo shows, the game could be changed due to pressure from SEGA, and it's clear that they want it to play faster than RTW.
x-dANGEr
10-07-2006, 20:00
How is it "clear"?
Official SEGA site (http://www.sega.com/games/game_temp.php?game=medieval2&lid=gp_medieval2&lpos=hp_gamelist)
Features:
* Bigger and better battles. Improved combat choreography, larger armies, quicker pace, and spectacular finishing moves make this the most visceral and exciting Total War ever.
So have faith, as I have, that MTW2 will be much different than rtw or bi, I hope even better than MTW.
so Simurgh you can preorder your copy, you too CBR and Yuuki ~;)
I lost my faith when playing RTW demo and nothing since then has given me a reason to change my mind. The M2TW demo did not show me any real improvement. New improved uber graphics just doesnt sucker me into buying it.
CBR
screwtype
10-08-2006, 08:53
Official SEGA site (http://www.sega.com/games/game_temp.php?game=medieval2&lid=gp_medieval2&lpos=hp_gamelist)
Features:
* Bigger and better battles. Improved combat choreography, larger armies, quicker pace, and spectacular finishing moves make this the most visceral and exciting Total War ever.
"Quicker pace" could mean anything though, from less provinces to conquer, less turns to play, better micromanagement tools, faster unit response to orders and so on. It could also be nothing more than a bit of empty marketing spiel.
just4apetition
10-08-2006, 14:18
hey ppl i got a petition link for a ME 2 multiplayer campaign,
http://www.petitiononline.com/2908jt01/petition.html, please sign it and spread
the word.
Multiplayer campaign, how would you implement such a thing...what everyone would just sit theirt whilst two guys fought battles, whilst people took their turns.
Don't think so mate. CA have heard this all before too.
Epistolary Richard
10-09-2006, 01:18
I say the same thing here about the petition that I've said everywhere else you've spammed this around the forums:
I wonder if you 'petitioners' for a mulitplayer campaign have actually really thought about how it would work? 'Cos TW campaigns can last quite a long time, even taking a single turn for a single player can go upwards of an hour when his empire gets large. So, given that players aren't going to be online playing for several weeks continuously you're going to have to compromise on something. If you want to keep the camp map and not too bothered about the battles then we have a pretty servicable RTW multiplayer campaign mod already. If you want to keep the battles and are prepared to accept a more stylised campaign map then the Lordz are testing an online multiplayer campaign run through a website.
"Multiplayer campaign, how would you implement such a thing...what everyone would just sit theirt whilst two guys fought battles, whilst people took their turns"
Funny, there are lots of turn based strategy games with multiplayer. I guess it *is* possible to just sit there while the other guy is making his move.
Granted this won't have a particularly wide audience, and will be a huge time investment (an ongoing campaign would, I estimate, take weeks to complete rather than a quick field battle taking an evening) but that can be said of other games. (Civ, for example).
x-dANGEr
10-09-2006, 17:36
Official SEGA site (http://www.sega.com/games/game_temp.php?game=medieval2&lid=gp_medieval2&lpos=hp_gamelist)
Features:
* Bigger and better battles. Improved combat choreography, larger armies, quicker pace, and spectacular finishing moves make this the most visceral and exciting Total War ever.
"Quicker pace" could mean anything though, from less provinces to conquer, less turns to play, better micromanagement tools, faster unit response to orders and so on. It could also be nothing more than a bit of empty marketing spiel.
Gah, I got all excited with the demo and so.. Though, screwtype has covered it I guess..
Palamedes
10-10-2006, 16:21
Ok I won’t blog this as it seems more of an issue for you guys than a concern for the general public,
The larger a unit is the more ranks deep the unit is when used. If you don’t believe me, and don’t worry you won’t be the first, play with the different unit sizes and check it out for yourself. This occurs due to the playable area staying the same size, no matter what unit size you use you will position the camera in the same position and the surrounding objects will remain the same size. This means when players drag and drop lines of units or move units around objects or through breaches the units end up thicker (more ranks) and thicker units means slower combat. Why slower; because a smaller percentage of the unit is involved in combat at any given time.
In addition game physics don’t change, these include: the size of a soldier; the speed it travels; and most importantly collision mass. If two small units with the same collision mass collide they inflict a larger proportion of casualties on first contact than if they were bigger units.
This is why the unit size counts. When units are larger combat speed is slowed and the influence of first contact is reduced, in my opinion it is the most important factor in establishing game pace. Start up RTW and play the same custom battle on both small unit size and huge. Try your best to make the huge game play as fast as the small. If you know how to enable PR camera you will get halfway there by raising the camera to the heavens and dragging thinner lines.
Competitive MP players look for a unit size that ensures the game runs fast and achieves the correct game pace. In my opinion RTW normal was too small (faster pace) and large was too large (slower pace) and small, well might as well Ctrl-A double click and toss a coin. In addition to RTW players using smaller unit sizes, the individual soldiers did not maintaining personal space allowing blobbing which resulted in an increased effect when colliding. The game became one of blobs with players ensuring they had enough mass for the first contact to try and cause mass casualties and chain routes.
Anyway I hope this gives you an insight into what was meant. Mechanics like blobbing have been fixed, collision masses have been reduced, combat stats have been scaled down, and most importantly you will have 4 unit sizes that allow for all types of game pace.
Jason
Thanks for the explanation and insights, Jason. :bow:
Shouldn't palamedes now appear in "CA Staff" group? :D
PS. Thanks for the info mate :)
Thanks for the clarification Palamedes. STW Total War multiplayer used to play fine with 60 man units. The fastest combat resolution was about 30 seconds (no-dachi vs no-dachi), and the slowest about 2.5 minutes (naginata vs naginata). Part of this was because in multiplayer you bought the units at honor = 2 which gave +4 morale to every unit. With MTW, units were purchased at valor = 0 and the +4 morale was lost resulting in easy routing. I had expected the +4 morale of STW to be included in the valor = 0 units of MTW. The only way to regain the lost morale in MTW was with upgrading. With VI, +2 morale was added, but multiplayer really needed the full +4 morale.
The 60 man unit size retains good maneuverability. Huge unit size (2x normal) reduces maneuverability considerably, and of course it means slower framerate. So, it would be nice if normal unit size gave a kind of gameplay where 2 weak units could defeat a unit 2x stronger by one of them engaging frontally in hold formation while the other executed a flanking maneuver to attack the rear of the strong unit. Of course, the cavalry units are smaller than the infantry and will retain good maneuverability even with infantry unit size larger than 60.
Papewaio
10-11-2006, 05:01
Interesting logical account Palamedes-san, as a player who doesn't use mods or plays online, I'm still very much concerned with battles being so quick that it resembles a shooter more then even a click fest RTS. I guess it is my old age (33).
I have gravitated to huge units for three reasons, after doing a metagamming min/max campaign with the Greeks.
1) It seemed like better gameplay. It 'felt' better and although I lost manouverability (which too me felt more realistic) I gained a slower pace of play in which my actions and reactions had an impact. When playing huge I feel like I am indeed a general and that my units are reacting to my commands (slowly just as if they had to be given via drums, horns and flags) and that my input was actually part of the gameplay rather then click and hope.
2) With phalanx armies larger units look so much better and wheel so slowly that they have that grandeur of mass, much like seeing a large ship comming into port.
3) On a strategic level larger units made it easier to manage cities. Lots of peasants/town watch guarding cities and sheer numbers helped.
4) Metagaming/cheating/population exodus. Playing the Greeks I really, really, absolutely wanted Spartans as soon as possible. Put the settings on huge units, made peasant units in all my non-critical cities ,with fertility temples (particularly rebellious ones), and marched the peasant units to Sparta where they were disbanded. Sparta had a population growth each turn of one to two thousand. This netted myself the Spartan warriors very early and caused the revelations of points 1 to 3.
Wandarah
10-11-2006, 08:13
Wow. All hail Palamedes.
Hi Pala, ~:) nice to see you here. :bow:
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
10-11-2006, 08:50
I don't know why... that post really failed to cheer me up as far as MTW2 being superior to RTW for MP purpose.
The larger a unit is the more ranks deep the unit is when used. If you don’t believe me, and don’t worry you won’t be the first, play with the different unit sizes and check it out for yourself. This occurs due to the playable area staying the same size, no matter what unit size you use you will position the camera in the same position and the surrounding objects will remain the same size. This means when players drag and drop lines of units or move units around objects or through breaches the units end up thicker (more ranks) and thicker units means slower combat. Why slower; because a smaller percentage of the unit is involved in combat at any given time.
...
This is why the unit size counts. When units are larger combat speed is slowed and the influence of first contact is reduced, in my opinion it is the most important factor in establishing game pace. Start up RTW and play the same custom battle on both small unit size and huge. Try your best to make the huge game play as fast as the small. If you know how to enable PR camera you will get halfway there by raising the camera to the heavens and dragging thinner lines.
I agree with the mechanics: there is a reason why FFer, while we played RTW did it using large or huge setting. When we tried to mod the game, we pushed the unit size in between large and huge to provide for better gameplay.
So it's really nothing new at all.
The main issues with this are:
- Can you get a 4v4 large/huge size battle to run?
- Will the MP consensus move in that direction: the standard in RTW is NOT using large unit size, although it would help... why? Because most players stick with "default" mode, and because ... of my first point.
So, yes size matters, but no, it won't be MP saving grace...
Competitive MP players look for a unit size that ensures the game runs fast and achieves the correct game pace. In my opinion RTW normal was too small (faster pace) and large was too large (slower pace) and small, well might as well Ctrl-A double click and toss a coin.
If large was too large and gave you too slow a pace, I fear we do not have the same understanding of what slow pace/ fast pace is.
RTW large is still way too random, way too fast.
In addition to RTW players using smaller unit sizes, the individual soldiers did not maintaining personal space allowing blobbing which resulted in an increased effect when colliding. The game became one of blobs with players ensuring they had enough mass for the first contact to try and cause mass casualties and chain routes.
Pretty much the only good news. At least there is some chance that blob tactic won't work.
which does not mean tactic would work at all...
Anyway I hope this gives you an insight into what was meant. Mechanics like blobbing have been fixed, collision masses have been reduced, combat stats have been scaled down, and most importantly you will have 4 unit sizes that allow for all types of game pace.
Jason
Thanks for the insight,but I really don't believe that the different unit size to control game pace is going to be enough to make me happy. My main concern is that the slowest pace, which is probably the one that would please me most (and even then... if large is too slow for you, I can only hope), that pace is likely to be unplayable in 4v4.
Large was not good enough for me in BI, and that was not playable in 4v4.
Louis,
So, it would be nice if normal unit size gave a kind of gameplay where 2 weak units could defeat a unit 2x stronger by one of them engaging frontally in hold formation while the other executed a flanking maneuver to attack the rear of the strong unit.
As very often Yuuki hits the spot. This is the key and it should be possible to do at any unitsize, as indeed it is in MTW-VI.
In fact I think it is crucial that it is possible at lower unit settings as the larger unit settings in massive games will most likely be laggy if you have not got a new machine.
So saying that increasing unitsize is the way to slow down the battle and get more tactics is not very satisfying for, I would think, most multiplayerveterans.
I doubt RTK Paul - the strongest RTK there ever was in MTW IMO - would agree on that it is good to let unitsize determine if the game is tactical or not, to fast or not.
Kalle
Large Louis, we played atlarge. ;)
I liked large too in RTW MP
But anyway, thanks for the clarification Palamedes. Are we to expect our machines can handle more soldiers than with the RTW engine? In RTW unit size settings were x 1/2, 1, 2 and 4. Is that different in M2TW?
CBR
Duke John
10-11-2006, 14:26
I don't get this:
The larger a unit is the more ranks deep the unit is when used. If you don’t believe me, and don’t worry you won’t be the first, play with the different unit sizes and check it out for yourself. This occurs due to the playable area staying the same size, no matter what unit size you use you will position the camera in the same position and the surrounding objects will remain the same size. This means when players drag and drop lines of units or move units around objects or through breaches the units end up thicker (more ranks) and thicker units means slower combat.
In R:TW you also had the same playable area and that didn't stop anyone (as far as I know) to put units in 3-5 ranks regardless of unitsize setting. Or are unit depths now fixed (meaning that you can't drag out an unit to set depth)?
If this means huge/large would be more tactical and more slower just because of units being deployed deeper, then what has changed from R:TW? You could do exactly the same with R:TW. That is nothing new or an improvement, just trying to sell old news in a new jacket.
Mount Suribachi
10-11-2006, 14:31
I do agree with the different unit sizes affecting gameplay. When I upgraded my PC, on MTW I went from default to huge unit sizes and battles fought very differently. Trying to manuever a unit of 200 infantry round the flank ain't easy ~;) I agree with Pape's comments about the mass of unwieldy troops and how good it felt ~:)
But the concerns about who can play 4v4 MP on huge unit sizes seem valid. But I don't do MP, so what do I care? :lol:
After getting a new pc I started using huge units in the campaign and it felt great. Huge units is not gonna be used at all in big MP games. That would mean armies of about 3.5K men on average and 28K total for a 4v4. Even half that size would mean most PC's are gonna choke. Of course for smaller 1v1 and 2v2 it might be possible
Unless something has changed with the engine that is.
Maybe this SSE2 issue is an indication of machines being able to handle more than what we saw in RTW...
CBR
sunsmountain
10-11-2006, 17:27
In R:TW you also had the same playable area and that didn't stop anyone (as far as I know) to put units in 3-5 ranks regardless of unitsize setting. Or are unit depths now fixed (meaning that you can't drag out an unit to set depth)?
If this means huge/large would be more tactical and more slower just because of units being deployed deeper, then what has changed from R:TW? You could do exactly the same with R:TW. That is nothing new or an improvement, just trying to sell old news in a new jacket.
Exactly, Palamedes, if you're still checking this thread we are glad that you guys solved blobbing and are seeing relations between unit size and battle speed, but let's talk specifics:
- infantry/cavalry marching/running speeds
Your answer about physics implies that this won't change once it is chosen. Let us hope you guys choose it exactly right, since we can't mod it, right? Early demo measurements imply that both have gone down, but that the ratio between infantry and cavalry (ie, infantry being too fast still) is unsolved as yet...
- number of attempts to hit
with the new combos this must have gone up, which is good.
- probability to hit
while this one must have gone down, also good.
When we talk about "we want slower battles with more control", these are important factors to enable that. But if you take current RTW multiplayer gamers as your yardstick, we shudder:
Competitive MP players look for a unit size that ensures the game runs fast and achieves the correct game pace. In my opinion RTW normal was too small (faster pace) and large was too large (slower pace) and small, well might as well Ctrl-A double click and toss a coin. In addition to RTW players using smaller unit sizes, <cut>.
since a certain number of STW/MTW multiplayer gamers have left the scene. Reproducability of results is the most important thing for a game if you want to encourage strategy/tactics.
Anyway I hope this gives you an insight into what was meant. Mechanics like blobbing have been fixed, collision masses have been reduced, combat stats have been scaled down, and most importantly you will have 4 unit sizes that allow for all types of game pace.
I hope "combat stats have been scaled down" means mathematically scaled not reduced by subtracting a constant. Scaling would reduce the attack - defense difference thus lowering the chance to kill in a combat cycle.
In STW, the best inf unit (warrior monk with attack = 5) vs the worst inf unit (yari ashigaru with defend = -1) only gave a 5.7% chance to kill.
Orda Khan
10-11-2006, 17:41
So let's see if I understand.
For a decent pace we need to use larger scale unit sizes? I share Louis' pessimism because of the obvious LLLLLAAAAGGGGGGGGG this is going to cause with all but the most Uber of machines. I think MP has had it
......Orda
So let's see if I understand.
For a decent pace we need to use larger scale unit sizes? I share Louis' pessimism because of the obvious LLLLLAAAAGGGGGGGGG this is going to cause with all but the most Uber of machines. I think MP has had it.
That kind of lag may not affect you in MP as long as you have a fast enough machine that your mouse and map scrolling don't lag. The only thing that will lag are the units, so you actually get more time to issue commands.
Palamedes
10-12-2006, 12:50
Common Guys,
You should be able to see the relationship between unit size and game play, I have had this discussion with many of the best TW MP players over the years and all have agreed. If you still can't see it I suggest you test what I suggested in the previous post or wait till the game is released and/or feedback is posted. Ultimately proof is in the game and I am more than comfortable stating that M2TW will feel more like MTW in terms of combat speed than it does RTW.
All the things you mentioned in this post were done before unit size changes were made. This included slowing animation rates, modifying combat result probabilities, rescaling combat statistics and modifying combat mechanics. However these things will only ever get things halfway there. If you are concerned about lag the small unit size will still feel more like MTW but collisions will be more noticeable.
Again time will tell so for now let’s agree to disagree.
Lional (Cheetah),
Greetings mate it’s been way too long, hope all is well at RTK and give them all my best. Better yet I will be sure to drop by now that things have slowed at the studio.
Mate I think this thread is in desperate need of some RTK history and who else better than ones of its oldest, wisest and most decorated tournament players. By the way I think the RTK player ability statements may be directed my way so feel free to indicate if I know how to play and understand what is of value in MP. I will be heavily involved in the tournament scene when the game is released, but I am sure to get the hack/cheat/dev secret finger pointed my way if I do ok.
Mate who would have thought all those years ago one of us would have ended up in the studio working on the game we love.
Jason
Duke John
10-12-2006, 13:30
Of course unit size influences the speed at which a melee is resolved, especially when the larger size is used for more ranks. However it is the way of being presented as if it is new or "back to M:TW" that bugs me:
Let’s get into it, this is some of things that you will be happy to see in M2TW:
Units Size & Game Pace: In M2TW we have set 4 playable unit sizes so that all types of game speeds can be realized. On small you will have a unit size slightly bigger than RTW’s normal that will play very similar, fast and furious. On normal you will get a unit size similar to MTW’s normal, that plays fast but gives you a little more time to incorporate more tactics. On large and huge you will still get games with a nice pace but they will be a tactical extravaganza showcasing lots of death and destruction.
You should be able to see the relationship between unit size and game play [...] Ultimately proof is in the game and I am more than comfortable stating that M2TW will feel more like MTW in terms of combat speed than it does RTW.
You could set unit size settings in S:TW, M:TW and R:TW. So this feature is nothing new, it has been present in all TW games, yet it is presented in my eyes as the saviour for people wishing a tactical extravaganza. If so, then why didn't it work for R:TW?
I know it's silly, but still:
Imagine 3 types of milkshapes. When drinking it you could choose to use 1 or more straws depending on how quickly you want to drink it. Milkshape A and B was nice and thick, but milkshape C was thin and flavourless. Now a new milkshape D is introduced using C as a basis. "Oh noes! But C was horribly thin!" Not too worry, to fix that you can use 1 or more straws to drink. :inquisitive:
From what I can see most posters here agree that larger size setting would mean longer time before units rout. We just dont see it as something new as that has always been the case. And some of us doubt we will have any real choice in MP as we cant pick larger unit sizes because of lag.
In the blog you say: "On small you will have a unit size slightly bigger than RTW’s normal that will play very similar, fast and furious. On normal you will get a unit size similar to MTW’s normal, that plays fast but gives you a little more time to incorporate more tactics."
RTW normal had units of 60/40/27 men and that is similar to the 60/48/32 men in M2TW screenshots so I take that to be the normal setting, correct? That would produce armies of an average size of perhaps 850 men. 4v4 would be 6.5-7K men total. We cannot expect to play at twice that size, which would mean we are pretty much stuck at the normal setting as the max playable setting.
CBR
Just wanna say I have nothing vs RTK, every RTK I met and played vs was a more (most often) or less solid player and more importantly I dont think I ever met a rude or troublemaking RTK. And its great that you are in CA Palamedes and most news you bring sound very good to me (blobbing penalised and so on).
I stand firm on my view of most skilled RTKer in MTW though. RTK Paul singlehandedly took care of 3 FFers in the deciding game in our first cwc-encounter.
Next year Paul was gone and FF won the engagement vs RTK. Of course that didnt only have to do with Paul but he was a big boy on the battlefield. Would indeed be intresting to hear Lional talk about RTK achievements and see if his view on Paul differs from mine.
Also id like to know if some RTK or FFer still have the replays of the cwc battles between these clans. Id like very much to see them again.
Kalle
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
10-12-2006, 15:40
Hell froze over...
I agree with both CBR and Kalle :dizzy2:
Indeed, it's been known for a long time that size directly influence kill rate, do not worry, we see very well the relationship between those two factors. The key issue is then lag: it's very difficult to get more than 10 000 soldier on in RTW, and so far, I don't know what is the playable limit for MTW2.
Lag is the ceiling.
As far as RTK players go, do not worry, I made a comment to get a laugh from Lional, nothing else. I don't think he took it seriously, and I sure did not make it seriously...
If you ask me who was RTK best player in MTW, I might disagree with Kalle and point at Marco, but you were all nice people to play with or against. Including Lional!
Kalle, I don't have the replay from the MTW era, I lost them when I changed computers 2 years ago. I remember a very very long winter early game... Not sure I have played the others.
Louis,
Orda Khan
10-12-2006, 16:08
Yes, obviously it takes longer to kill more men, we can all see that. The trouble is trying to run a battle at settings this high and with the addition of so many extra men, manoeuvrability becomes more restrictive as the map size is effectively reduced. It does not sound very good at all
.....Orda
Well so many things to comment on.
Let's start with the raging debate about unit size. I think that first, both side saying the same; second that there is some misunderstanding here.
First, both side agree that large unit size slows down the game and gives a more tactical play (just as a note: I disagree ~;) IMO a fast game can be just as tactical just you need different tactics ~D, comment closed), that is why FFs played rtw on large unit size, and that is why Pala said that large unit size gives a "tactical extravaganza".
Second, Pala's original wording (i.e. "tactical extravaganza") might have been a bit unfortunate, but I think his sentence was twisted around a bit. From the debate it seems as if it were an all or nothing decision and thus tactical game play would depend only on the unit size. Which is of course not true. MTW2 will be a more tactical game than rtw not because of large unit size (even though if I understand it correctly the default unit size will be larger) but because of all the changes Pala described in his blog: 6 max penatly, no more blob-bug, 1 max penalty for eles, cavs cannot be pulled out of the melee without punishment, etc. What Pala wanted to say (IMO ~:) ) with that "tactical extravaganza" is that if one wants an even more tactical game than you can always use larger unit size.
Last comment about unit size: IMHO what would really matter in MP is the default size, as most of the players will use it and all of tourneys will be on default size. Even in rtw where larger unit size made an improvement almost no one used it, either because of comformity reason or because of fear of lag. All in all what is important is to pick the default correctly. From Pala's comment it seems that we are back to MTW unit size, so I am not worried.
About the RTK player strength discussion ~D I really don't want to hijack this topic, so in a nutshell: I think we always had a good number of quality players. In the old RTK period (early MTW) definitely both Paul and Marco were amongst the very best without question. It was the greatest pleasure to fight on their side, in fact I joined RTK because Paul asked me ~;) In later periods (late MTW) again we had many good players, but if I really have to name soemone then it would be Palamedes and Kay (and not because Pala joined CA ~;) , he knows why). All in all, I played lots of friendly and lots of tourney games with Pala and he is extremely sharp and competitive player. Moreover he played rtw too on a competitive level, a thing that few of us can say. If there is anyone who knows about MP balance issues and possible exploits then Pala is one of these players. That is why I trust him and trust that the changes he initiated will improve game balance.
Of course I know that we have different tastes and different priorities, some wants to play this game (MP) for fun, wants prolonged battles on diverse terrain; others want glory and fight tourney games on even terrain, etc. So I assume that the changes might not make everyone happy but I am sure it will be a different, and better game than rtw. (By the way there is a game called Barbarian Invasion and surpise of surprises it is a better game than rtw, IMHO it is a fast paced but very tactical game. You guys should try it one day ~;) Which just shows that Ca was able to make improvements after rtw.)
About FF vs RTK. Well I remember all series. I did not play in the first but I have seen the replay. Gawain was sleeping behind the wheel in that game thus Paul indeed had to fight instead of two. ~D And yes, he was indeed a formidable opponent.
the second series: well I remeber some tricky choice of terrain by FF: a 10k, winter battle on a hilly, forested map ~:dizzy: whereas RTK as usual picked a flat temeprate battle. So IMO it was more about the cunning choice of scenario by FF than about the lack of Paul. (of course picking your terrain was part fo CWC at that time, so no problem with out-cunning RTK on this one ~;) ).
But I also remeber a third series, which we won ~D , moreover Pala was playing in that series. I dont remeber that FF team but IMO Tempiic and Luis were playing for sure.
Last but not least: I have all the replays. ~:)
Last, Pala, yes who would have thought ~:) but I am glad that you made it. Have fun mate, I am sure you will do your best.
I agree with both CBR and Kalle
:2thumbsup:
Kalle, I don't have the replay from the MTW era, I lost them when I changed computers 2 years ago. I remember a very very long winter early game... Not sure I have played the others.
Yeah, I lost them too along with many other exciting battles, due to, I think some careless uninstall or reinstall of the game I made. :(
Last but not least: I have all the replays.
What can I do to convince you to share them with me? :2thumbsup:
Kalle
All in all what is important is to pick the default correctly. From Pala's comment it seems that we are back to MTW unit size, so I am not worried.
The tactical battles can only be optimized for one unit size setting since movement speeds, firing rates, etc are not going to change with unit size. I assume "normal" size units the optimal setting since that's the default setting. Palmades' says the gameplay is going to be faster than MTW, but slower than RTW. The measurements on running speeds that CBR made indicate 20% slower than RTW/BI and 15% faster than MTW. That is in agreement with Palamedes statement that M2TW gameplay is closer to MTW than to RTW, but don't forget there are more units to control in M2TW than there were in MTW.
Of course I know that we have different tastes and different priorities, some wants to play this game (MP) for fun, wants prolonged battles on diverse terrain; others want glory and fight tourney games on even terrain, etc. So I assume that the changes might not make everyone happy but I am sure it will be a different, and better game than rtw.
That's not the issue, and I wish people would stop using RTW as the benchmark. We are talking about having the multiplayer game approach the potential it exhibited in STW MP. M2TW could be better than RTW and still not attain the quality of gameplay that would bring back the large number of highly skilled players who used to play STW. I don't remember anyone saying that STW multiplayer was not fun. You could play it on flat terrain or hilly terrain. In team games, you could successfully assualt huge hills. Positional play was very important, and it didn't have to happen at fast and furious gamespeed. I wouldn't call STW slow. You could play 4 battles in 1 hour online.
I just don't get this idea that the reactive player should be penalized just because he's a reactive player. A delay in response to a movement order penalize reactive players. And, I don't want the AI changing my formation into some simplistic thing that robs me of being creative with my formations. Dragging the entire army out in one group is not the answer.
It remains to be seen if my clan will return to playing Total War online.
That's not the issue, and I wish people would stop using RTW as the benchmark.
Well, I am comparing MTW2 to RTW because that was the last major release and people are worried that it might be a similar let down as RTW was.
We are talking about having the multiplayer game approach the potential it exhibited in STW MP.
As long as we dont have musketeers of similar strength to Shogun the game will never have the same potential. Like or dislike the guns but musketeers were the heart and soul of STW. One can refine the sword-spear-cavalry balance as long as he wants but without strong musketeers the game will never have the same potential.
IMO one more reason to be optimistic about MTW2 as I hope that late era musketeers will be stronger than MTW arquebuseers.
M2TW could be better than RTW and still not attain the quality of gameplay that would bring back the large number of highly skilled players who used to play STW.
Well it works as reputation: very difficult to build up but easy to lose.
In fact it is reputation.
I don't remember anyone saying that STW multiplayer was not fun.
We all agree that STW was fun. ~:)
You could play it on flat terrain or hilly terrain. In team games, you could successfully assualt huge hills. Positional play was very important,
Well, you can play BI or NTW2 on flat or hilly terrain, positional play is important in both yet almost no one playing BI and only a few playing NTW2.
Why is that? I dont know ... What are we arguing about? ~:dizzy:
and it didn't have to happen at fast and furious gamespeed.
Well, I bet when AMP rushed it was fast and furious. ~;p Gun duels of course were neither fast nor furious, but IMO the melee was, if one side had a slight advantage (and knew how to use it).
I wouldn't call STW slow. You could play 4 battles in 1 hour online.
1v1s probably. I played mostly 4v4s and could get 4 or 5 games in 3 or 4 hours. IMO same as most of the TW MP times.
I just don't get this idea that the reactive player should be penalized just because he's a reactive player. A delay in response to a movement order penalize reactive players. And, I don't want the AI changing my formation into some simplistic thing that robs me of being creative with my formations. Dragging the entire army out in one group is not the answer.
I dont really understand this part. How does being a reactive player connects to the previous issues?
It remains to be seen if my clan will return to playing Total War online.
I hope so as I enjoyed playing both with and against you, as well as playing with or against other Mizus. ~:)
What can I do to convince you to share them with me? :2thumbsup:
Kalle
Send me a PM with your e-mail addy. ~;)
IceTorque
10-13-2006, 02:34
Medieval 2 looks and plays so much like the original, the battle maps are huge, the movement speeds between different unit types, and in general are to my satisfaction. The units are phatter than RTW which gives the impression of a decent sized unit even when numbers are small, so I won't be as compelled to use huge unit sizes just so that a unit becomes more noticeable. Gameplay feels so much like the original, but looks so much better. Familiarity with the new looks also helps with discerning between unit types at a distance, and after watching Kingdom of Heaven relying on banners seems so much more realistic.
There are still some RTW quirks that are present, command delay being the most obvious and annoying one for me. I guess I must be one of those re-active players. I'm also concerned how the skirmishing will be, but everything else seems to work so well that it feels like a completey different game to RTW. I look forward to playing some real battles in MP.
Playing the demo has given me such a positive feeling about Medieval 2 that I think all this new game will need is all the original Medieval MP clans/members to be present, and perhaps a custom battle map or 20.
Well, I am comparing MTW2 to RTW because that was the last major release and people are worried that it might be a similar let down as RTW was.
Well you are comparing it to the worst game in the series. Better than the worst isn't saying much. CA set the standard of play with their first game.
As long as we dont have musketeers of similar strength to Shogun the game will never have the same potential. Like or dislike the guns but musketeers were the heart and soul of STW. One can refine the sword-spear-cavalry balance as long as he wants but without strong musketeers the game will never have the same potential.
IMO one more reason to be optimistic about MTW2 as I hope that late era musketeers will be stronger than MTW arquebuseers.
That is simply not true. You could remove guns from STW, and it would still have excellent gameplay. I'm not talking about that bastardization that was STW/MI v1.02. I'm talking about original STW. The guns were not powerful in original STW, and they didn't even shoot at all in the rain.
Well it works as reputation: very difficult to build up but easy to lose. In fact it is reputation.
Yes, and that's what CA has lost.
Well, you can play BI or NTW2 on flat or hilly terrain, positional play is important in both yet almost no one playing BI and only a few playing NTW2.
Why is that? I dont know ... What are we arguing about? ~:dizzy:
The game should have a standard of play which isn't just some people like this and some people like that. If M2TW is a tactical extravaganza, then it better allow the tactical execution of a strategic battle plan. When you start out playing, the battle plans and tactics will be simple, but if M2TW is as good as STW you will be able to progress to more complex strategic battle plans that require precise execution of tactics. The game mechanics have to allow those tactics to be executed. If the player can't execute them because he doesn't have sufficient control of his units, then the battles can't progress. This ability to progress to higher levels of play is what keeps people interested. That leads to the type of community where less experienced players learn from the more experienced players because the more experienced players stick around and keep playing. Eventually, the majority of the community is playing at a very high level of play, and the battles are of a very high quality.
Well, I bet when AMP rushed it was fast and furious. ~;p Gun duels of course were neither fast nor furious, but IMO the melee was, if one side had a slight advantage (and knew how to use it).
The gameplay was fast and furious, so why are you so gungho on the fact that M2TW is going to be faster and have more units to control as well. Speeding things up and increasing the number of things that have to be controlled decreases a player's control.
1v1s probably. I played mostly 4v4s and could get 4 or 5 games in 3 or 4 hours. IMO same as most of the TW MP times.
We're doing 20 minutes for 2v2 and 30 minutes for 3v3 in Samurai Wars. The pacing is great. MTW battles averaged longer than that because of the xbow shootouts.
I dont really understand this part. How does being a reactive player connects to the previous issues?
Because it reduces control. They speed up the game, give you more units to control and then put in a delay on top of that. There was nothing wrong with the temporal aspects of STW. These changes do not represent improvements.
I hope so as I enjoyed playing both with and against you, as well as playing with or against other Mizus. ~:)
We'll have to wait and see because my clan is not going to compromise their standards on what constitutes good and rewarding gameplay. Visualization of the units is also a factor. If you cannot clearly distinguish your men from the enemy and from the ground textures, all your going to get is a headache when playing for a long session. I certainly don't want to play a game if it gives me a headache. RTW gave me a headache when I played it online.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-13-2006, 03:15
I hope MP is better this time around. MP on MTW, back in 2004, was excellent.Far Placed,Yes, but good. RTW, meh, fast like MTW, but no stragerty. hope MTW2 is better.
screwtype
10-13-2006, 08:44
This is why the unit size counts...
Told ya so Puzz ~D
Wandarah
10-13-2006, 09:23
Theres no explanation for taste.
I would rather play RTW than STW. Though I loved STW back in the day, a lot of that has to do with being back in the day though, innit.
Told ya so Puzz ~D
Yes. Maybe the host will be able to finetune the gamespeed. I wonder if the host can vary the gamespeed setting in small steps either faster or slower around the default speed. If the desire to satisfy varying player tastes is legitimate, Creative Assembly should provide variable gamespeed, morale, fatigue rate and ammo settings, and those settings should be adjustable in small steps. The host should also be able to turn off fire projectiles and perhaps be able to eliminate units from the purchase roster.
This is omminous:
"Most of the issues with the Athlon XP processor were fixed for the release version of the game, the single player game works fine but there are a few residual issues with multiplayer and as such we can't officially support it." - Jason
It's certainly better than it not working at all with Athlon XP, but desync hell is not something I want to go through again.
I just thought of something...
Puzz you keep talking about the 20 vs 16 units, and how that is not a step forwards always.
I'm inclined to agree in regards to MP. It was hard enough to control 16 units in a tough battle in MTW and STW. 20 is certainly not better when it goes up in speed. And I must admit I have had my best battles in SP when I haven't had full armies (could also have been because of the lack of multiple army attacks on the player).
So, I thought, what about the host being able to set the number of units each player can get (could be great for 3v3 sieges since we can also set the moneylevels)? Or have a slider that applies to all players. 20 too much? Slide to 16. Too much still? Well then 13 might hit the spot.
So, I thought, what about the host being able to set the number of units each player can get (could be great for 3v3 sieges since we can also set the moneylevels)? Or have a slider that applies to all players. 20 too much? Slide to 16. Too much still? Well then 13 might hit the spot.
A host selectable unit max would be nice, as would the ability to eliminate any units that were found to be unbalanced. Those things can also be done with rules which work ok for tournaments or groups of players willing to follow rules.
I'm not against the move to 20 units. If the morale level is high enough in MP to allow the use of a tactical reserve, then you won't have to issue orders to all of your units at the same time which would make handling 20 units more managable. This morale level should be present in the experience = 0 units minimizing the need for upgrades thereby allowing you to play at the designed 10k per player which should mean better unit balance and a better functioning RPS system.
Modifying a unit via upgrades is fine, but I personally do not think a unit's characteristics should be alterable to the point where it leaves it's position within the RPS system. RTW improved things in this area by making the upgrade steps smaller in terms of combat improvement. Unfortunately in multiplayer, they still left morale tied to experience, and reinstated battlefield upgrades which LongJohn had removed in MTW. Palamedes is surely aware that multiplayer plays better without battlefield upgrades.
Orda Khan
10-13-2006, 17:47
This is omminous:
"Most of the issues with the Athlon XP processor were fixed for the release version of the game, the single player game works fine but there are a few residual issues with multiplayer and as such we can't officially support it." - Jason
It's certainly better than it not working at all with Athlon XP, but desync hell is not something I want to go through again.
That stinks. Looks like I will not be bothering with MTW II. After hearing this my question is how is this an improvement over RTW? The MP lobby may have been awful in RTW but at least you could play it!
........Orda
That stinks. Looks like I will not be bothering with MTW II. After hearing this my question is how is this an improvement over RTW? The MP lobby may have been awful in RTW but at least you could play it!
I expect this will be fixed in a patch. CA definitely has the technical ability to fix it. In the meantime, Intel players will be having their multiplayer games ruined by Athlon XP players and vica versa. I can see it now:
Player X joins a game.
Host: "Do you have AthlonXP cpu?"
Player X: "Yes."
Host: Kick Player X
Host: Ban Player X
Eventually players will get things sorted after going through "Desync Hell".
sunsmountain
10-17-2006, 16:18
This included slowing animation rates, modifying combat result probabilities, rescaling combat statistics and modifying combat mechanics.
Exactly what I wanted to hear, and this is NEW!!! Still, I won't buy it straight away.
Player X joins a game.
Host: "Do you have AthlonXP cpu?"
Player X: "Yes."
Host: Kick Player X
Host: Ban Player X
Eventually players will get things sorted after going through "Desync Hell".
:laugh4: :2thumbsup:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-17-2006, 17:33
MP blog was nice. Though, I don't see why alot of people are saying "I'll wait a few months" or "I wait and ask the Vets to see what they think'. You can rely on other ppl to tell you. they may like it, but you may hate it when you try it, it just better to try MP and seei f you acutally like it or not..
I just thought of something...
Puzz you keep talking about the 20 vs 16 units, and how that is not a step forwards always.
I'm inclined to agree in regards to MP. It was hard enough to control 16 units in a tough battle in MTW and STW. 20 is certainly not better when it goes up in speed. And I must admit I have had my best battles in SP when I haven't had full armies (could also have been because of the lack of multiple army attacks on the player).
So, I thought, what about the host being able to set the number of units each player can get (could be great for 3v3 sieges since we can also set the moneylevels)? Or have a slider that applies to all players. 20 too much? Slide to 16. Too much still? Well then 13 might hit the spot.
We two gals at Freedom Fighters were proponents of low money (8k) on RTW because instead of allowing people to fill up all the 20 slots with all uber units, 8k forces them to limit themselves to between 12-16 slots and allow them to make trade-offs between many cheap but unreliable units or few uber units. It also allows playing Large setting at 3x3 or 2x2 level (total men on the field limitation on performance).
Regretably the idea didn't catch on because players get used to the "normal" setting at 15k Dinars, which in our opinion way too high.
Dr. Crosby said: "They can build all the prisons they want, you don't have to go." They can make 20 slots, you don't need to always fill them.
Anniep
MP blog was nice. Though, I don't see why alot of people are saying "I'll wait a few months" or "I wait and ask the Vets to see what they think'. You can rely on other ppl to tell you. they may like it, but you may hate it when you try it, it just better to try MP and seei f you acutally like it or not..
Because we got burned once, and don't want to get burned again. I am going to relay on people to tell me what the gamepay is like, but not the ones who are practically peeing their pants over the game.
However the Althon XP issue kills M2TW for me regardless of the gameplay. Even people with Pentiums are going to be adversely affected because Athlon XP users are going to be online trying to play multiplayer with Pentium users. My clan will definitely not be returning to M2TW multiplayer unless this Athlon issue is fixed.
I expect this will be fixed in a patch. CA definitely has the technical ability to fix it. In the meantime, Intel players will be having their multiplayer games ruined by Athlon XP players and vica versa. I can see it now:
Player X joins a game.
Host: "Do you have AthlonXP cpu?"
Player X: "Yes."
Host: Kick Player X
Host: Ban Player X
Eventually players will get things sorted after going through "Desync Hell".
I hope they will put in a check and tag the player as "AthelonXP detected". That allows the AthelonXP people to play together :)
Oh BTW, am not discriminating against the AthlonXP: There are far more Intel Celeron with shared graphics out there too.
Anniep
I hope they will put in a check and tag the player as "AthelonXP detected". That allows the AthelonXP people to play together :)
Athlon XP users should be connected to a different MP lobby.
CeltiberoMordred
10-17-2006, 18:31
As many other users, I would like to know which are those "residual issues". They might be minor ones, like graphic quality, loading times, or even unappreciable issues. Who knows.
Maybe we can play multiplayer with our processors after all. Anyways, I still hope CA finally could fix those issues and officially support them (yes, I'm ingenuous).
In case of not being able to play multiplayer, I'd find it very dissapointing. So I'll cross fingers and pray.
CeltiberoMordred
10-17-2006, 18:39
Athlon XP users should be connected to a different MP lobby.
Excuse me for my ignorance, but, where is written that AthlonXP players only will be able to play with others AthlonXP's?
AFAIK, the official statement only tell us that Athlon XP users may have problems. It's likely we can't even play AthlonXP vs AthlonXP.
Excuse me for my ignorance, but, where is written that AthlonXP players only will be able to play with others AthlonXP's?
AFAIK, the official statement only tell us that Athlon XP users may have problems. It's likely we can't even play AthlonXP vs AthlonXP.
His point was just that he doesn't want athlon people entering and screwing up our games.
CeltiberoMordred
10-17-2006, 18:57
His point was just that he doesn't want athlon people entering and screwing up our games.
Still it will depend in which way will affect us those issues. they might ruin MP games, or maybe not.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
10-17-2006, 20:00
I guess Yuuki would rather be safe than sorry. Of course I'd like to know what those residual issues are.
If I buy MTW2, it will be because of MP, not for SP campaign. So I sure hope there won't be any residual issue of significance that might hinder gameplay.
@Cheetah; we shall start some PM convo ~:) I was not in FF yet at the time fo the first serie, and did not play the third one (I had no computer available at that point in time... and I don't remember borrowing one), but I do remember the second serie ~D
It was pretty clear for us right from the start that the key for that serie would be the winter early and winning your defense game. Almircar designed the winning attack plan, and many FFers are good with light army that don't get tired quickly... And that game lasted 82 min.
@LadyAnn: I am a bit worried that even if there is a good setting among the one offered by MTW2 (such as large size, slow speed, and all), it might not be popular, compared to RTW MP style of game... The "standard"* discussion might be very difficult this time, which was not really the case for MTW. Now, a generation of RTW player might have a different take on it, and although it's fair for anyone to play with whatever setting he wants, it might lead to split community and tough discussion for tournament. Chances are whatever CA defines as "normal" will win.
Time will tell,
Louis,
* or: what will the standard be?
Still it will depend in which way will affect us those issues. they might ruin MP games, or maybe not.
Athlon XP works in SP, but is not supported for MP. Now what do you think that could possibly mean other then desyncs in MP? You're right that it could be as bad as Athlon XP desyncing with Athlon XP, but it's far more likely this is an Intel/AMD compatibility issue because SSE2 is not being exactly duplicated by the Athlon XP FPU. If the results of calculations during a battle are not exactly the same as the host's, then that machine desyncs.
So I'll cross fingers and pray.
Good luck. I don't think crossing fingers or praying is going to do a damn bit of good.
t1master
10-17-2006, 20:31
i upgraded my pc for rome, and was sorely dissapointed with the mp experience. i don't see my self upgrading the cpu so that i can play a game that i have not even had the opportunity of playing the demo...
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-17-2006, 21:47
Athlon XP works in SP, but is not supported for MP. Now what do you think that could possibly mean other then desyncs in MP? You're right that it could be as bad as Athlon XP desyncing with Athlon XP, but it's far more likely this is an Intel/AMD compatibility issue because SSE2 is not being exactly duplicated by the Athlon XP FPU. If the results of calculations during a battle are not exactly the same as the host's, then that machine desyncs.
Good luck. I don't think crossing fingers or praying is going to do a damn bit of good.
I got a Intel, so I proably won't get effected,right??
depends on which Intel. Intel Celeron won't do :)
Annie
I got a Intel, so I proably won't get effected,right??
You will be affected by players using Athlon XP machines when they drop from your battles or if someone with an Athlon XP hosts a battle and you drop.
Orda Khan
10-18-2006, 16:15
It's a case of watch this space. Anyone wanting a great MP experience would be mad to rush out and buy MTW II
.......Orda
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-18-2006, 16:24
Intel(R) all I can tell from the System Info. even if I do got a Celerion, I'll will still play MTW2, not going to waste another 1000 bucks on this comp..
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.