Complaints

[Moah]

Although i have had much and much enlightenment reading my way through thse forums I must confess myself a little confused about the discontent with Vanilla (even post official patch) that I have seen.

I must admit I'm going from "must get those great fixes" to "Hang on. Then will be too powerful and I need that fix. Then [I]that means I need that one. Now I have to change every single unit cost. I think I'll just leave it the way it is..."

Complaints I have seen...

Complaint: Cavalry Charges are too hard to do. Cavalry are now useless and just walk and get chewed up in melee. This makes them useless and the game unplayable.

Complaint: Infantry bugs (shields and 2H) make all infantry too weak. Cavalry are unbalanced and unstoppable. This makes infantry useless and the game unplayable.

Huh?

Compaint: Passive AI is too weak. Too easy to win and the game is unplayable.

Complaint: Diplomacy is broken. All AI factions go to war and attack you. The game is unplayable.

Huh?

Complaint: The Pope is awful. He interferes too much and you can't do anything.

Compaint: The Pope is awful. Diplomacy is broken. He's too easy to bribe and you can do whatever you want.

Huh?

Complaint: Longbowmen are underpowered according to history. Billmen are underpowered according to history. Knights are underpowered according to history. Spearmen are underpowered according to history.

Huh?

Not having a pop at anyone but you can't all be right and the mass hysteria is driving me back to a "it may be broke. But at least I've figured out what's broke where..."

[Moah]

:oops:

Hmm. As Can't edit that post looks faar too serious. Please read with a liberla sprinkling of invisible :dizzy2: :yes: :beam: :clown:

[Empirate]

You reflect my opinion exactly. Instead of fixing this, fixing that, complaining about this, complaining about that, I'd like a thread that goes: "This stuff that happens when... is really fantastic. Great work CA!" once in a while.
I like the game the way it is, and although I might come to insert some minor changes to suit my personal preferences, I'm just trying to enjoy it as is right now. All that bickering actually makes me enjoy it less, though it holds a morbid fascination for me. I still trust in CA to set some stuff (shield stuff, 2H weapon units, unit cohesion, etc.) right with their next patch, but until then I can come up with a reasonable in-game explanation for most things that bug me. If units aren't coherent, for example, that is most likely a more accurate rendering of historical "truth" than neatly geometric blocks of infantry, cavalry and artillery dashing it out with each other, instantly replying to commands and acting exactly the way you planned them to.

[dismal]

Some complaints are based on people's opinions, which not everyone else necessarily cares about. Any game (or anything, really) will probably get some of these. They are matters of taste, more or less.

This doesn't mean all complaints are invalid. It's hard to defend things not working as they were intended to work.

In my opinion, some of the things the AI does are beyond defending as well.

I enjoy the game in its totality as it is, but this doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see certain things improved.

[Lord_hazard]

Apparently complaining is frowned upon in this forum, if people think the game is broken, bugged or unbalanced in any way its only natural for them to tell others about it or post it on a forum, and they are in their given right to do so.

[Empirate]

My good Lord, nobody was trying to challenge the fundamental freedom of forum folks to bicker. Moah's and my comments were more of a statement about the general direction a largish portion of the forum is headed for: Finding certain gaps, bugs and inconsistencies, then brewing up quick shot "fixes" that create as many problems as they solve. This is in no way meant to discredit the work of people so dedicated to this game they spend hours on end coming up with something that satisfies their personal priorities gameplay-wise. Still, there doesn't seem to exist a certain fundamental patience with the developers, who might still be expected to come up with solutions that take into account a wider array of issues than the single bug or feature-found-wanting many fixes are aimed at.

EDITed for clarity.

[Lord_hazard]

My good Lord, nobody was trying to challenge the fundamental freedom of forum folks to bicker. Moah's and my comments were more of a statement about the general direction a largish portion of the forum is headed for: Finding certain gaps, bugs and inconsistencies, then brewing up quick shot "fixes" that create as many problems as they solve. This is in no way meant to discredit the work of people so dedicated to this game they spend hours on end coming up with something that satisfies their personal priorities gameplay-wise. Still, there doesn't seem to exist a certain fundamental patience with the developers, who might still be expected to come up with solutions that take into account a wider array of issues than the single bug or feature-found-wanting many fixes are aimed at.

EDITed for clarity.

Agreed, i personally wont use some playermade fix. Ill wait for the devs patch and i have full faith in their abilities to fix and balance this game.

[Carl]

Complaint: Cavalry Charges are too hard to do. Cavalry are now useless and just walk and get chewed up in melee. This makes them useless and the game unplayable.

Complaint: Infantry bugs (shields and 2H) make all infantry too weak. Cavalry are unbalanced and unstoppable. This makes infantry useless and the game unplayable.

Huh?


The problem is that most 2-handers don't work against infantry let alone cav. Also, whilst cav charges are hard to get off, if they do go off they sluaghter everything that isn't a pike thats in-front of them. If you prefer smaller unit sizes it's very easy to get of in reality too.


Huh?

Compaint: Passive AI is too weak. Too easy to win and the game is unplayable.

Complaint: Diplomacy is broken. All AI factions go to war and attack you. The game is unplayable.


Passive AI means actually attacking you in a battle. Thats diffrent to the AI not declaring war on you.


Huh?

Complaint: The Pope is awful. He interferes too much and you can't do anything.

Compaint: The Pope is awful. Diplomacy is broken. He's too easy to bribe and you can do whatever you want.


This varies depending on your favirote faction and playstyle/difficulty level. Plus it's not allways clear weather ignoring him will get you excomunicated, or just a big popularity drop. Thus some people don't get the bribe trick working.

[FrauGloer]

I can agree with some of your points, but some of them, IMHO, are worth complaining about:



Complaint: Infantry bugs (shields and 2H) make all infantry too weak. Cavalry are unbalanced and unstoppable. This makes infantry useless and the game unplayable.

What's bothering people (or at least me) most about those bugs is not that certain units fare badly vs cavalry, but that the bugs render them either at a senseless disadvantage (e.g. professional spearmen losing to peasants because of the shield bug) or utterly useless (e.g. billmen don't get to kill anything because of the 2h-bug).



Complaint: Passive AI is too weak. Too easy to win and the game is unplayable.

Complaint: Diplomacy is broken. All AI factions go to war and attack you. The game is unplayable.


Those two do not contradict each other. It often is to easy to win the battles because of the passive A.I. (which still happens in 1.1 occasionaly), while on the Strategic Map, it is nearly impossible to keep the peace, let alone alliances, because of wierd diplomatic A.I.. This can hardly be ignored and, IMO, deserves to be complained about and discussed.



Complaint: Longbowmen are underpowered according to history. Billmen are underpowered according to history. Knights are underpowered according to history. Spearmen are underpowered according to history.

To some, and apparently to you as well, historic accuracy doesn't matter much. For others, historic accuracy is a major factor in how deeply they can immerge in the gaming experience. Medieval 2 (and the Total War series in general) claim to be historic games, and it is obvious that some changes have to be done to ensure a certain level of balance. However, some of the changes (for want of a better word) 'destroy' the required level of historic accuracy required to captivate many players (such as longbowmen taking way to long to reload in comparison to crossbowmen). Obviously, those who do mind a degree of historic accuracy, complain about the situation - and rightly so! :2thumbsup:

[Lord_hazard]

To some, and apparently to you as well, historic accuracy doesn't matter much. For others, historic accuracy is a major factor in how deeply they can immerge in the gaming experience. Medieval 2 (and the Total War series in general) claim to be historic games, and it is obvious that some changes have to be done to ensure a certain level of balance. However, some of the changes (for want of a better word) 'destroy' the required level of historic accuracy required to captivate many players (such as longbowmen taking way to long to reload in comparison to crossbowmen). Obviously, those who do mind a degree of historic accuracy, complain about the situation - and rightly so! :2thumbsup:

:cheerleader: Precisely CA shouldnt claim to have made a historical game if it isnt true. But thankfully these are all things that can be balanced either by CA or by players. All hail the modders!

[Moah]

Actually I do care about history (although not to the exclusion of play) my point was more that having debated it ever since doing a degree in it 18 years ago there's always plenty of ammunition on both sides.

I've just deleted around 500 words of this post because I was getting into the same historical debate as on numerous other threads (especially about longbows, a bugbear of mine).

Basically one person will want better better longbows, another knights, another halberds etc generally because they're biased towards one or another. The only answer is have a fix for every person - but not an answer CA could be expected to provide.

My main point in posting was just to say it appears total chaos. I'm finding it very difficult to work out if I want fixes or not. Especially now I've seen several Pike posts. In one thread it appears they're too weak, and get their swords out too easily and need a fix. In another they're great and the only thing that can stop cavalry - will slaughter them in fact. In another they are broke, but are too cheap so it all works out.

So...are they broke or not? I'm finding it very hard to tell.

Everyone has the right to complain. It just appears (as a newbie) that people are arguing that exact opposite things are broken. Cavalry can't be too tough and too weak in the game as it stands. Can they?

All of which isn't helped but a very blurry line between "I don't like..." and "IMO historically speaking" and "it is just wrong.." and "the programme is broken and needs a patch".

No offense to anyone. And i'm sure I won't be able to resist butting into the historical debate shortly...


Longbows are the best, the archers themselves were just too expensive and culture specific. BTW ti was orginally Welsh, it was only by the time of Edward 111 and after several generations of a conquered wales that teh English began...:oops: there I go....:shame:

[lars573]

:cheerleader: Precisely CA shouldnt claim to have made a historical game if it isnt true. But thankfully these are all things that can be balanced either by CA or by players. All hail the modders!
*adds bolds* What the hell are you tripping on? It is very true. When compared to other era specific RTS games the TW series is very historical. I for one am so sick of hearing this BS.

[FrauGloer]

*adds bolds* What the hell are you tripping on? It is very true. When compared to other era specific RTS games the TW series is very historical. I for one am so sick of hearing this BS.

Whoa, calm down, man! :hippie:

Note that I never said that CA was not selling a historic game, I just said that the change of some relatively widely-known historic facts, such as longbows being able to fire way faster than crossbowmen, irks some people. Even more so as the historic accuracy in this case and in others was present in MTW1 but isn't in Part 2. It worked in M1, why change it in M2?

@Moah

Yes, I agree that some of those debates are developing into a battle-of-the-scholars, while some are being done to death. In their cores, however, most of these are still valid. As I said above, Longbows as they were in M1 worked fine. Changing them the way they did caused an uproar. The question is: Why fix it if it ain't broke? It just feels 'strange' to me...

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the topic of "I want XY to be stronger because I like it". If it's got a basis in fact, however, and can be 'fixed' without seriously ruining balance - why not?
For example, increasing Longbowmen's rate of fire wouldn't break the game, IMO. They'd run out of ammo more quickly, after all. But I'll follow your lead and put the issue of longbows to rest here. :bow:

As for the 2h/shield bugs, they were obviously not intended, and as such should be fixed ASAP, as I believe they will be.

[econ21]

As for the 2h/shield bugs, they were obviously not intended, and as such should be fixed ASAP, as I believe they will be.

Yes, I think those - specifically the tests which revealed the shield bug - are what have prompted the latest round of complaints. I don't think anyone is going to argue about these as problems to be corrected.

On the wider issues of "balance", the community is never going to agree. They don't call wargamers "grognards" (grumblers) for nothing. But I'm happy for CA to work on balance with their patches. It is nice to hear people like Palamedes take an interest in that.

When CA are done, modders can tweak balance to their satisfaction. However, I suspect most players will either stick to the vanilla CA balance or gravitate to a major historical accuracy mod, if we get one (like RTR or EB).

[lars573]

Truth be told I wasn't talking about you. The whole longbowmen ROF is about ballance. As given all their abilities if they shot faster they would be far too god-like.

[Goofball]

Complaints I have seen...

Complaint: Cavalry Charges are too hard to do. Cavalry are now useless and just walk and get chewed up in melee. This makes them useless and the game unplayable.

Complaint: Infantry bugs (shields and 2H) make all infantry too weak. Cavalry are unbalanced and unstoppable. This makes infantry useless and the game unplayable.

I can see how that would not seem to make sense, so let me clarify:

Cavalry charges are not impossible for the player to pull off, they just require a huge amount of micromanagement, and often still don't work well.

On the other hand, the AI seems to make them happen effortlessly.

Last night I was defending as the Turks in a battle against a Catholic faction (the Hungarians, IIRC). I was situated perfectly, at the top of a steep hill, and there was a bunch of rock and scrub in front of my JHI, who were positioned in the front line. As a human player facing that kind of defence, a cavalry charge would have been all but useless. Uphill, obstructions, braced defenders; those factors would be the kiss of death for my cavalry.

The AI charged two units of KH straight up the hill and over the rocks and scrub right into the front of my braced JHI. The charge killed over half the soldiers in two JHI units, then the KHs withdrew, having only taken 3 or 4 casualties each.

But that doesn't really bother me all that much.

What really bugs me about cavalry is the terrible pathfinding chasing routers.

[IvarrWolfsong]

I complain when games are released before they are finished... which is standard practice now.

How do you say that two handed units being broken to the point where they can't attack even the weakest cavalry is what the game designers intended?

[hrvojej]

Not having a pop at anyone but you can't all be right and the mass hysteria is driving me back to a "it may be broke. But at least I've figured out what's broke where..."
Well, I think it's fine as long as the reader doesn't take it all too literally. The way I see it is that you read all these things whether they say "bug" or not, take the bits that you like, and mod the game to the state you find enjoyable.

If some things are not working as designed, then it's good to get them out in the open, both for the community and the devs alike. OTOH, there are things that I would like to see working in a certain way, and forum discussions help me either to find out how modify them, or to get a better idea about them by reading other people's opinions. So, instead of downloading somebody else's mod which will again probably have a huge number of things I wouldn't like (what's with this fascination with longbowmen and varangian guard anyway?!?), I can make the game which I enjoy playing the most and do that through informed decisions.