View Full Version : Patch 1.2 Release/Delay Discussion
@NagatsukaShumi
Actually, he was talking about a movie you'd see in the theatre. If we think of that we can say it's just a movie that you go see and then you forget about it. It's not like you're going to watch it again and again shortly after and/or for a couple of hours. That is the thing: with a game of this calibre, one WILL spend hours in his free time to... "enjoy" it, and it is NOT something you just check out and quickly forget about.
Doing something else in the meantime is no proper excuse for the bad state the product -- M2TW -- is in, on release and after the first patch. And it is no excuse for this situation, as we await the new one.
I gotta say I don't mind personally, though: I'm not playing it anyway nor waiting for it anxiously, but even then I still stand by the points I made there above.
Note that the torrent tracker will go off soon. The host actually only intended it for the small german community of looki.de and his bandwidth is pretty strained with that tracker alone :P
Quickening
04-06-2007, 22:16
Ive started downloading this torrent and then cancelled thinking "to hell with it I'll wait for the official release" about three times now. What am I doing? I have no idea. But it's at 19.1% just now and I won't cancel it this time. As soon as it's on my harddrive I'll experiment trying to get it to work with 1.1 and savegames etc and report back here.
EDIT:
Note that the torrent tracker will go off soon.
I hope by soon you mean longer than about 12 hours :p
chilling
04-06-2007, 22:38
Regarding savegames.
I downloaded the torrent, uninstalled and then reinstalled MTW2. Patched 1.0 with 1.2. (I checked the MTW2 folder and made sure the only thing I left in there was the save games folder before I reinstalled and then patched).
My campaign continued perfectly. It remembered it was only 1 year per turn and shows the turn as the year. My cavalry does a decent job of running down routed troops was the first thing I noticed, along with the AI reorganising a lot of agents :). The patch looks savegame compatible so far to me. I salled forth from a seige and that went fine. The loading time between map and battlefield has greatly reduced. It seems much quicker now.
Obviously if it breaks your game it's not my fault, I'm just reporting my experience.
The unofficial 'leaked' patch works perfectly if you reinstall MTW2 and do not install 1.1. Just install 1.2 patch. The reported siege crash doesn't occur if you follow this sequence. The problem is obviously the installer or some incompatibility between 1.1 and 1.2 or both.
CA has completely redone the diplomacy and the AI. You won't need any mods for these, the new diplomacy is rational and clever. In battle the AI is much better, particularly during sieges. The 2handed bug, pike, cavalry, unit cohesiveness, etc have been fixed. The animations are much much better. I saw shield bashing, even a soldier put his foot on an enemy body and thrust it with a sword. Amazing..
Note that the torrent tracker will go off soon. The host actually only intended it for the small german community of looki.de and his bandwidth is pretty strained with that tracker alone :P
Can he or someone upload it to Filefront or something like that please?
Gaius Terentius Varro
04-06-2007, 23:43
I am now currently 60 turns into my Byz VH/VH campaign and no crashes or bugs yet (not even one pagan magician). I have to fight to survive all the time. Even the moors are invading me and i haven't expanded too much. Now even the the spies are as hard to train as the assassins were so thieves guild is almost a must. Having a ball all is forgiven CA I love you...Oh yeah btw the patch works fine and the vanguarians own the battlefield.
several of us interested here, can anyone spare a few moments away from testing shield bugs to give us a yes/no on this one?
thanks :)
From couple of custom battles and two lan games, it apears its not much changed there. Cavalry still rolls over foot. I think there is small impovement that some of cav drop dead during initial charge, when facing spears and double axes, but its just not enough.
Gaius Terentius Varro
04-07-2007, 00:00
I got my line of byz spearmen (fully upgraded armor 2 xp bout 8 units) charged by norman knights (about 4 units) over and over untill the knights routed. Yes they knocked down the first row but then got held and owned. Even had enough men left to deal with the italin militia in the next wave. Had a good general behind the line mind you.
The shield bug is definitely fixed with the unofficial patch, i ran some tests and spear units are much more resistant against cav charges.
Dono, I gave ai 20 spears, and I've beaten him with 8 heavy horses, 3 mounted seargents and gen. I'll try some more tommorow on lan (mp servers aren't working with 1.2 at the momment), Ai aint the thing to look at when testing this.
HoreTore
04-07-2007, 00:26
Fixing shields doesn't mean that charging a spear unit will be like charging a phalanx in RTW...
The knights will still rule the battlefield, just not as much. And peasants become the dirt units they should be.
I agree with Nelson, the comparison with movies is a very good one, you won't get a refund if you see the microphone sometime during the movie and if the actors are bad, you won't get anything back either. There are trailers and demos to give you an idea beforehand and help you decide whether you want to spend money on the product or not.
Marius Dynamite
04-07-2007, 02:39
Games with bugs are like bad films. You pay hoping you like the product but knowing that you may not. The advertisements for both promise satisfaction but you get no money back from Paramount nor do you get a free ticket for a remake. You get stuck.
Games with bugs are like movies with bugs, not bad films. You go to the theater paying money and the film starts sticking or something. Going to the movies and paying money for a movie you don't like is like going to the gamestore and buying a game which you dont really like after playing. A bad movie you dislike but still works perfectly can't be compared to a game which is buggy. Plus if the movie starts sticking in some cinemas, you may well get your money back...
Marius Dynamite
04-07-2007, 02:49
I was just wondering for a second there.. why wasn't everything fixed in the first patch anyways? I don't see any reason as to why not. We listed all the bugs we found in forums, why not spend a few months fixing it in one go and then gladly take a glass of water and a sigh of relief and say thats that fixed?
Quickening
04-07-2007, 02:54
I was just wondering for a second there.. why wasn't everything fixed in the first patch anyways? I don't see any reason as to why not. We listed all the bugs we found in forums, why not spend a few months fixing it in one go and then gladly take a glass of water and a sigh of relief and say thats that fixed?
Well the shield bug for one wasn't discovered till after the first patch I believe. Also, at the time the passive AI was everyone's biggest complaint.
As far as Im concerned, as long as the shield bug and two-handed bug are fixed, Im happy.
Durallan
04-07-2007, 02:55
Games with bugs are like movies with bugs, not bad films. You go to the theater paying money and the film starts sticking or something. Going to the movies and paying money for a movie you don't like is like going to the gamestore and buying a game which you dont really like after playing. A bad movie you dislike but still works perfectly can't be compared to a game which is buggy. Plus if the movie starts sticking in some cinemas, you may well get your money back...
actually most of the time you probably won't.... one time I went to see a movie as a kid and I can clearly remember that the power went out movie stopped half way through and we were asked to walk to the exit but no refunds were given. I can't remember if we got to see the rest of the movie or not, maybe but I'm just saying its not likely unless you demand it.
OK, Patch Info.
Your games are save game compatible. As long as you have vanilla. gets upset with mods :laugh4:
PS: Whacker, I was Seeding it for 16 hours yesterday on torrent Azureus.
There are still ppl seeding and Downloading atm.
I don't think filefront will host it, it's pretty big. Plus it's un-offical.
Grab a free torrent and start downloading, mine took 3 hours in total.
fenir
I just dont understand that why do not they release the pacth with the instructions that you have to reinstall MTWII. I am sure most of us would do it happily if that is the "price" for the patch.
Anyway, I have two questions to those who have the un-official version: (a) have you noticed any change in the efficiency of archers? (b) is there any change in the price of units, especially of archers and 2H axe units?
Durallan
04-07-2007, 03:48
reinstalling M2TW now just for the heck of it to see what everyone is on about! also want to see what the new campaign decr db thingy looks like now compared to mine :book: :book: :inquisitive: :inquisitive:
also while i would say its partially savegame compatable remember that some things that are changed will not be seen because the save game saves some prefs in itself, but most will be seen in save games, however I owuld suggest starting a new game, like I will be.
Also they haven't offically released the patch yet and so haven't given any instructions as to how to install it yet.
Is the unofficial patch still available? I am willing to try it with eyes wide open to the fact that it is NOT supported by CA. Where can one find it?
Durallan
04-07-2007, 04:46
I would say after having the quickest of quick peeks looking at the new files this is the real deal, theyve definetly fixed up the AI!
pike master
04-07-2007, 05:42
any one charged cavalry into schiltrom yet?
best control should be a unit of papal guard being charged by mailed knights with 6 factor charge.
Quickening
04-07-2007, 05:50
Okay here's my first report on the leaked patch 1.2.
First of all, the patch took a good half hour to install on my 3.06 Intel Dual Core. It also installs Direct X and asks you to restart your PC.
Savegames are compatible and I did have to install the patch over 1.0.
There is a nice new game launcher with links to the patch readme etc.
Okay I first had a couple of custom battles to test the units. Oddly, the first thing I noticed was the the speed arrow had changed. Whereas before the speeds were x1,x2 and x3, they are now 1.0, 2.0 and 6.0.
Anyway I tried out various units in custom battles all of which performed to my satisfaction. All is well.
Next I tried a campaign as England. I immediately took Prince Rufus up to attack York with his two units of spear militia and peasant archers.
First of all... whoa. The Generals Bodyguard are hard bastards now. I sent Prince Rufus alone against two regiments of peasant archers. Usually this would be a bizarrely troublesome fight for my elite knights. This time? They slaughtered the archers and didn't lose a single man. Now that's what Im talking about. It is just so damned right.
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/David1536/generals.jpg
But my spear militia versus one unit of peasants battle was interesting. The enemy peasants were always just ahead of the spearmen in their kill rate and eventually the spearmen broke and fled! That ain't right is it?
Also, the new announcements you get when you or your enemy are half dead and when you or your enemy are far in the lead are quite neat.
A bug that never got mentioned around here but which DID MY HEAD IN was the one where you moved the camera and trees appeared and disappeared as you panned. THAT HAS BEEN FIXED PRAISE THE LORD.
After the battle I got a trait that I for one have never seen but it may have been there all along. Someone can correct me.
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/David1536/trait.jpg
But something that definately did not exist before was announcements for each and every trait a character gains! This only used to happen with Command Points.
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/David1536/twindow.jpg
Oh and also, whereas before you had a sound set for both Chivalrous Generals and Dreaded ones on the campaign map, it appears to be random now. My Prince Rufus is Chivalrous but ranting about butchering his enemies the whole time.
That is all for now. I will return later with more observations.
hellenes
04-07-2007, 05:51
actually most of the time you probably won't.... one time I went to see a movie as a kid and I can clearly remember that the power went out movie stopped half way through and we were asked to walk to the exit but no refunds were given. I can't remember if we got to see the rest of the movie or not, maybe but I'm just saying its not likely unless you demand it.
I see it as:
bad business=bad sales--->improved business
if however:
bad business=great sales--->same business
Durallan
04-07-2007, 06:21
I don't know if this is related to loading an old game, but before people get too carried away, I tried loading an old save from 1.1 and I spied on a french princess and she had a generals trait and a merchant trait. Then I went to look at my king and he is now a Holy Warrior of Islam? I think the VnV on the leaked patch reallly needs to be fixed, unless I need to start a new game. But this is very very strange to say the least.
Hmm doesn't seem to do it in a normal campaign, I would say that you are definetly going to ahve to start a new campaign if you don't want to end up with Christian generals with warriors of islam traits. Or a princess that is good at business :P
Quickening
04-07-2007, 06:51
Okay a few more observations before I go to bed.
1. I can now build mines in London. Previously the only place I could build them was Dublin. Is this a change or were resources always randomised and I just never got this before?
2. Im playing on Very Hard/Very Hard. The Scots offered me map information and trade rights in exchange for a ceasefire.
3. There is now an announcement is battle every so often when your troops are taking missile fire. Nice but potentially irritating.
4. Each turn Ive been sending my diplomat around Europe making all kinds of deals to gauge the enemies response and the effect on relations. Id definately say that the AI is no longer as insanely unappeasable as it was before on Very Hard.
More tomorrow.
kawligia
04-07-2007, 07:19
Who has been to a theater to see a film that afterward they didn’t like? Or attended a sporting event where your team is pathetically crushed? I know I have. Neither is very entertaining. Yet I paid for them all. No refund. No recourse.
I lump games in with all other entertainment such as movies or sporting events.
Games with bugs are like bad films. You pay hoping you like the product but knowing that you may not. The advertisements for both promise satisfaction but you get no money back from Paramount nor do you get a free ticket for a remake. You get stuck.
At least software companies can patch errors as CA is trying to do. In the meantime we can walk the dog, watch a ballgame, go out to dinner, read a book or play something else. The patch will arrive in its' own sweet time.
That's specious reasoning.
According to that logic, you should not expect any refund or recourse if you purchase a book with missing pages, or a DVD that skipped through multiple scenes....plus they can "patch" it in their own sweet time by mailing you the missing pages or a supplemental DVD with the missing scenes.
You are comparing not liking a product b/c it doesn't work right with not liking a product b/c it doesn't fit your personal preferences. That's a faulty analysis, plain and simple...no offense.
Switching gears, I don't have the leaked patch unfortunately but I'm glad to hear so many of the problems have been worked out in the end. My faith in CA/Sega is still badly injured, but this successful patch saved it from dying completely.
Holy wow, my torrent's chugging along at 400 KB/s right now. Here's a better link to the file.
http://cache.torrentspy.com/download.asp?id=1121973
I imagine the poor guy will/should take down his tracker soon and let decentralized tracking take over. Hopefully this will be a good taste of what's to come officially later on.
:balloon2:
Durallan
04-07-2007, 08:18
it should be, the most important fixes are there, diplomacy ai, ai in general, I think that the VNV bugs I'm getting are only with loading an old save, I'm about to start up a campaign to see how it goes but after reinstalling I can only choose from the original 5 factions again waaaaah!!!!!
PutCashIn
04-07-2007, 08:19
Quikenin, I think all the metal resources can 'now' (read: next week, lol) support mines.
eg, Iron, Tin.
PutCashIn
04-07-2007, 08:30
Well, the readme said 'metals,' but im wondering about Coal, anyone with the 'bugged patch' ... ?
Nebuchadnezzar
04-07-2007, 09:29
Holy wow, my torrent's chugging along at 400 KB/s right now. Here's a better link to the file.
http://cache.torrentspy.com/download.asp?id=1121973
I imagine the poor guy will/should take down his tracker soon and let decentralized tracking take over. Hopefully this will be a good taste of what's to come officially later on.
:balloon2:
Doesn't really work that way as their is not a single computer doing the uploading but many. The good thing about torrent is that anybody that has already downloaded can then provide a portion of the upload (seed) simply by leaving there computer on when they are not using it.
So the more that download the patch, the more will upload and speeds will increase.
Doesn't really work that way as their is not a single computer doing the uploading but many. The good thing about torrent is that anybody that has already downloaded can then provide a portion of the upload (seed) simply by leaving there computer on when they are not using it.
So the more that download the patch, the more will upload and speeds will increase.
Ermm... Thanks for the little tidbit there, many of us (myself included) already know how bittorrent works. I don't recall saying that there was only one PC doing the uploading. I simply said that if the guy who was originally hosting the tracker for this torrent wants to, he can take it down and let the built-in decentralized tracking functions in a number of clients take over so he doesn't have it sucking up bandwidth constantly. In fact it looks like he's already done that, I haven't been able to get a scrape from his tracker since I've been on it for the past few hours.
This is probably as good of a place as any to add a reminder for everyone:
This is NOT the official patch folks! Download/install this at your own risk!
:balloon2:
LOL i never installed any patch for M2T and it runs fine with no bugs or anything on a computer that's 3 years old
am i the only one that doesn't need patching:inquisitive:
Empirate
04-07-2007, 10:18
When we talk about bugs, we don't mean the dreaded white X on red popping up - we're talking about spearmen being more ineffective against cavalry than sword infantry, pikemen not using their pikes, billmen not attacking cavalry once engaged and so on.
Besides, there seem to be a lot of balance issues that are tackled by the new patch - diplomacy, traits, cavalry charges... you name it. If you don't need these, fine, but a lot of us here are quite anxious to get our hands on something official to make the game a much better experience.
LOL i never installed any patch for M2T and it runs fine with no bugs or anything on a computer that's 3 years old
am i the only one that doesn't need patching:inquisitive:
Everyone needs patching; but not all the bugs are obvious.
If you're enjoying the game, good - but some people aren't, unfortunately ~:(
Nebuchadnezzar
04-07-2007, 10:38
Ermm... Thanks for the little tidbit there, many of us (myself included) already know how bittorrent works.
Sorry!
Official or not, the changes are mostly good. Still a few bugs though.
AI is still passive sometimes with seige
Tower bug not fixed
Venetian armour upgrades still not fixed
Ancillaries still need tweaking. ie Marco polo still gets awarded to agents.
Jokerkaaos
04-07-2007, 11:19
I am playing with this patch now, off a clean install and patching from 1.0.
I have had no crashes, and noticed no new bugs.
I play on vh/vh and the AI is definitely beefed up. Rebel towns have much nicer units in them to start - I started a short campaign as England and sent Price Rufus to take York. Not expecting much more of a challenge from the AI, I cruised right on in -- whereupon I got pounded by English Knights, Armoured Sergeants, Longbowmen, etc.
Prince Rufus was among the casualties - year 2. Oops!
Also, AI empires gobble up rebel provinces MUCH faster now. By the time I got map info out of France (maybe 15 turns in, there were no rebel provinces anywhere to be seen in Western Europe except Bruges, which is under seige by me now.
I can confirm a lot of the things people report - much better router-chasing, and much better unit cohesion in battles. It's great watching two lines of infantry meet and crunch together under the weight of the men, with lines holding and formations compressing.
Battle AI is better. Enemy troops don't sit and take missile fire, and cavalry definitely tries to flank a lot more.
I recruited a priest in Caen (as ordered by the Pope) and he immediately turned heretic and moved out of town during the end-of-turn phase, before I ever got to use him even once. That's a new one for me.
I got excommunicated for finishing off Scotland and another heretic appeared immediately in London.
I also encountered a Trait I had not seen before... LOL:
https://img399.imageshack.us/img399/3290/0000ji8.th.jpg (https://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0000ji8.jpg)
(And yes, I turned him down. One star and 53 years old for my daughter? Please.)
Okay I first had a couple of custom battles to test the units. Oddly, the first thing I noticed was the the speed arrow had changed. Whereas before the speeds were x1,x2 and x3, they are now 1.0, 2.0 and 6.0.
I can point out that you can actually slow down the battles below 1.0 now.
Haven't tried it but if you press shift and then lower the speed you can get 0.9 and below.
Hmmm... Whomever said this earlier weren't a'kiddin'. It took at least an hour and a half to uninstall, reinstall, patch, and then unpack. Overall first impressions seem to be positive, here's what I tested or attempted to test so far.
The Good:
- Chasing of routers is indeed improved.*
- Inquisitors will no longer bake your leader or heir. Check the config files for some new triggers and settings.
- Gunpowder unit cohesion is much better when taking fire.**
- They weren't kiddin' either when they said knights and heavy cavalry will omfgwtfbbqpwn just about everything. This I like. Very much.***
- Spear units in schiltron can, pound for pound, at least hold off light cavalry. The cheaper units will be hard pressed though, but I ran 5 tests with a single levy spear unit vs some border horse, spears won all 5 times but with heavy casualties. I didn't bother testing with knights.
- No CTD that I can discern.
The Bad:
- *Chasing routers is improved but still not nearly as good as it was in RTW. Needs work.
- **Gunpowder units could use a little bit more tweaking to ensure fire rates when taking casualties. It's definitely improved though.
- ***Heavy cav is actually so effective that they can still take on, and squarely beat, braces pikes in a head-on charge. The charge in the front won't break up the formation and the knights on the front line will most likely get skewered, but the charge "wraparound" will ensure there's significant side impact. I did a single test on medium with hospitalier knights against noble pikemen, and I ended up killing every last pikeman and lost 40 knights out of 81 starting with a direct, formed, head-on charge into braced pikes. That just isn't right...
- Light cav still cause enormous casualties on charging, far more than they should.
The Ugly:
- The damn program still overwrites/rewrites your configs, so you have to make them read only still.
- They still didn't fix that descr_geography bit where you have to delete those files. Yeah it's minor, but it's still attention to detail.
Disclaimer - Reminder that this is NOT an official patch, but it's supposed to be close. I can't comment on the 1-fps siege ladder bug because I never experienced it.
:balloon2:
FactionHeir
04-07-2007, 12:04
While I haven't gotten myself 1.2, I'm guessing that heavy cav still rout spearmen just as easily because of the shieldbug fix.
Don't forget that cavalry has shields too and pre-patch, it was suffering a loss to defence too due to shieldbug.
Now since spears usually have 2 more points in shield compared to cav, they now have 4 more defence than pre-patch, leading to a few more cav dying on impact.
I've found cav to be less weak in 1.2, but still a bit too strong.
While I haven't gotten myself 1.2, I'm guessing that heavy cav still rout spearmen just as easily because of the shieldbug fix.
Don't forget that cavalry has shields too and pre-patch, it was suffering a loss to defence too due to shieldbug.
Now since spears usually have 2 more points in shield compared to cav, they now have 4 more defence than pre-patch, leading to a few more cav dying on impact.
Shields don't/shouldn't matter one whit in terms of being on the receiving end of a heavy cavalry charge. I ran another test where I took on 120 DFKs with 80 Hospitalier knights. I lost 10 knights in the immediate post-charge melee, and killed all the DFKs. Half the DFKs died on impact. This is exactly what I'd expect and like to see.
Cav vs. spears and pikes still needs tweaking, and light cav needs to be nerfed a good deal.
I've found cav to be less weak in 1.2, but still a bit too strong.
Light cav needs to be nerfed some, yes I agree. Heavy cav, no, except against braced/stationary spears and pikes. Heavy cav against anything but those performs exactly how I'd expect now, which is that they cheerfully mulch just about everything.
:balloon2:
Yeah light cav needs to be nerfed, this is the new charge bonuses for cav primary weapons im implementing in LTC 2.2:
Heavy cav with armoured horse: 6
Heavy cav with barded/mailed horse: 4
Heavy cav with heavy horse: 3
Medium/Light cav: 2
And setting all cav secondary weapons charge bonus to 2.
I even find heavy cav to be a bit overpowered as well, i know they were the tanks of the medieval period but having them able to own everything does pretty much ruin all balance, they need to be toned down a bit.
Marius Dynamite
04-07-2007, 12:19
actually most of the time you probably won't.... one time I went to see a movie as a kid and I can clearly remember that the power went out movie stopped half way through and we were asked to walk to the exit but no refunds were given. I can't remember if we got to see the rest of the movie or not, maybe but I'm just saying its not likely unless you demand it.
I guess it depends who the manager is and how he feels. I remember my parents went out to see Troy and it cut off for about 30 seconds and they got free tickets to any movie of their choice after it.
I even find heavy cav to be a bit overpowered as well, i know they were the tanks of the medieval period but having them able to own everything does pretty much ruin all balance, they need to be toned down a bit.
OK, ran a test with the pike fix (removing 2nd weapon) on noble pikemen vs. chivalric knights. Pikemen slaughtered the knights, 122 knights standing vs. 20 knights when they routed. It would seem there's still a need for the basic pike fix.
I disagree with you about heavy cav, at least in terms of single player. As you say, they were the tanks of their age. My response would be "bring the right tool for the job", in this case long/heavy spears, polearms, and/or pikes. If one goes to fight and doesn't have any of the former when facing mounted knights, then it shouldn't be any surprise when staring at the results screen with "DEFEAT!" written all over it.
:balloon2:
FactionHeir
04-07-2007, 12:48
I've never actually seen a secondary weapon charge in M2TW. Even with Alt charge they still use their primaries.
@Whacker: Could you upload your unpacked files anywhere please, it would give modders who are unwilling to install the unofficial patch, (such as me because i'm working on Rebuild-ProblemFixer and need to be on the same version as my testers), for various reasons. Preferably NOT a torrent as i'm not particularly enthused with the idea of downloading an installing a program JUST to get at a few files. I try to keep junk programs I'll never/hardly use off my PC ATM.
yezhanquan85
04-07-2007, 12:55
Can anyone test if the traits are working properly? Somehow, the 0 piety thingy still hits, not to mention the bishop "only" coming from cathedral...
Nebuchadnezzar
04-07-2007, 13:09
Traits seem to be much improved with most generals coming with at least +3 piety.
Bishops for catholics and orthodox both fixed.
Still needs some work though as a lot of generals get appreciated/unappreciated traits turn after turn. Annoying.
Have not looked whether princesses triggers fixed.
A few other minor tweaks required
Derfasciti
04-07-2007, 13:17
What exactly is Update 2? Is it the new patch?
If so, what fixes does it have and where can I D/L it?
What exactly is Update 2? Is it the new patch?
If so, what fixes does it have and where can I D/L it?
Yes, but it has NOT been officially released yet. What people's talking lately is the unofficial leaked patch. You can see the "should be" list of fixes and links at page 10, I haven't tried it myself though.
Derfasciti
04-07-2007, 13:24
I just downloaded it from the link from page 10. It was EXTREMELY quick which makes me question if I'm doing this right :dizzy2:
the file name is MIITW_Update2_Final_EFIGS[1].exe and it asks me where I should open it and I'm now totally confused on what to do :help:
I just downloaded it from the link from page 10. It was EXTREMELY quick which makes me question if I'm doing this right :dizzy2:
the file name is MIITW_Update2_Final_EFIGS[1].exe and it asks me where I should open it and I'm now totally confused on what to do :help:
What's the file size? And what's your internet speed?
Derfasciti
04-07-2007, 13:33
I have cable internet.
size: 24.3 KB (24,943 bytes)
Size on disk: 28.0 KB (28,672 bytes)
this is not looking like the patch:dizzy2:
Side questions based on reviews of leaked patch: 1) When is the official patch coming out and will it be any different from the leaked? 2) Do I need to reinstall the game, if so should I patch 1.1 too? 3) If I don't need to reinstall saved games should be OK right?
Also, assuming that they haven't moved it shouldn't the patch be out now since it's April 7? April 5 being the release date.
@ Derfasciti
Friend, based on your posts so far I'm going to strongly urge you to NOT try and install this "leaked" update, and wait for the official patch and official support. If you have questions about installing it, CA/Sega should be publishing some detailed instructions on how to get the patch, and how to install it. It just seems that you aren't very technically inclined... no disrespect intended of course. Just trying to save you some time, heartache, and potentially hosing up your game by trying to installing this.
:balloon2:
@Derfasciti - you downloaded the torrent.
If you're unfamiliar with bittorrent, I'd advise you to wait for the official patch
Derfasciti
04-07-2007, 14:20
hehe yes you are indeed correct when you think I'm not computer savvy. I just play on these things, I don't know how to actually DO anything with them:laugh4:
So, when is the official patch coming out then? Anyone know?
@Derfasciti HIS "( Bits you was download is ok. You must make now a double click on the icon . Then the Program is downloading. But you need this Torrent prgram fodnlad it. I make the some yesterday night and first in the night it was working and my piece bar was green but very slow 3bits-15 bits. Then in the Night it was broken and since this morning my piece bar is grey (File in moment not for Download) I think they put the Patch away from net, i don´t know. Please check you if it´s working and let me know.
hehe yes you are indeed correct when you think I'm not computer savvy. I just play on these things, I don't know how to actually DO anything with them:laugh4:
So, when is the official patch coming out then? Anyone know?
When it's done ~;)
So, a little more feed-back:
- No hotseat.
- Spears are indeed quite effective against horses, they only need to have good valour and they need their flanks covered all the time, since horses can still scare them away easily, but head on they are effective.
- Rest of the foot is still bad, good cav charge can kill a unit of varangians in seconds.
- Horses can still run away from fight, with nearly no losses.
- Two handed weapons now work properly, they are better against horses than normal swords. Again, if they are not charged.
- Horse archers are still way to hard to catch, even with high speed horses.
- Light horses charge is still overpowered.
- No stat fixes, units stats are exactly the same as before, not even a price fix in 'mongol infantry - dismounted archers' bug.
- Bilmen, still bad against horse charge, they are effective if horses are pined down tho.
- Pikes, while still good against horses, now can loose against normal foot head-on, they still hold very long against them, but eventually they loose.
- More for mp and I havent fully tested it, but it looks like click behind bug is fixed!
FactionHeir
04-07-2007, 16:32
Any word on anti-trait behavior?
Any word on anti-trait behavior?
Define anti-trait stuff? I am pleased to note that when you capture a city/castle and choose to simply "Occupy" it, you will lose Dread. Haven't got this far yet, but I can hope/assume that it'll start increasing Chivalry points when you reach dead even.
Traits seem to be improved overall. Carl has the unofficial v1.2 configs and should be looking through them as we speak.
Some other observations:
- Peasants are still ... kinda powerful, if you match them up 1 to 1 against say a Spear Militia. In the 5 tests I ran, the SM won 4 times, but always by a small margin. I thought about this for a bit and actually realized this isn't too terribly far off what was probably reality. A "peasant levy" or militia would be simply commoners drug out of their abodes, tossed a spear and an overcoat and told to go stabby stab the badguys with very little training. In short, glorified peasants. As such they shouldn't be too far off from the raw "peasant" unit, which so far I don't think they are. SM should probably beat Peasants by better than they do right now, but it's not bad.
- I encountered a REALLY wierd bug/glitch when playing a custom siege. Set myself up as the english with 4 DFKs holding a level 2 def. citadel against 12 units of peasants carrying 2 towers and 1 ram. My defenses blew away one tower before it got to my walls, but the ram made it to and past my gate, and one tower made it to the wall before it was shortly destroyed. The wierd behavior was the scottish peasant army... I finally caused a chain route, but when a unit started to route, it didn't go anywhere. Literally. They just stopped dead in their tracks and that was that, the flags were flashing white, but they weren't exiting stage right.
- The AI is most definitely smarter. Previously in sieges I could do some sneaky backdoor crap with ladders or towers away from where the bulk of my forces where, can't do that at all anymore. AI promptly moves to plug all holes and meet any threats that I can throw against it.
rosscoliosis
04-07-2007, 18:32
I screwed around with the patch last night in a new HRE campaign, and so far things seem quite a bit better. However, I did notice that when I ordered my peasant archers to attack the enemy archers on a castle's battlements, they simply walked all the way up to the wall and then stood there. It wasn't a range thing either, because after realizing they had done this, I ran them back aways and they then began to fire at the enemy archers on their own. I had never had an issue like this before, at least not in my English campaign anyway, though I do remember people talking about archers attempting to melee instead of fire arrows when given an attack command. But if my memory serves me, wasn't that one of the items fixed with the 1.1 patch?
Also, I think someone had asked something about the towers being improved, and though I can't say for certain yet, when I sent a ram and a siege tower (straight) at a castle, the ram was destroyed before it got to the gate, and the siege tower was destroyed shortly after making it to the wall. The enemy only had two units of peasant archers on the walls. I don't remember them being destroyed so easily early in the game before. Oh, and then the battle did not end after all my siege equipment were destroyed... (before any units could make it inside/over the walls) something that was fixed in 1.1 as well. Hmm.
So, a little more feed-back:
- No hotseat.
- Spears are indeed quite effective against horses, they only need to have good valour and they need their flanks covered all the time, since horses can still scare them away easily, but head on they are effective.
- Rest of the foot is still bad, good cav charge can kill a unit of varangians in seconds.
- Horses can still run away from fight, with nearly no losses.
- Two handed weapons now work properly, they are better against horses than normal swords. Again, if they are not charged.
- Horse archers are still way to hard to catch, even with high speed horses.
- Light horses charge is still overpowered.
- No stat fixes, units stats are exactly the same as before, not even a price fix in 'mongol infantry - dismounted archers' bug.
- Bilmen, still bad against horse charge, they are effective if horses are pined down tho.
- Pikes, while still good against horses, now can loose against normal foot head-on, they still hold very long against them, but eventually they loose.
- More for mp and I havent fully tested it, but it looks like click behind bug is fixed!
Sounds good in general.
Any change in unit prices? Do archers, 2H axemen cost the same?
Shields don't/shouldn't matter one whit in terms of being on the receiving end of a heavy cavalry charge. I ran another test where I took on 120 DFKs with 80 Hospitalier knights. I lost 10 knights in the immediate post-charge melee, and killed all the DFKs. Half the DFKs died on impact. This is exactly what I'd expect and like to see.
Funny, it's exactly what I'd like NOT to see. Heavy cavalry does not cost sufficiently more than heavy infantry to be producing this sort of result against every kind of unit on the battlefield. The cost must go up substantially, or else they must be A. substantially less powerful or B. have a BIG weakness.
Second, how could you actually say this? For the men being hit by lances, there is clearly a benefit to receiving the blow on a shield as opposed to directly in your chest. At the very least the shield will lessen the energy of the impact as the lance forces through it, and may very well prevent it from damaging the armor on your body at all as a result. It may also be possible to deflect the blow entirely away from your body, which clearly you can't do without a shield. You can't just write off a shield as if it will do nothing at all.
I even find heavy cav to be a bit overpowered as well, i know they were the tanks of the medieval period but having them able to own everything does pretty much ruin all balance, they need to be toned down a bit.
Exactly.
Sounds good in general.
Any change in unit prices? Do archers, 2H axemen cost the same?
Units cost is the same as before. And yes it is a decent patch. I realy can't remmember any better one from this company. ~;)
Funny, it's exactly what I'd like NOT to see. Heavy cavalry does not cost sufficiently more than heavy infantry to be producing this sort of result against every kind of unit on the battlefield. The cost must go up substantially, or else they must be A. substantially less powerful or B. have a BIG weakness.
I honestly don't care about cost in the campaign. My normal play tactics ensure that I have a sufficient income that I can spend it wisely each turn and improve my provinces and recruit what I need, with a bit left over as a safety net for the next turn. Of course this is usually moot halfway through when you're guaranteed to win and making so much money you have to figure out creative ways to get rid of the excess. In principle I agree though, mounted heavy cav should be more expensive than it is right now.
Second, how could you actually say this? For the men being hit by lances, there is clearly a benefit to receiving the blow on a shield as opposed to directly in your chest. At the very least the shield will lessen the energy of the impact as the lance forces through it, and may very well prevent it from damaging the armor on your body at all as a result. It may also be possible to deflect the blow entirely away from your body, which clearly you can't do without a shield. You can't just write off a shield as if it will do nothing at all.
My choice of words could have been better. I'm not writing them off as doing nothing at all, but the impact they have is going to be minimal at best. It's entirely possible that an incredibly lucky or skilled person could divert *some* of the energy of the blow, but it's unlikely unless the charger has miserable skill in shock tactics. Even if we were to assume that it were possible, another thing to consider is that knights didn't always ride to the side of the target, quite often they would literally ride directly AT them with the aim to both skewer with the lance and knock them senseless when the horse collides with them. No matter how one looks at this, the target is going to be significantly worse for the wear, if not dead/knocked out immediately after impact. While I hope you haven't, if you've ever been in a bad car wreck you can begin to appreciate some of the magnitude of the forces at work and how they relate to this and shock tactics.
Quickening
04-07-2007, 19:22
I don't think Knights are as ultra hard as is being made out. Against a good infantry unit they lose.
Here was my latest test. One unit of English Knights versus Dismounted Chivalrous Knights. I got a great head on charge but it did not inflict as many casualties as it does when Im charging say peasants or archers. And after that charge, my knights were soundly thrashed in combat.
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/David1536/knights.jpg
This seems reasonable to me.
Oh and here's a picture of the new launcher for those interested.
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/David1536/Launcher.jpg
I don't think Knights are as ultra hard as is being made out. Against a good infantry unit they lose.
Here was my latest test. One unit of English Knights versus Dismounted Chivalrous Knights. I got a great head on charge but it did not inflict as many casualties as it does when Im charging say peasants or archers. And after that charge, my knights were soundly thrashed in combat.
Are we playing the same game? :inquisitive: :dizzy2:
https://img453.imageshack.us/img453/1579/0000fm5.th.jpg (https://img453.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0000fm5.jpg)
Edit - Dang, itchy trigger finger today. Forgot to mention, half of the DCKs were dead on impact.
Quickening
04-07-2007, 19:32
Are we playing the same game? :inquisitive: :dizzy2:
https://img453.imageshack.us/img453/1579/0000fm5.th.jpg (https://img453.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0000fm5.jpg)
Edit - Dang, itchy trigger finger today. Forgot to mention, half of the DCKs were dead on impact.
That's weird. Seriously, Knights get decimated in melee combat against decent heavy infantry and barely make an impact on their charge. Odd.
That's weird. Seriously, Knights get decimated in melee combat against decent heavy infantry and barely make an impact on their charge. Odd.
Part in bold I sorta agree with, they take casualties but don't get decimated. The real key is to get a really good, solid initial charge and you're pretty much guaranteed 50%+ casualties on impact.
When I run my tests, I almost always use grassy plain (didn't in this case) on medium difficulty. In this case, when the game started I single clicked the DCKs and let the game do the rest. Also, I put my knights 5 rows deep. Give all that a shot and see what happens.
Quickening
04-07-2007, 19:53
Part in bold I sorta agree with, they take casualties but don't get decimated. The real key is to get a really good, solid initial charge and you're pretty much guaranteed 50%+ casualties on impact.
When I run my tests, I almost always use grassy plain (didn't in this case) on medium difficulty. In this case, when the game started I single clicked the DCKs and let the game do the rest. Also, I put my knights 5 rows deep. Give all that a shot and see what happens.
Alright doing it your way the Knights won although not by much.
My test was done on very hard, the default map, my knights were in the formation they start in and I double clicked to charge.
So what does this tell us? Single clicking to charge is more effective? Your formation was more powerful? Very hard gives the AI some kind of bonus in combat?
Interesting.
Single click charging is more effective as it tires out the cav less.
Quickening
04-07-2007, 20:02
Single click charging is more effective as it tires out the cav less.
Yeah seems so. I just replayed the battle as I originally had it, the only difference being that this time I used single click charge. And the Knights won. Although again, they weren't exactly thrashing the DCK.
Yeah seems so. I just replayed the battle as I originally had it, the only difference being that this time I used single click charge. And the Knights won. Although again, they weren't exactly thrashing the DCK.
*IF* the old RTW rules carried over, then depth of your formation should also have a bearing on success. Deeper formations are supposed to yield better results, at least in RTW. Obviously charging downhill is going to help one out too.
The rule of thumb I use in M2TW is match your formation depth to your target, and always single click to charge. By formation depth, I generally try to keep my knights spread out about as wide as whatever I'm going up against. Worked fine for me so far, there may be other better ways as well.
Good luck.
:balloon2:
FactionHeir
04-07-2007, 20:59
I've already finished tweaking the 1.2 traits and ancillaries on my end but without having 1.2 actually installed, I'm not sure whether anti traits still knock off all points in their anti trait as opposed to 1 point only when tresholds are met.
Anyone got info on that?
As for cav charges, I always use double click (i walk up the enemy roughly double charge distance before double licking). That doesn't tire cav out and also ensures the running formation is tight instead of wobbly which is what occurs when you single click charge (some knights take longer to take off to full speed)
Also noticed in 1.1 at least that with double click charges my knights suffer significantly less casualties than with single click.
I eventually downloaded the torrent unofficial patch - it took around 18 hours! (probably my router needs adjusting, but I'm a torrent newbie).
I got to 1178 in an England VH/VH campaign and am finding it harder that pre-patch. (The proviso here is that I was one of those people who found it challenging pre-patch: not sure why, I like to think it's because I don't sack/exterminate and because I always obey the Pope rather than because I am a poor player). By 1178, I have the two Flemish towns, plus my continental castle. I've knocked out Scotland and have a crusade beseiging Antioch. I've lost Wales. And that's it. It's not a terribly impressive performance on my part (given some folk report winning the campaign after 50 turns). But it does make for a fun game.
I may be imagining it, but the strategic AI seems a little more aggressive (and perhaps anti-player). Early on the Spanish appeared out of nowhere to take my starter continental castle (name escape me - I haven't controlled it for much of the game, lol!). The Portugese landed in Wales and took Carnaevan with a full stack. These two moves were "Civ" like in their surprising level of aggression, seriousness and effectiveness. :2thumbsup: The only downside is quite a few times the AI besieged weakly guarded towns with too few men - rough parity, leading to an easy rebuff thanks to my towers. I don't recall this before, although may be the problem will start to go away once the AI gets more access to artillery as the campaign progresses. The Danes also kept doing a weird dance early on, unloading a big stack next to Nottingham then reloading it. Eventually, I got fed up of the threat and sunk the one ship carrying that big (but low level) army.
To be honest, I have not noticed much change in the battles. I guess shielded units are more robust, but as most my melees are between shielded units, this tends to cancel out. I suppose kill rates much be lower - it does feel less frenetic (although AI sallies tend to be over very quickly).
I avoided 2H weapons until now and it's too early for me to have DEKs. Gallowglasses are awful attacking walls against shielded defenders (one factor in a humiliating defeat when I tried to assault the Scottish king in Dublin). But sliced through peasants in the streets with panache (the animation has then spinning their opponents back as if in a whirlwind).
Cavalry is still extremely powerful - as predicted by some, fixing the shield bug does little to weaken them as the early cav have pretty significant shields (fxiing the bug is a net +4 adjustment to spears vs shielded cav). If anything, fixing the shield bug seems to make cavalry more robust. They still suffer if caught standing, e.g. in city street, but they don't drop like flies the way they did before. Stationary combat between spears and knights seems a draw, which seems ok realism-wise (no idea about "balance"). My spears do ok against enemy cav - I can take them without feeling guilty now - although I don't give the enemy cav much change to charge them. Proper handling of my cav means I don't tend to experience the effects of my cav charging spears frontally (go for the rear/flank and you should be fine). All this is just for early troops - merc spears, mailed knights, bodyguards etc.
The Pope seems harder to keep sweet. I'm paying him 100 florins each turn, sometimes 500 and my relation is still very poor - despite voting for him and obeying him. I suspect it will take serious sums of money to get good relations. My crusade deserted twice sailing round Spain (maybe just bad luck - it happened only once pre-patch). This time desertion losses are full units; I thought they were fractions of units pre-patch but maybe I am imagining that. I am not 100% sure about the change in the Pope's attitude or the desertion point - I have not played seriously since the shield bug was discovered.
Units cost is the same as before. And yes it is a decent patch. I realy can't remmember any better one from this company. ~;)
That is bit strange. I would have expected the cost of 2H axe units to be increased. After all they are much better than they were before the patch (and they were dirt cheap, except norse axemen).
Cavalry guys ~;) could you do me one test? Just charge an armoured sergeant head on with a chiv knight (same unit width), 3 or 4 times. Before the patch AS took more than 50 men casualty from a good charge. I would like to see the current figure (I am expecting around 20-30).
Cavalry guys ~;) could you do me one test? Just charge an armoured sergeant head on with a chiv knight (same unit width), 3 or 4 times. Before the patch AS took more than 50 men casualty from a good charge. I would like to see the current figure (I am expecting around 20-30).
As ordered.
Test map is grassy plain, medium difficulty, huge unit size. Setup is me with a unit of French mounted Chivalric Knights, against single unit of English Armored Sergeants. 5 ranks deep of cav matches up nicely to the default AS spread. Tactic is to single click on the AS and let the game do the rest. Results as follows:
Run 1: Hey! They formed a schiltron! Approx 40 casualties on impact. AS wins! 29 to 2.
Run 2: Slightly different tactic. I let them come to me, then charged. 60 casualties on impact. Whew that was a long melee. CKs win (barely), 15 to 5.
Run 3: This time I went after them again. They formed a schiltron when I was about... hell I dunno. 4 units away? 35 casualties on impact. Damn the CKs got butchered this time. AS wins, 64 to 3.
Run 4: Same tactic as 2 again, let them come to me. I also just noticed that immediately on mission start, the "weight of forces" bar is slightly in favor of the AS. 50 casualties on impact. AS win by a small margin! 17 to 3!
Most interesting, and again reasonable in my view. Heavy/armored spears will be heavy cav, but will take some hefty casualties in the process. Schiltrons of heavy spears will take some damage but are heavy cav mulchers. Also please note I did not do any of the charge/backoff/rinse/repeat stuff, so take that into consideration.
:balloon2:
thx Whacker :bow: Alas, I forgot to tell that I was using normal unit size :sweatdrop: (which means 75 strong As and 40 strong CK). Huge is 90 strong AS right, or is it 120 :sweatdrop:? Anyway in itself means proportionally smaller casualties. Importantly the AI is clever enough this time to form schiltron (it never did in my tests) and it seems that schiltron decreases the casualties from the impact (good news because before the pacth casualties were the same regardless whether your AS was in schiltron or not). Also, I am not interested in the pull-out-recharge thing, just in the impact. So, perfect test :2thumbsup: (apart from unit size :sweatdrop: )
Thx again.
pike master
04-08-2007, 02:28
well at least we have something to hold up an all cav army better now even if it is only the shield and spear infantry. then also two handed axe units to move in and slaughter cav that are bogged down.
it would appear that pikes were completely untouched, which confirms my suspicion that CA wanted it that way since the ca staff never gave any reply to all the pike threads in the .com forum.
and it appears that halberd and two handers[swords] are left as is.
is this an accurate assessment?
I'm in the same position several other people have mentioned: haven't made it far enough yet to really make comments about a lot of things. One thing I've noticed for sure now - Good lord the General's Bodyguards walk all over everything. I imagine they can be brought down if they get pinned down and then attacked by 2-handers, but that's about the only thing that I think will really be able to dent them substantially. In the early stages of the game I'm having fights where the bodyguards mow through 3-5 units of archers, then a few units of spearmen, and are still well above half capacity (often gaining multiple chevrons along the way). Of course it's not necessarily a bad thing - their armor level is way beyond the level of the rebel units I've been encountering, so they really SHOULD be nigh untouchable at this point. They should remain potent as the game goes on, but units with higher attack values should be able to do sufficient damage to take them down without going to ridiculous lengths. I will say, though, that it just got a lot more handy to have a general or 4 along with every attack. Even wading through melee in the streets, they seem considerably better than before...
Spears versus cavalry seems largely like it did with my shield fix in place in 1.1. If the spears get braced, they usually at least cause some trouble for the cav. If not, the usual massacre. Since they're the only unit available for a long time that can really take a charge, it seems they finally have a genuine reason to be recruited and used in armies.
As for anti-traits, I didn't get a good look at it happening yet - my freaking spy died trying to spy on a diplomat, of all things. GRR. I seem to recall one of the easiest tests was to start Scotland, cap the nearest settlement, and occupy it - the leader has 2 points strategydread I think it is, and the 1 point strategychivalry from occupying should easily show what the game is doing. I'll be back once it's done to report.
Edit: RESULTS - Anti-traits work correctly in leaked 1.2. As a result of occupying the settlement, I went down to "mean leader" level, which is only 1 dread as opposed to 2. I even got a pop-up message telling me that the trait had decreased as a result of easing up on the people.
The guy had gained 2 dread points in other trait lines as a result of the horrific carnage that was the battle for Inverness, though. I managed to rack up well over 300 kills with the bodyguard unit during the battle, and that's on normal unit sizes. They gained FIVE experience. Yeah, that's 2 silver from nothing, in just one battle. They started at 28, took 21 losses, 7 survived including the general. Crazy. I hardly even needed the half stack that was along with them, except to have some guys with legs to batter down the gate...
Durallan
04-08-2007, 05:56
Time to be very afraid when the AI attacks you with their own generals now :P oh god and the mongols and timurids now, Mummy!!!!!!!
the_Foz, that's the reason one should mod the General units to have only 1 HP. They're so overpowered otherwise.
FactionHeir
04-08-2007, 10:38
Edit: RESULTS - Anti-traits work correctly in leaked 1.2. As a result of occupying the settlement, I went down to "mean leader" level, which is only 1 dread as opposed to 2. I even got a pop-up message telling me that the trait had decreased as a result of easing up on the people.
The guy had gained 2 dread points in other trait lines as a result of the horrific carnage that was the battle for Inverness, though. I managed to rack up well over 300 kills with the bodyguard unit during the battle, and that's on normal unit sizes. They gained FIVE experience. Yeah, that's 2 silver from nothing, in just one battle. They started at 28, took 21 losses, 7 survived including the general. Crazy. I hardly even needed the half stack that was along with them, except to have some guys with legs to batter down the gate...
Thanks for checking Foz! Here's a cookie for ya! :)
Could you verify a bit more for me by using say a diplomat and giving him GoodDiplomat 5 and then failing a few missions? (you can even fail multiple a turn by talking to a different faction each time using character_reset)
GB seem to really be tough now according to what you say. I don't want to think of a FactionLeader with a few secruity traits. GB with 2hp and roughly the amount of a normal cav unit :p
Are GB still very vulnerable to prong attacks though? Like being engaged at the front and then enveloped from the back by any time of unit? (really any unit pre-patch, maybe only heavy or spear now?)
Midnight
04-08-2007, 11:13
Could somebody with the leaked patch please test how shieldless units now fare against units with shields? Are the shieldless units looking a little feeble now, or do they still hold their own?
Quickening
04-08-2007, 11:37
Could somebody with the leaked patch please test how shieldless units now fare against units with shields? Are the shieldless units looking a little feeble now, or do they still hold their own?
Spear Militia don't destroy peasants quite as well as they should. In fact, sometimes they lose.
If you have a specific matchup in mind just say it and I'll test it.
FactionHeir
04-08-2007, 12:17
Hmmm I'm interested in the post-patch charge of cav vs heavy infantry. In terms of single vs double clicking.
Field: Grassy Plain
Difficulty: VH
Distance: Closests possible
Setup: Dismounted Feudal Knights vs Knight Hospitaller (no upgrades)
Terms: 5x single click charging, 5x double click charging. To be done right at the onset of the test. (no walking up and then clicking)
Variations: Possibly vary who is defender and who is attacker. Might need to add a few junk units like peasants as generals and extras to force the AI to either be static or attack
Thanks :)
Quickening
04-08-2007, 12:32
Hmmm I'm interested in the post-patch charge of cav vs heavy infantry. In terms of single vs double clicking.
Field: Grassy Plain
Difficulty: VH
Distance: Closests possible
Setup: Dismounted Feudal Knights vs Knight Hospitaller (no upgrades)
Terms: 5x single click charging, 5x double click charging. To be done right at the onset of the test. (no walking up and then clicking)
Variations: Possibly vary who is defender and who is attacker. Might need to add a few junk units like peasants as generals and extras to force the AI to either be static or attack
Thanks :)
Okay I'll write the results as I do them in between spewing my guts out. Worst.Hangover.Ever.
Okay, no matter whether you double click or single click, the Knights Hospitallers absolutely DECIMATE Dismounted Feudal Knights on impact. Once fighting has begun the kill rate begins to even out (although KH are clearly better) but it's already far too late for the DFK.
I played five games as DFK and lost everytime severely. A further five as KH trying out the single click charge and another five as KH trying the double click. As I said, DFK were annihilated everytime.
FactionHeir
04-08-2007, 15:11
Thanks for running the tests :)
Did you see any notable differences in casualties on initial charge impact though? Like more casualties for either side under certain circumstances?
How come you ended up with a hangover mate. Too much partying after getting 1.2? :)
Quickening
04-08-2007, 15:25
Thanks for running the tests :)
Did you see any notable differences in casualties on initial charge impact though? Like more casualties for either side under certain circumstances?
How come you ended up with a hangover mate. Too much partying after getting 1.2? :)
I kept a special eye out for any difference in impact depending on circumstances, especially single and double clicking. But it was always just as devastating in all cases.
Another note on cavalry, as others have said the pursuing routers has been improved but still needs a lot of work. You still get the frustration of what looks like is going to be a satisfying sweep over the running troops only for your cavalry to stop inches before.
As for the hangover, well just because Guiness is smooth and easy to drink quickly, doesn't mean you should. I'll learn one day. :laugh4:
Are there anymore tests I can try? I like running tests. What's the best matchup to test whether the two-handed bug has been fixed?
FactionHeir
04-08-2007, 15:33
I'd say dismounted English knights against feudal knights and Billmen against town militia.
Then rerun with mailed knights and mounted sergeants as opponents respectively. Pre-patch, these two handed units would get killed by each of these match ups.
Btw, does cav chasing routers still converge at the tip and run into each other and thus stop dead? (have a approx full strength cav in 3-4 ranks chase routers that only have max 5 men left - best on small unit sizes)
Quickening
04-08-2007, 16:00
I'd say dismounted English knights against feudal knights and Billmen against town militia.
Then rerun with mailed knights and mounted sergeants as opponents respectively. Pre-patch, these two handed units would get killed by each of these match ups.
Okay I did those tests and while the Dismounted English Knights and Billmen will win the majority of the time, it's like peasants versus spear militia, they aren't beating them as decisively as they should by a long shot.
Although in one test something hilarious happened. The Scot's captain immediately broke away from his formation and began sprinting for the hills! The coward! I captured his shame. Check on the left :laugh4:
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/David1536/Captain.jpg
Btw, does cav chasing routers still converge at the tip and run into each other and thus stop dead? (have a approx full strength cav in 3-4 ranks chase routers that only have max 5 men left - best on small unit sizes)
Yeah they do. It seems that everything is as it was except that now every so often the cavalry will do their job RTW style.
Midnight
04-08-2007, 16:36
Interesting results. Thanks for running the tests.
Anybody able to hazard a guess as to why the DEK and Billmen aren't winning as often as they should? Or why peasants still pose a (small) threat to spear militia? I don't have the patch, but it sounds as if there's still something odd going on.
Anybody able to hazard a guess as to why the DEK and Billmen aren't winning as often as they should? Or why peasants still pose a (small) threat to spear militia? I don't have the patch, but it sounds as if there's still something odd going on.
On the first, I can't wager a guess. On the second, I really do think spear militia are about where they should be. After all, they are essentially peasants with slightly better weapons and perhaps some minimal drillwork/training. I do agree with you though, SM should beat peasants a bit more handily than they do right now, but not by too much.
:balloon2:
Well Billmen have low defense, try giving them armour upgrades and redoing the tests, see how much of a difference it might make.
Quickening
04-08-2007, 17:29
Well Billmen have low defense, try giving them armour upgrades and redoing the tests, see how much of a difference it might make.
Well the billmen won five in a row like that and quite comfortably. Maybe it is fine as it is.
Thanks for checking Foz! Here's a cookie for ya! :)
*Hungrily devours the cookie. ME LIKE COOKIE!!!!!*
Are GB still very vulnerable to prong attacks though? Like being engaged at the front and then enveloped from the back by any time of unit? (really any unit pre-patch, maybe only heavy or spear now?)
I'm sure they will be. I've been doing the attacking so far, though, so they haven't ever become enveloped. :smile:
Theoretically, their Front and Left defense has benefited the most from the shield bug's eradication, each going up by ~8 IIRC. This is because their armor stats list as 7/5/4 for instance (NE Bodyguard), which is 7 armor, 5 skill, 4 shield. Their right defense should remain the same (now only 1 point better than the left though) while the rear also remains the same. For simplicity, I'll list the armor from their cardinal facings:
Front - 16
Right - 12
Left - 11
Rear - 7
As you can see that's the same 7 they had before from the rear. I imagine units with attack values near 12 should be able to do okay against them in general, while just about anything should still be good for rear envelopment due to their still-low rear armor. I'm talking about general melee here now... the same units won't do too well if they have to absorb a charge first. Low level troops can probably only hope to beat them by applying such hammer & anvil tactics.
Also don't forget the high bonuses that spears get against cavalry - even the bodyguard's frontal 16 is not too high for bad spears to hit... they just die in droves while doing it b/c they don't have the armor to withstand melee with the BG. If you pile a few on from different sides, the BG should be toast.
FactionHeir
04-08-2007, 19:29
Good results everyone :)
So 1.2 decreases the impact of most issues we have been having since release but does not eliminate them completely. (i.e. chasing routers, charge agaisnt skirmish) Does seem to fix shields, 2 hand (dunno if it was fixed enough or not, time will tell) and antitraits fully.
Heavy cav is still a killed, maybe even more so. The late heavy cav now likely isn't as useful anymore, such as medium-heavy cav without shields you tend to get once your towns are highly developed.
I suppose the main parts that we might want to tweak thus after 1.2 are the few errors and omissions that remain in vnv and unit rebalancing, in terms of stats and cost.
pike master
04-08-2007, 20:45
the deal with the christian peasants is because they have 3 defence skill versus a spearmens 1. try using the middle eastern peasants when testing that should really show a difference as they would be comparable to one handed swordsmen animations like siege crews and pikemen with swords.
christian peasants with a weapon almost as effective as a spear with a 3 defence skill are simply too tough to really get the kind of testing you need.
you could also use highland rabble. although they have decent morale they also use one handed sword animations and shouldnt have the advantage of christian peasants.
Quickening
04-08-2007, 20:52
the deal with the christian peasants is because they have 3 defence skill versus a spearmens 1. try using the middle eastern peasants when testing that should really show a difference as they would be comparable to one handed swordsmen animations like siege crews and pikemen with swords.
christian peasants with a weapon almost as effective as a spear with a 3 defence skill are simply too tough to really get the kind of testing you need.
you could also use highland rabble. although they have decent morale they also use one handed sword animations and shouldnt have the advantage of christian peasants.
Heh, you're absolutely right. Eastern peasants fall satisfactorily to Spear Militia. Im not sure what the logic behind Christian peasants being "better" is but this has made me content with the unit balancing. Thanks for the information.
I must also say at this point that I LOVE what CA have done with diplomacy in this patch. Playing on Very Hard as the HRE and Im able to maintain alliances etc and the AI comes to me with all kinds of deals. Superb work.
It shouldn't be surprising that Christian peasants will still give spear militia a beating.
Spear units have penalties against infantry which makes SM have lower attack against peasants.
Town militia on the other hand have light spears which don't have the penalty. If you tried town militia vs. peasants the TM should get a solid victory.
Likewise if you tried TM vs. SM the town militia should win by a small margin.
rosscoliosis
04-08-2007, 21:37
On VH/VH as the HRE I've been getting frequent messages about my relations with other factions dropping for no particular reason, which is odd, but in-line with the AI being more anti-player on VH. However, I *have* been receiving many more offers for alliances, and they are especially happy to receive them. I've already had alliances with Venice, France, the Moors, Milan, and the Papal States. Only the Moors have backed out, and that was after a jihad was called on Jerusalem shortly after I took it in a crusade.
For some reason the Byzantine Empire kept landing troops and besieging Bologna, but every time I sent units over to reinforce it, they immediately asked for a ceasefire, and have thought it particularly generous of me to demand terms such as regular tributes. This was also the case with the Moors. I have not tried asking for a settlement yet, but perhaps I should. ;-)
On the other hand, my friend was also playing the HRE on VH/VH with the new patch, and he said all of his neighbors were at war with him and it was way too hard, and he restarted backing off on the difficulty. Perhaps the game is just more rewarding of slower, defensive play now? Because in pretty much all other games, he does far better than I do. When we play Company of Heroes together, he always blows me away in points, ha.
So yes, I'm pretty happy to see the diplomacy AI being much improved. :2thumbsup:
Midnight
04-08-2007, 21:41
Hang on - spear units have a penalty vs infantry? I don't remember that being noted anywhere (or have I just missed something obvious?).
Has this been in from the beginning?
Yeah it's been in from the beginning, the spear bonus all spear armed units have gives them bonuses against cav, but a negative bonus agaisnt inf.
HoreTore
04-08-2007, 21:50
Note that this applies to the larger variant of spears, not the light spears town milita and others have. Those noted as being effective against cavalry have a penalty against infantry, while others do not, even if they are equipped with spears.
HoreTore
04-08-2007, 21:54
On VH/VH as the HRE I've been getting frequent messages about my relations with other factions dropping for no particular reason, which is odd, but in-line with the AI being more anti-player on VH. However, I *have* been receiving many more offers for alliances, and they are especially happy to receive them. I've already had alliances with Venice, France, the Moors, Milan, and the Papal States. Only the Moors have backed out, and that was after a jihad was called on Jerusalem shortly after I took it in a crusade.
For some reason the Byzantine Empire kept landing troops and besieging Bologna, but every time I sent units over to reinforce it, they immediately asked for a ceasefire, and have thought it particularly generous of me to demand terms such as regular tributes. This was also the case with the Moors. I have not tried asking for a settlement yet, but perhaps I should. ;-)
On the other hand, my friend was also playing the HRE on VH/VH with the new patch, and he said all of his neighbors were at war with him and it was way too hard, and he restarted backing off on the difficulty. Perhaps the game is just more rewarding of slower, defensive play now? Because in pretty much all other games, he does far better than I do. When we play Company of Heroes together, he always blows me away in points, ha.
So yes, I'm pretty happy to see the diplomacy AI being much improved. :2thumbsup:
Relations have a set value they normalize too, which varies depending on difficulty. On normal it normalizes to reasonable. On VH, it normalizes to Abysmal. That means that every turn, your relations will go down. You have to keep giving gifts and treating them nicely to keep them on good standings.
Quickening
04-08-2007, 21:59
Relations have a set value they normalize too, which varies depending on difficulty. On normal it normalizes to reasonable. On VH, it normalizes to Abysmal. That means that every turn, your relations will go down. You have to keep giving gifts and treating them nicely to keep them on good standings.
I think that's reasonable. It's a bit of a tightrope really. How to make the AI "harder" diplomatically but not so much that diplomacy becomes worthless. I would swear that they've nailed it perfect in this patch. Im having lots of fun and I feel I can turn my back on allies now without ending up dead :2thumbsup:
Usually I send a diplomat over Europe offering the AI Map Information and trade rights for map information. This time, nearly every nation has come to me with such an offer.
Seriously, I think that everyone will be happy with the diplomacy now.
Note that this applies to the larger variant of spears, not the light spears town milita and others have. Those noted as being effective against cavalry have a penalty against infantry, while others do not, even if they are equipped with spears.
Untrue. Town milita get the bonus as well, but they get half the bonus spear milita and other larger spear units have, and so get less of a penalty in combat.
Quickening
04-08-2007, 22:27
Provided that the officially released patch doesn't lose all it's greatness for some bizarre reason, Im fully content with this game now. Yes there are rough areas here and there (such as pursuing cavalry) but the worst is definately behind.
The only thing Im dubious about is the effectiveness of spears against cavalry. Spearmen are meant to be an anticavalry unit specifically but in a one on one spearmen will almost always lose unless you use their special formations. Even then you'll be lucky since the AI will break free to charge you again and again (which is neat). This doesn't sit quite right with me, I feel spearmen should pretty much decimate cavalry, but it's not a fault as such. Just a debatable bit of balancing.
Spearmen are meant to be an anticavalry unit specifically but in a one on one spearmen will almost always lose unless you use their special formations.
This is compensated by the low cost and easy upgradibility of spearmen. For the cost and upkeep of one unit of mailed knights you can get two units of spear militia. SM's can also be easily upgraded to padded armor which gives them +4 extra armor.
With two armored SM schiltroms stacked on top of each other they should defeat mailed knights quite easily.
Overall Patch 1.2 looks quite good but the balance problems remain significant and cannot be overlooked. Long polearms and 2H sword units are real losers in this patch since their stats are diminutive compared to their peers. Hopefully 1.3 will have stat rebalancing.
FactionHeir
04-09-2007, 00:54
While your reasoning is correct, Miracle, you also need to consider that you are limited to only 20 units per stack and thus even though spears might be considerably cheaper, you could fill your stack with better units instead.
Untrue. Town militia get the bonus as well, but they get half the bonus spear militia and other larger spear units have, and so get less of a penalty in combat.
Untrue, Lusted, it's the "Spear" attribute, not the "Spear_Bonus_X" that inflicts the negative hit vs. infantry. Town Militia have "Light_Spear" Instead of spear and so suffer no penalties, but they also miss out on extra anti-Cav bonuses associated with the "Spear" Attribute.
Regrading the new diplomacy, be aware that the triggers in the Factions standing file for relations hits after doing something to upset your opponent, (such as grabbing a settlement off them , or even just declaring war), now cause a smaller hit per turn, but it persists over more turns. it also has a fixed value it will deteriorate towards. Thus once the number of turns over which the relation drop is active are over the relations with the faction will be at the listed value. Since this is typically abysmal in the case of most of the upsetting triggers this means even if you get a ceasefire you'll never actually stop the war as the various triggers you've set off can keep relations very bad for over 100 turns in some cases. As a result the invasion decision modifiers that make invasions most likely against disliked targets will kick in and they will shortly attack you again as soon as the forces necessary become available.
pike master
04-09-2007, 03:21
all this is good and interesting but i ran test on this town militia versus spear militia some time ago. rotating around me being the player once and then the computer and so forth and after the test i came to the conclusion that there was no difference whatsoever as far as infantry vs infantry.
yu guys may know more than i do but i ran the test and used the same number of player controlled with spears and town militia as the computer and it was almost down the middle with a slight advantage toward the spears.
but i credited that for chance. from my experience they are equal but ill try to do some more testing on that again to make sure.
Regrading the new diplomacy, be aware that the triggers in the Factions standing file for relations hits after doing something to upset your opponent, (such as grabbing a settlement off them , or even just declaring war), now cause a smaller hit per turn, but it persists over more turns. it also has a fixed value it will deteriorate towards. Thus once the number of turns over which the relation drop is active are over the relations with the faction will be at the listed value. Since this is typically abysmal in the case of most of the upsetting triggers this means even if you get a ceasefire you'll never actually stop the war as the various triggers you've set off can keep relations very bad for over 100 turns in some cases. As a result the invasion decision modifiers that make invasions most likely against disliked targets will kick in and they will shortly attack you again as soon as the forces necessary become available.
Are you sure you're reading that file correctly, Carl? I don't see anything about any effects persisting over multiple turns... except of course for the ones that trigger at the beginning of each new turn automatically. If you're referring to the use of "normalise" in affecting faction standings, you should note that "normalize x y" means the faction standing is moving 1/yth of the way toward target amount x. That is, "normalize -1.0 50" means your standing with that faction is moved 1/50th of the way to -1.0 from whatever amount it's at right now. If you have standings 0.0 with that faction before this event happens, then the difference between 0.0 and -1.0 is 1.0, so your relations would be affected 1/50 = 0.02 in the negative direction. Similarly, current relations of 1.0 (perfect) would be a difference of 2.0, and affect your standings by 2/50 = 0.04 in the negative direction. As far as I am aware, these events are not ongoing, and will only fire the triggers at the exact moment when you do the dirty deed... i.e. once. If I've managed to miss something though, let me know.
One thing I'm noticing in this file is what seems to be a LOT more code doing things to the allies and enemies of a faction that you have an interaction with. In general the allies of course are affected similarly to how the faction was, and the enemies in the opposite way (both much less extremely than the actual faction involved, though). This should help facilitate more realistic power blocks and better game dynamics, since factions will mirror the feelings of their partners to some degree. I find it especially interesting that a faction's enemies will like you more if you upset that faction, so you can even end up in natural alliances simply because you both bully the same faction. There didn't seem to be much of this going on before, and I really like the idea.
Also, I'll point out the values of the diplomacy variables in descr_campaign_ai_db.xml:
<trusted_ally_fs_threshold float="0.5"/> // min threshold for how much we like the target faction to consider them a trusted ally
<trusted_ally_target_fs_threshold float="0.5"/> // min threshold for how much the target faction likes us to consider them a trusted ally
<trusted_ally_target_human_fs_threshold float="0.0"/> // min threshold for how much the target (human) faction likes us to consider them a trusted ally
<trusted_ally_gs_threshold float="-1.0"/> // min threshold for how trustworthy we are to consider the target faction a trusted ally
<trusted_ally_target_gs_threshold float="-0.1"/> // min threshold for how trustworthy is the target faction to consider them a trusted ally
<trusted_ally_enemy_auto_war bool="false"/> // flag to indicate if a faction automatically goes to war with a trusted allies enemy
The values are much more lenient than the original defaults suggested in the comments, so alliances should stick fairly well. As you can see a trusted alliance requires 0.5 relations and minimum -0.1 global standing. With a little attention, this is easily doable.
You may notice that the AI factions trust human alliances with only 0.0 relations instead of the 0.5 required for other AI factions. This could be problematic, but I'm not sure it is. The main reason is, if you go double-crossing the AI, it just kills your global rep... and then you can't have any trusted allies. So it might not be awful for the AI factions to trust the human faction easily - you could abuse it, but only once since it would tank your rep so hard, and if you intend to have long term allies, you really can't abuse it at all... so perhaps that all adds up to humans being more trustworthy toward AI allies out of necessity, and so the AI can and should trust the human player more easily. I'm not sure though...
Durallan
04-09-2007, 07:05
its good to hear that everyone is liking the leaked patch, which makes me wonder when the real one will come out :) my bet is this friday.
its good to hear that everyone is liking the leaked patch, which makes me wonder when the real one will come out :) my bet is this friday.
I hope it's sooner. I really wanna play now.
This might be a bit late, but I'm curious whether someone who has tested patch 1.2 previously has "siege battle lag" problem, can tell if there's any differences with this new patch?
Lorenzo_H
04-09-2007, 10:33
Where the hell is this patch?
Generals_Bodyguard
04-09-2007, 11:50
This might be a bit late, but I'm curious whether someone who has tested patch 1.2 previously has "siege battle lag" problem, can tell if there's any differences with this new patch?
It has been said that there is no difference in that...some say it is slightly improved...
Where the hell is this patch?
The patch has not yet been officially released
If I've managed to miss something though, let me know.
A pretty big one. If it only has an effect over one turn theirs absolutely no reason to use the normalize effect.
2 reasons.
1. A fixed value drop can achieve very similar effects, it won't cause as big a drop when relations are good, but thats fine as a good standing should mean they are more willing to overlook transgressions by you against them, not less.
2. The situation with diminishing returns at lower standing levels means it's going to be fairly difficult to get really bad relations with this method. Considering that even before they added the invasion priority modifiers for faction standing their was an effect on the aggressiveness of factions based on faction standing between the two it's an absolute certainty that the aggressiveness of the AI will be heavily reduced now. Even in 1.1 the difference between -0.8 and -1.0 was startling. Bearing in mind that with this method it's going to be fairly difficult to get below -0.6/-0.7.
With the 2 points above in mind it doesn't really make sense to use the Normalize function as the standard fixed penalty type can achieve more or less identical results with better results when relations are really high/low. Thus I can see no reason why the Normalize Function wouldn't be active over multiple turns i this case, it's the only situation that makes sense. Although I admit that normally the triggers only fire off once each time the conditions are met, but i doubt it would be hard to hardcode the Normalize function to stay on for the appropriate number of turns when it is triggered by certain types of trigger.
I admit it sounds strange, but I can see no other sensible reason for using the Normalize function except it continuing to have an effect after the initial triggering.
So let me get this straight.
Town militia are better against melee, but Spear militia are better against Cavalry due to Spear bonuses?
On the subject of spears, what the difference between Spear Militia and Levy Spearmen for the English?
First time poster but been playing the games since MTW. :)
On the subject of spears, what the difference between Spear Militia and Levy Spearmen for the English?
None, they're identical.
Apart from one is recruitable in cities and has the free upkeep attribute so it can be one of the free upkeep units in cities.
Apart from one is recruitable in cities and has the free upkeep attribute so it can be one of the free upkeep units in cities.
I left the city vs. castle bit out as thats an obvious one, and i'd forgoten that Levy Spears lacked the free upkeep attribute
Well if you use Foz's fix then they're free in castles too I assume ?
Also I just ran some tests and I don't see any difference at all between Militia and Spear Militia. They's the same performance wise against each other. It makes no sense to use Spear Militia except that they perform marginally better against cavalry (as long as they don't take a charge).
Untrue, Lusted, it's the "Spear" attribute, not the "Spear_Bonus_X" that inflicts the negative hit vs. infantry. Town Militia have "Light_Spear" Instead of spear and so suffer no penalties, but they also miss out on extra anti-Cav bonuses associated with the "Spear" Attribute.
So the Town Militia should beat Spear Militia or Levy Spearmen ?
@Carl: What you said is exactly WHY they use normalize - it acts differently depending on the current state of affairs. It seems small at first, but if you really think about the combined effect of all the normalization, it ends up making it much harder to maintain great relations, while easier to get away from horrible ones. When your relations are really awful the bad things affect you very little, and the good a lot. The converse applies when relations are very high. Seems to me like that's exactly what they want - a sliding scale.
Also, feel free to read the descriptions at the top of the file. There's nothing there about multiple turns, and it's a big enough exception that it would warrant a special note if that's really how it worked.
FactionHeir
04-10-2007, 00:38
Anyone with 1.2:
Did CA fix the retraining bug? I.e. having buildings that give global or local boni to experience of units trained but units come out green? Its not in the patch readme, but I'd rather ask to make sure before reporting it again for the buglist.
You can try to see if it happens by having a building (i.e. jousting lists or barracks) which gives experience boni (to cav and armoured sergeants respectively) and train said units. Instead of ending turn when training, save and reload. Do not reset the queue after loading. Now end turn and see if the units are green or not. (ie. available for retraining)
[edit]
Could you also check for the text "Your Forces Melt Away" and "Enemy Army Routs" whether the correct commander's name is being displayed? In 1.1 at least its always the wrong commander's name.
pike master
04-10-2007, 02:37
not even a release date by now?
not even a release date by now?
Good - they've learned from their mistake. I'd be sorta surprised if you get a date out of them before the patch simply turns up. To set yet another date would be inviting disaster.
Derfasciti
04-10-2007, 03:15
So how easy/hard is it to install the leaked patch for a computer noob? Dangling this patch in front of someone like me who knows nothing about computers is starting to make me go desperate. I was found in the middle of an alley last night half naked with warpaint on my face and a mysterious claymore on my back.
:help:
So how easy/hard is it to install the leaked patch for a computer noob? Dangling this patch in front of someone like me who knows nothing about computers is starting to make me go desperate. I was found in the middle of an alley last night half naked with warpaint on my face and a mysterious claymore on my back.
:help:
Have you eaten pie before? Cake? It's even easier than that. Seriously... it's a commercial patch, all packaged nicely w/ an installer and everything. Did you get the game installed correctly when you got it out of the box? Yes? Then you're qualified to install the patch.
Just note that you'll more than likely have to wipe out your current install, reinstall a 1.0 installation, and then go directly to 1.2 - for some reason that seems to circumvent the battle CTD problem. Outside of that, I have yet to find a noticeable defect... and of course I did find many pleasant changes :smile:
Derfasciti
04-10-2007, 04:57
So then the question remains of how exactly I get the full patch. According to my past posts, I downloaded MIITW_Update2_Final_EFIGS[1].exe but it's only 24.3 KB. So where do I go from here?
I beg for patience from you computer Gods:bow:
So then the question remains of how exactly I get the full patch. According to my past posts, I downloaded MIITW_Update2_Final_EFIGS[1].exe but it's only 24.3 KB. So where do I go from here?
I beg for patience from you computer Gods:bow:
Well, what you got must be the .torrent file. If it's not named that, go ahead and slap an extra .torrent on the end of the file name. Mine is actually called "MIITW_Update2_Final_EFIGS.exe.torrent" but I think it doesn't really matter. The only reason the extension may be important is so your bit torrent software will recognize that it's a torrent file.
Once that's done, all you need to do is open the .torrent file in whatever bit torrent software you use. For Azureus (my personal preference), all I have to do is use an open command on the file menu I think. Your bit torrent client may be associated with .torrent files already, in which case you can possibly just double-click the .torrent file to run/open it, and your bit torrent client will do its thing. In any case once you get it loaded into bit torrent, the rest is as usual.
If for some reason you don't have a bit torrent client already, you could try Googling "zero paid." You might run into a useful site with info, clients, and guides for bit torrent, among other things.
Derfasciti
04-10-2007, 06:11
hrmph. Well, I renamed it like you said, so the easy part is done.
Truth be told I'm overwhelmed and intimidated by the other stuff though.:embarassed: I googled it and all, but I'm still very unsure on what to do.
I will seed for awhile longer. Am back on the torrent now.
heynow21
04-10-2007, 06:26
Thanks for the seeds. Once I get it I'll keep it up till the patch comes out.
hrmph. Well, I renamed it like you said, so the easy part is done.
Truth be told I'm overwhelmed and intimidated by the other stuff though.:embarassed: I googled it and all, but I'm still very unsure on what to do.
You just need a torrent programme... like Azureus, or Bitlord. Google it, install it, and then double click your torrent file, the 24kb one. Hope that helps. Let me know if you need a step by step.
I'll just wait for the patch from CA it should be out soon. They might even fix some more stuff. "hopes"
I've not installed the leaked one myself. Too busy having fun with the community fixes in PureFixer 1.13.
Maybe the patch is better ? Is it ?
I've not installed the leaked one myself. Too busy having fun with the community fixes in PureFixer 1.13.
Maybe the patch is better ? Is it ?
It's a good step forward. "Miles better" or "much better", that I can't agree with, but there are definite improvements. Shield bug is apparently fixed, but there are a number of underpowered units now, namely the 2H units and polearms. Heavy cav dominates just about everything on the open field like it should, light cav is far too overpowered in terms of charging. Chasing routers is improved but still needs quite a bit of work. Unit cohesion is... honestly I dunno, haven't tested it enough to form an opinion. Gut reaction is it's about the same, which means still significant room for improvement. Still a large number of bugs with traits and ancils, but it looks like there's been some good improvements here, and Problemfixer will most likely pick up the slack in the meantime. Can't comment on diplomacy, but others seem to think it's better. We shall see how the 1.2 unofficial matches up with the official one here soon hopefully.
:balloon2:
Quickening
04-10-2007, 09:02
Unit cohesion is... honestly I dunno, haven't tested it enough to form an opinion.
Nothing has changed in that area at all as far as I can see.
No it's improved, they've definitely reduced the anti-blob effect that was causing the problems.
I'm a bit lost with this, what unit cohersion and anti-blob are you guys talking about?
zstajerski
04-10-2007, 14:14
Goddamn... Still no official released patch or what??
I am a bit lost here :dizzy2:
Derfasciti
04-10-2007, 14:19
You just need a torrent programme... like Azureus, or Bitlord. Google it, install it, and then double click your torrent file, the 24kb one. Hope that helps. Let me know if you need a step by step.
Thanks for the help, Sinan. Now, I downloaded BitTorrent v5.0.7. which I'm assuming should work?
Well, I have it but when I put the MTW update in it, it does nothing. Not even when I tried to "force start" after a while. What am I forgetting?
edit: Ok, I just got Azureus and put the MTW2 update into this. And it seems to actually be working. After it's done what exactly do I do?
SigniferOne
04-10-2007, 15:17
Has the character aging been fixed, does anyone know? I didn't see it mentioned in the fix-list.
EDIT: Also, the bug of incorrectly displaying armor upgrades (although the upgrades actually affect armor properly). These things need to be put up for 1.3 wishlist if not fixed yet.
Has the character aging been fixed, does anyone know? I didn't see it mentioned in the fix-list.
That's not a bug, CA even said the aging wouldn't match before the game was released.
That's not a bug, CA even said the aging wouldn't match before the game was released.
That's true they said it, but that doesn't mean it's still not something that isn't a bug and shouldn't be done right. My view is that it should be matched up to the original RTW timescale, in that chars age once every 2 turns. Failing that, it should be configurable by the user, which I think would be optimal for everyone. If they don't intend on doing it right or in a logical fashion, then they should have forewent the "age" property of a character to begin with.
It's a good step forward. "Miles better" or "much better", that I can't agree with, but there are definite improvements. Shield bug is apparently fixed, but there are a number of underpowered units now, namely the 2H units and polearms. Heavy cav dominates just about everything on the open field like it should, light cav is far too overpowered in terms of charging. Chasing routers is improved but still needs quite a bit of work. Unit cohesion is... honestly I dunno, haven't tested it enough to form an opinion. Gut reaction is it's about the same, which means still significant room for improvement. Still a large number of bugs with traits and ancils, but it looks like there's been some good improvements here, and Problemfixer will most likely pick up the slack in the meantime. Can't comment on diplomacy, but others seem to think it's better. We shall see how the 1.2 unofficial matches up with the official one here soon hopefully.
:balloon2:
Thanks. Well I'm in no hurry for the patch. I think the community initiatives will temporarily outclass the patches. Invariably of course in the end the patches will really "fix" things, I hope.
Unofficial 1.20 i.e modded will defintely pwnt the patch. No doubt about it in my mind.
Thanks for the help, Sinan. Now, I downloaded BitTorrent v5.0.7. which I'm assuming should work?
Well, I have it but when I put the MTW update in it, it does nothing. Not even when I tried to "force start" after a while. What am I forgetting?
edit: Ok, I just got Azureus and put the MTW2 update into this. And it seems to actually be working. After it's done what exactly do I do?
No Problem. Once it's done I dunno coz I have'nt installed it.
If it runs like the last patch then:
1. You double click it and it will ask you for an extraction directory.
2. You then specify a temporary extraction directory (which you create).
3. You then double click the .exe or zip/rar file and extract to the root M2:TW folder.
If it's not like the last patch it may be as simple as double clicking the .exe.
I dunno, can someone throw in a cent ?
Derfasciti
04-10-2007, 16:06
err what is the .exe ir zip/rar file?
Also, should I uninstall MTW2 now? If so I only patch with this new one, right?
About 1 hour left:2thumbsup:
Sorry typo. I meant OR. Corrected.
You don't have to reinstall. You can just patch over. But like I said at this stage your best bet is a guide who HAS actually installed the leaked 1.20. I have'nt, I'm just going on past experience.
That's true they said it, but that doesn't mean it's still not something that isn't a bug and shouldn't be done right. My view is that it should be matched up to the original RTW timescale, in that chars age once every 2 turns. Failing that, it should be configurable by the user, which I think would be optimal for everyone. If they don't intend on doing it right or in a logical fashion, then they should have forewent the "age" property of a character to begin with.
If the meant it to be like that, it's not a bug. It might not be logical, but it's not a bug. And it does match the RTW thing of characters ageing once every 2 turns, its just that a turn = 2 years. They made the decision so that characters would not die off too quickly.
FactionHeir
04-10-2007, 16:24
It would certainly be nice if CA allowed modders/players to choose which way they want to go though. I wouldn't imagine it being too hard to reveal?
Let us choose the faction heir or make us us a set mechanic behind the AI choice. If there actually is a current mechanic behind the AI choice then it would be nice to know how it works.
Shield bug is apparently fixed, but there are a number of underpowered units now, namely the 2H units and polearms.
Yes, shields are obviously working in melee now. Not sure exactly which units you're lumping in there for 2H, but my billmen just beat mailed knights in equal unit numbers. It's important to note that the Billmen had their first armor upgrade, but even so they won the day against mailed knights, even after taking losses moving a ram to the gates (they die pretty fast to the arrow fire from the defenses b/c of low armor, and in retrospect a spear unit is far better suited to the task). So it was about 90 bills vs 80 mailed knights, and the bills won with 15 or 20 to spare. Note this is with the knights not getting off a charge, but it's about the results I expect. As for other 2Hs, I imagine sword units are just as bad as they were, and haven't gotten to DEKs or others yet to find out about them.
Heavy cav dominates just about everything on the open field like it should, light cav is far too overpowered in terms of charging.
I'm not sure about this. Light cav still has substantial mass, so CA may be trying to model the trampling that would happen. It may be better for balance for their charges to do less, but I'm not sure it's actually unrealistic. If you've ever been around horses, you'll know why I'm questioning it. Just... they're HEAVY.
Chasing routers is improved but still needs quite a bit of work.
I have been impressed so far. I haven't seen any time when my cav didn't chase correctly, but I will say mostly units are breaking in city streets. Few field battles have happened so far, so they may perform differently there. In the streets at least, they've stayed right on top of fleeing units and cut them down very quickly.
Unit cohesion is... honestly I dunno, haven't tested it enough to form an opinion. Gut reaction is it's about the same, which means still significant room for improvement.
I'm with Lusted on this, it's better. I accidentally ordered a charge before my cav was completely regrouped, and to my surprise the few stragglers in front of the unit actually slowed up to wait for the main body of the group. They'd never do that in 1.1... and in general units are sticking together better without looking unnatural.
Still a large number of bugs with traits and ancils, but it looks like there's been some good improvements here, and Problemfixer will most likely pick up the slack in the meantime.
Yup. I haven't combed the VnVs yet, too busy enjoying the much smoother game experience :smile:
I did notice some changes though:
- Religion Starter works now, so your guys all get 3 base piety.
- The game now reports all stat-affecting trait changes for family members (generals included). By that I mean you get a summary window if a church completes and gives your guy a chivalry point, or if your general becomes discontent and loses loyalty.
- Dread is easier for generals to get in battle, probably because the BG are very good and easy to use heavily. If you want chivalry on a general, you'll have to resist the temptation to involved him in the carnage.
- Spy usage is reworked. Base chances of success are nowhere near as high as they were. IIRC 3-skill spies have 50% success on city infiltration. Something like 12.5% better chance per skill point. You gain your first GoodSpy point w/ 100% chance, but each additional is 75% odds. A feature of the dual triggers, though, is that you can gain 2 points from your first mission 75% of the time, meaning it is not uncommon for a new spy to jump 2 skill points (GoodSpy is 1/2/4/8/16). Of course he'll die like half the time he tries that first mission though, so maybe it balances out.
Can't comment on diplomacy, but others seem to think it's better.
Decidedly better. The AI is smarter at negotiating, respects alliances better, and may even be better at obeying the pope - I notice the HRE is not yet excommunicated in my campaign, nor is Milan. It may be waiting to happen... but ATM they are managing the pope as well as any other faction.
Campaign Map AI is better too. I no longer see armies milling about - they're always on their way somewhere, or in a city. Likewise the AI grabs rebel territories much better than before. Scotland took Dublin, Inverness, and is currently sieging Caernavon before I even got to it (to be fair, I knew there were scary longbows there and decided I needed more men). Their force shouldn't be large enough to win though, which is what I was banking on.
Overall, I'm very pleased with what I'm seeing so far.
Derfasciti
04-10-2007, 17:11
Well it just finished the download (or whatever:huh: ) and am awaiting confimation on what I should do from here.
Run the patch, it should install itself. If you've donwloaded it as a torrent you need to find out where the file has been saved to.
Patricius
04-10-2007, 18:09
The voice commentary on my army tiring, winning or losing the battle, seems a nice touch, though it might become irritating. Diplomacy works now. Ceasefires and alliances can hold for a very long time.
Yes, shields are obviously working in melee now. Not sure exactly which units you're lumping in there for 2H, but my billmen just beat mailed knights in equal unit numbers. It's important to note that the Billmen had their first armor upgrade, but even so they won the day against mailed knights, even after taking losses moving a ram to the gates (they die pretty fast to the arrow fire from the defenses b/c of low armor, and in retrospect a spear unit is far better suited to the task). So it was about 90 bills vs 80 mailed knights, and the bills won with 15 or 20 to spare. Note this is with the knights not getting off a charge, but it's about the results I expect. As for other 2Hs, I imagine sword units are just as bad as they were, and haven't gotten to DEKs or others yet to find out about them.
It's mainly noticable to me in terms of polearms vs. cavalry. Billmen still get picked to shreds by all kinds of cavalry both from charges and in melee, when historically bills and other polearms were amazingly effective against horses and their riders. Honestly haven't played with other units like the 2H sword units, I'm mainly repeating what other talented and knowledgeable folks have said.
I'm not sure about this. Light cav still has substantial mass, so CA may be trying to model the trampling that would happen. It may be better for balance for their charges to do less, but I'm not sure it's actually unrealistic. If you've ever been around horses, you'll know why I'm questioning it. Just... they're HEAVY.
No no, I'm 100% with you on this, about the weight of horses. The thing that bothers me is the use of a frontal charge by light cav into a unit that's stopped/braced/prepared to receive it. I'm sure we can agree that these 'shock' tactics would be executed completely different from a unarmored turkish archer charging with his sword drawn, vs. a group of frankish knights, 200 lb guys in bodybuilder shape, wearing 80 lb thick armor, riding a (probably armored) huge warhorse with a gigantic couched lance. Don't want to get long winded, but you see what I'm getting at right? I definitely agree there should be casualties and the horse's weight does mean for something, but light horses charging braced spears, even light spears, shouldn't be even remotely as effective as it is right now.
I'm with Lusted on this, it's better. I accidentally ordered a charge before my cav was completely regrouped, and to my surprise the few stragglers in front of the unit actually slowed up to wait for the main body of the group. They'd never do that in 1.1... and in general units are sticking together better without looking unnatural.
I'll take your word for it for now. Still waiting on the official 1.2 before I render an opinion.
Yup. I haven't combed the VnVs yet, too busy enjoying the much smoother game experience :smile:
They're improved, that I can say. I think it was Factionheir posted a number of his findings in the bug thread. They don't look terrible though, and thankfully this is one area that is relatively easily remedied by the fans.
Dread is easier for generals to get in battle, probably because the BG are very good and easy to use heavily. If you want chivalry on a general, you'll have to resist the temptation to involved him in the carnage.
That's really interesting. Don't know if I'd agree with that though, it was considered honorable for all knights to participate in combat. Just because the general does, doesn't mean he isn't being honorable. I guess this has to do with the game's abstraction... The killing and taking of prisoners for example as modeled by the game.
Any news on assassins? I haven't tried them yet.
Campaign Map AI is better too. I no longer see armies milling about - they're always on their way somewhere, or in a city. Likewise the AI grabs rebel territories much better than before. Scotland took Dublin, Inverness, and is currently sieging Caernavon before I even got to it (to be fair, I knew there were scary longbows there and decided I needed more men). Their force shouldn't be large enough to win though, which is what I was banking on.
What about other factions armies strolling across your lands without any repercutions? Any improvement on that?
DukeKent
04-10-2007, 18:18
Let us choose the faction heir or make us us a set mechanic behind the AI choice. If there actually is a current mechanic behind the AI choice then it would be nice to know how it works.
You can choose your own faction heir. Select the character you want to make the faction heir. Open the console, type "give_trait this Factionheir". Kill off the previous faction heir on a boat ride into pirate infested waters, or on a suicide mission. Voila, new faction heir.
HAHA ! Thanks for the tip !
pike master
04-10-2007, 18:30
i notice mention of mercenary units being tweaked in patch list.
does this mean new mercenary types?
has anyone spotted any new units added to the game?
No, no new mercenary units.
SigniferOne
04-10-2007, 19:14
Question about religions: I know this is coming a bit late, but in Rtw:BI, more than 3 religions caused no unrest (it was a bug). I haven't seen anyone comment on it in M2 so far, but I'm not the only person who thinks this has been fixed right?
*Cavalry Spiel*
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. I don't use light cav much, so I actually haven't even seen them in 1.2 yet.
That's really interesting. Don't know if I'd agree with that though, it was considered honorable for all knights to participate in combat. Just because the general does, doesn't mean he isn't being honorable. I guess this has to do with the game's abstraction... The killing and taking of prisoners for example as modeled by the game.
Any news on assassins? I haven't tried them yet.
I think it's because the BG slaughters things so much that you can set off traits I didn't see much of before. Battle Frenzy/Bloodthirsty kinds of things, and those are of course dread traits. Some of the things my general's have done in 1.2 definitely warrant dread. Like... killing the entire ~350 man garrison of a local town w/ only his unit. It was so wrong.
I haven't used any assassins yet either...
What about other factions armies strolling across your lands without any repercutions? Any improvement on that?
Oh no, that's still there, and seemingly no improvement. I keep eyeing this Spanish full stack that passes in front of Caen, wondering if they're going to attack (I have only 4 units in Caen due to my efforts in England). The Spanish grabbed the settlement below Rennes in my game, and several others too - they're doing quite well encroaching on France.
i notice mention of mercenary units being tweaked in patch list.
does this mean new mercenary types?
has anyone spotted any new units added to the game?
I haven't seen anything, except maybe some better rebel garrisons in general. It seems more/better rebel troops are typically garrisoned. Not too sure about it though...
SigniferOne
04-10-2007, 22:22
I'm a bit lost with this, what unit cohersion and anti-blob are you guys talking about?
Back in RTW, people used to win Multiplayer battles by exploiting space between soldiers within an individual unit: they'd stick another unit inside the current one, so that there'd be two soldiers within the original space of one. This combining of more than one unit into one unit's space was called blobbing, and is an exploit. In order to fix this, CA made it so that the soldiers continually try to keep at certain distance from each other. That's the 'anti-blob' effect. But the opposite problem was also created -- soldiers kept too much space between one another, creating dispersed armies. Now the idea is to allow soldiers to keep closer together, to lower the 'anti-blob' effect.
I haven't seen anything, except maybe some better rebel garrisons in general. It seems more/better rebel troops are typically garrisoned. Not too sure about it though...
Well theirs been no changes to them in the Descr_Strat file, so it must be better spawning rebels.
heynow21
04-11-2007, 01:19
I just built a vista machine, and I can't play battles with the 1.2 patch. Specifically I start as Denmark and attack hamburg right off the bat, but whenever the battle loads both on max settings and also on minimum settings I get CTD saying that M2W has closed due to an undefined error. I uninstalled and played the same battle with MTW 1.0 no problems with everything maxed. It is a new system so I'm not going to put it in the official bug thread but I thought I would throw it out there.
8800 GTX, Vista ultimate, p5n32-e mobo, 2 gigs ram.
I just built a vista machine, and I can't play battles with the 1.2 patch. Specifically I start as Denmark and attack hamburg right off the bat, but whenever the battle loads both on max settings and also on minimum settings I get CTD saying that M2W has closed due to an undefined error. I uninstalled and played the same battle with MTW 1.0 no problems with everything maxed. It is a new system so I'm not going to put it in the official bug thread but I thought I would throw it out there.
8800 GTX, Vista ultimate, p5n32-e mobo, 2 gigs ram.
Were you upgrading from 1.1? If so, that's a known issue, and probably the reason the patch was yanked on release day. Most people need to wipe their current install, install 1.0 clean, then upgrade straight to 1.2 in order to avoid the crashes.
If you've already tried that, though, then you do have some yet unknown issue.
Quickening
04-11-2007, 03:20
Im still working on the global improvements thing. I haven't upgraded enough to test it yet.
I have to agree with rebels being stronger. Their armies are far larger and much better quality. Have a look at Wales here!
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/David1536/rebels.jpg
Also, the campaign AI has definately been improved. In fact for the first time ever, Scotland sent me homeward tae think again and are still doing so.
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/David1536/harder.jpg
Im still delighted with the new diplomacy (very hard) as well. It keeps on surprising me with new quirks. Id swear that Scotland, France and the HRE have formed a triple alliance against me.
Two bits of bad news:
Sorry, but cavalry chasing down routers is still abysmal. It's so frustrating it could bring Arnie to tears.
If you sally out to fight a besieging foe, more often than not they are still passive. This is one thing I hope will be sorted in the official 1.2 release but I doubt it :wall:
heynow21
04-11-2007, 04:09
Yes I did a clean install and then went straight to 1.2. I didn't test anything other than Castle attack though.
Good stuff Quickening. I like that rebel stack ! I want to KEEEEEEEELLLL it !
I'm not surprised about the routers and passive. I'm pretty sure that will still be there in official 1.20.
What I'm 'bug'ged about is that they state the passive AI is fixed in 1.10. That's just false. I routinely walk up to an AI stack with 5-6 longbows and even surround the, and shoot them to shreds and they just stand there. (LOL ?) Not a big issue I love shooting stuff that does'nt move !
The false statement in the readme IS an issue however.
Durallan
04-11-2007, 10:49
We will just have to see what the 1.2 patch official relase does, maybe it will be installable over 1.1
hopefully it arrives soon
I speculate it will be installable over 1.1, but I can't know as this is a major update.
FactionHeir
04-11-2007, 13:25
Did CA fix the retraining bug? I.e. having buildings that give global or local boni to experience of units trained but units come out green? Its not in the patch readme, but I'd rather ask to make sure before reporting it again for the buglist.
You can try to see if it happens by having a building (i.e. jousting lists or barracks) which gives experience boni (to cav and armoured sergeants respectively) and train said units. Instead of ending turn when training, save and reload. Do not reset the queue after loading. Now end turn and see if the units are green or not. (ie. available for retraining)
Could you also check for the text "Your Forces Melt Away" and "Enemy Army Routs" whether the correct commander's name is being displayed? In 1.1 at least its always the wrong commander's name.
Err yes, I'm quoting myself because my question has not been answered yet :D
Hope they fixed it. BTW is there a workaround for the green units bug ?
FactionHeir
04-11-2007, 13:57
Well you can workaround it in a way but its not 100% successful.
Basically when you do a reload/load, remove all units from current training queues and then move them all back in. That works most of the time. Not always (i.e. when you are not training any units currently then this cannot work)
Brutal DLX
04-11-2007, 14:14
Hope they fixed it. BTW is there a workaround for the green units bug ?
Remove the unit(s) in question from the castle, move them back in (maybe after one turn), then retrain them (empty queue first), but only as many as you have retraining slots. Works for me at least.
Yeah, that is what I was doing also.
I have to agree with rebels being stronger. Their armies are far larger and much better quality. Have a look at Wales here!
The rebels may be stronger, but THE STARTING GARRISONS ARE NOT. I've checked the files, their has been no changes to the starting garrisons from 1.1.
Thanks for the seeds. Once I get it I'll keep it up till the patch comes out.
This was my plan too, but I'm a complete n00b on torrents. Now that I've shut my machine off, how do I start seeding again? :dizzy2:
gardibolt
04-11-2007, 21:02
I'm assuming that the current delay is to fix the installer so it works with 1.1 as well as the clean 1.0; even if that wasn't necessarily the problem they thought it was, they'll save themselves a lot of grief in the long run by making it work with 1.1 patched games. CA and SEGA would have to be blockheads not to do so, frankly.
Err yes, I'm quoting myself because my question has not been answered yet :D
I'm working toward that, but I just haven't gotten there yet. Those castles take AGES to tech up b/c they grow so friggin slowly. As soon as I get a functional tourney field I'll post what happens.
Quickening
04-12-2007, 01:51
I'm working toward that, but I just haven't gotten there yet. Those castles take AGES to tech up b/c they grow so friggin slowly. As soon as I get a functional tourney field I'll post what happens.
Same here. Plus the HRE and France are making progress awkward.
Philippe
04-12-2007, 02:19
I'm assuming that the current delay is to fix the installer so it works with 1.1 as well as the clean 1.0; even if that wasn't necessarily the problem they thought it was, they'll save themselves a lot of grief in the long run by making it work with 1.1 patched games. CA and SEGA would have to be blockheads not to do so, frankly.
I could have sworn the CA delay announcement suggested that there may also be a fundamental AI problem that they're unsure about, which, to my naive mind, is a lot more serious that a mechanical problem with the installer
.
Depending on how thoroughly they test, and, if they find the problem, how resistant it is to correction, we might be looking at several weeks. If I were one of their managers, I would want to be absolutely sure (read: double- and triple-check) that the latest official version of 1.2 works before being released. Imagine how embarassing it would be if it didn't.
In that context, even if the problem is only one of the installer (and presumbably or hopefully very minor), I can't imagine the new 1.2 coming out before next week. Too many people are going to have to be assured that it's ok to release.
On the bright side, there's a twelve hour time difference between the U.S. and Australia, so they're a whole working day ahead of us.
I think it's safe to expect that we'll see this patch before the end of April, but I'm not holding my breath.
Same here. Plus the HRE and France are making progress awkward.
Yes, this is one of the benefits of the improved campaign AI - they choose better allies, and in general are better at making things sticky for you. I often ally with HRE as England to box in France and Milan since they're priority targets after Scotland goes down. This time, though, after receiving my alliance, HRE has allied with France and Milan as well. I'm gonna try to make it work out, but I suspect my HRE alliance will be in the toilet instead of them turning on Milan and France. It was really funny... almost like they did it just to put a thorn in my side. I think I like it. :smile:
Quickening
04-12-2007, 02:27
Yes, this is one of the benefits of the improved campaign AI - they choose better allies, and in general are better at making things sticky for you. I often ally with HRE as England to box in France and Milan since they're priority targets after Scotland goes down. This time, though, after receiving my alliance, HRE has allied with France and Milan as well. I'm gonna try to make it work out, but I suspect my HRE alliance will be in the toilet instead of them turning on Milan and France. It was really funny... almost like they did it just to put a thorn in my side. I think I like it. :smile:
Thank God it's not just me. I thought I was getting paranoid with the mysteriously convienient alliances the AI was forming.
Quickening
04-12-2007, 03:57
The rebels may be stronger, but THE STARTING GARRISONS ARE NOT. I've checked the files, their has been no changes to the starting garrisons from 1.1.
Well unfortunately the extent of my "modding" is creating maps for Warcraft 3 so Im just really saying what I see. Ive definately never seen Wales so heavily garrisoned. But I was always prepared to be shot down by someone who knows ~:cheers:
Patiently waiting...
Ya rly. Me too. I check in twice a day.
But Ive been playing STALKER (an FPS) in M2TW's place. .. talk about putting things in perspective. . . at least in M2TW your enemies arent running around "on" the sky above you, or your allies deciding youre an enemy during a scripted mission or enemies that try hard enough are able to "will" themselves right through the wall :thumbsdown:
FactionHeir
04-12-2007, 11:14
Thanks you two (Foz and Quickening) for working on the question :)
In my 1.1/1.2 game (i.e. 1.1 with 1.2 AI installed) I'm really having Medieval 2: Total Peace as I allied with all other catholics (well almost all) right from the onset and now its basically static as my allies only fight some orthodox nations, muslims or catholics i'm not allied to :D Prevents me from expanding (without hurting my rep) too, which is great.
Durallan
04-12-2007, 14:08
Friday sooon approaches! I wonder if itll be released? :)
FactionHeir
04-12-2007, 14:13
Friday sooon approaches! I wonder if itll be released? :)
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1500463&postcount=1
Durallan
04-12-2007, 14:25
ahhhh, probably next week then. Oh well!
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1500463&postcount=1
While I havent read every post here in this thread I have read a lot of them. I personally find this whole business to be very,very poorly handled on many levels.
I just find it remarkable that CA is soliciting bug feedback on a patch that was pulled back from release due to a crash bug.
I know the argument of "lets make the best patch we can" using all the resources available, i just find it all in such bad taste, and the seeming bending over backward to give CA/sega the benefit of the doubt a formula for these types of shanagans going forward.
The consumer deserves better, nothing personal factionheir im not shooting the messenger here, I just find the progression of the whole 1.2 patch business to be now within the realm of explotation of the goodwill of the customer.
let them fix thier own dam work.
Generals_Bodyguard
04-12-2007, 14:48
While I havent read every post here in this thread I have read a lot of them. I personally find this whole business to be very,very poorly handled on many levels.
I just find it remarkable that CA is soliciting bug feedback on a patch that was pulled back from release due to a crash bug.
I know the argument of "lets make the best patch we can" using all the resources available, i just find it all in such bad taste, and the seeming bending over backward to give CA/sega the benefit of the doubt a formula for these types of shanagans going forward.
The consumer deserves better, nothing personal factionheir im not shooting the messenger here, I just find the progression of the whole 1.2 patch business to be now within the realm of explotation of the goodwill of the customer.
let them fix thier own dam work.
ummmm...we're not fixing it for them...just giving some feedback....
ummmm...we're not fixing it for them...just giving some feedback....
ummmm, an open solicitation by a developer to
For those that couldn't wait and have installed the early 1.2 patch, please send any bug details to "bugs ' at' creative-assembly.com.au" along with any supporting files such as replay files, screenshots, save games etc. is a request to help them identify problems with thier product.
Technically no we arent fixing it for them, but there shouldnt be any bugs, they have had ample time to complete 1.2, and an additional reprive from thier own predetermined release date due to thier own work not being up to snuff.
Sure I will retract my claim of "fixing" it but I wont retract my seintiment, this whole 1.2 fiasco is appaling, consumers deserve better then to be openly solicited to help identify problems, thats thier job.
I also find it remarkable that the benefit of the doubt continuely is given with minimal skepticism as to the process/intent involved in this whole process from the CA/Sega end.
Brutal DLX
04-12-2007, 15:42
Listen up, men:
"Surely, there is something appealing, something appaling, something for everyone in what I must now say:
The patch will come!
It will take some more time!
But all of us will be brave!"
but there shouldnt be any bugs
Im sorry but NO BUGS?!?!?! Yes, it shouldn't have any major bugs and only a few minor bugs left, but it's an impossibility to produce a bug free game nowadays.
but it's an impossibility to produce a bug free game nowadays.
thats correct, but they arent producing a game, they are producing a patch to a game (thats what I was remarking on). How is it that a patch that wasnt released, already has buglists and the developer encouraging the process of identifying the bugs?
I remain firm in my sentiment, this whole 1.2 business has been sloppy (and thats being generous). its a patch, it shouldnt have any bugs of consequence, yet whats the buglist here at the org at page 3 or 4 Lusted :shame:
How is it that a patch that wasnt released, already has buglists and the developer encouraging the process of identifying the bugs?
It's to catch all the remaining bugs, and to check to see if 1.2 introduces any new bugs. That is always a risk with programming, fixing bugs has a tendency to introduce new ones.
It's to catch all the remaining bugs, and to check to see if 1.2 introduces any new bugs. That is always a risk with programming, fixing bugs has a tendency to introduce new ones.
Okay Lusted I respect your opinion on the technical aspect of it. I am no programmer, I said my piece.
Durallan
04-12-2007, 17:05
ummmm, an open solicitation by a developer to is a request to help them identify problems with thier product.
Technically no we arent fixing it for them, but there shouldnt be any bugs, they have had ample time to complete 1.2, and an additional reprive from thier own predetermined release date due to thier own work not being up to snuff.
Sure I will retract my claim of "fixing" it but I wont retract my seintiment, this whole 1.2 fiasco is appaling, consumers deserve better then to be openly solicited to help identify problems, thats thier job.
I also find it remarkable that the benefit of the doubt continuely is given with minimal skepticism as to the process/intent involved in this whole process from the CA/Sega end.
They said it on the first day, CA/SEGA do not and will not support the leaked patch. But seeing so many people have taken the liberty of installing it (myself included) they might as well see if anyone else has caught something anyone else has missed. It is their job but its good to know that they are watching for extra problems that will pop up on other peoples computers.
Your whole argument about people being used to find bugs in the 1.2 patch is void because those who downloaded it did so becuase they wanted to, they could have waited for the official patch if they so desired, anyway you should be happy even if the circumstances aren't the preferred ones that they may find more bugs to correct before the OFFICIAL 1.2 PATCH. Anyone whom installed the leaked patch did so voluntarily, yes theyve had ample time to complete the patch but it takes time and they probably knock off at 5 oclock like most people and goto their homes friends and families and then have some fun on the weekends. Yes its annoying and aggrivating but I wouldn't call it a fiasco by any stretch of the term.
gardibolt
04-12-2007, 17:21
Really, the developers soliciting comments on the unsupported patch is a very positive thing. Having more eyes look at something for problems is always a good idea, and since the patch slipped out they might as well put it to good use. Frankly, I'd be seriously annoyed with CA if they didn't take advantage of this circumstance.
Your whole argument about people being used to find bugs in the 1.2 patch is void because those who downloaded it did so becuase they wanted to, they could have waited for the official patch if they so desired, anyway you should be happy even if the circumstances aren't the preferred ones that they may find more bugs to correct before the OFFICIAL 1.2 PATCH. Anyone whom installed the leaked patch did so voluntarily, yes theyve had ample time to complete the patch but it takes time and they probably knock off at 5 oclock like most people and goto their homes friends and families and then have some fun on the weekends. Yes its annoying and aggrivating but I wouldn't call it a fiasco by any stretch of the term.
Your entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine. Yes people downloaded it because they chose too, just like the linked thread given was CA's choice to solicit feedback on the leaked patch, that was broken in the first place by thier own hand.
on a side note I find your tone to be bordering on self rightous, you might want to take a step back from the PC before telling people what parts of thier opinions are "voided" and what they should be "thankful" for.
It takes away and lessens a somewhat logical and well presented argument.
Really, the developers soliciting comments on the unsupported patch is a very positive thing. Having more eyes look at something for problems is always a good idea, and since the patch slipped out they might as well put it to good use. Frankly, I'd be seriously annoyed with CA if they didn't take advantage of this circumstance.
I am sure the developers are thrilled you feel that way gardibolt and by no means do I think you arent entitled to your view. I expressed mine, and thats all I dont claim to be the end voice on the matter.
I do however feel that this whole 1.2 process, is vindicating a condition within the gaming industry that allows for developers to release (or leak) unfinished products that essentially get tested and corrected by the reporting of the people who purchased it to begin with.
Maybe my ethical compass is set to high, so be it. I just dont see how all this helps with the fact that a 1.2 patch was necessary to begin with. on the contrary, it perpeutates the current climate of "well fix it later" or "lets have the files moddable so they can fix it later".
Clearly its ideal for the game maker.
Frankly, I'd be seriously annoyed with CA if they didn't take advantage of this circumstance.
Personally, I am seriously annoyed at CA that it's taken this level of debacle to get them to even entertain the eminently logical idea of an open beta for a proprosed patch before it's officially released. Not only do they get free labor from a massive pool of highly motivated testers, they get hardware spec feedback from all the dxdiag files for their customer databases, so they know how current their target market keeps their gaming rig for future development. If they're smart enough to steal Stardock's idea, they can even SELL us the right to beta test the game / expansion for them by making the open beta downloadable if you pre-order. They're stark raving mad not to have done this a LONG bloody time ago, and hopefully the additional bugs the community finds and reports in 1.2 will prove it to them.
CA won't do open beta tests, SEGA like doing all testing inhouse with just using CA/SEGAs testers.
adamcrusherlee
04-12-2007, 18:51
i heard that the new patch was going to have a secret code to unlock a magical clown army which during battle uses ballon guns and shoots red noses at the enemy...anybody else here similar news?
This whole thing stinks! Hmmm, or maybe it's the fish I've been eating just a while ago... :laugh4:
But seriously, I think Odin hits the thing right on the head. Though we can go further even: I speculate the leaked patch was leaked on purpose :P They knew people wanted the damned thing and of course some people will be more impatient and just get it, even if it's unsupported. Now that there are enough people who got the leaked patch they "might as well make use of it" even if the thing wasn't supported. Pfff.... there's no proof for it, but you gotta admit this whole situation stinks!
---edit---
I heard the same thing about that! I think there's gonna be clowns in it, yeah :laugh4:
Durallan
04-12-2007, 18:57
Your entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine. Yes people downloaded it because they chose too, just like the linked thread given was CA's choice to solicit feedback on the leaked patch, that was broken in the first place by thier own hand.
on a side note I find your tone to be bordering on self rightous, you might want to take a step back from the PC before telling people what parts of thier opinions are "voided" and what they should be "thankful" for.
It takes away and lessens a somewhat logical and well presented argument.
you are indeed entitled to your opinion, I said that your argument was void, not your opinion, there should be a key difference there. I step away form my computer frequently, to go to college, hang out with friends, and sometimes even for food and sleep!
I also never, once if you read my post carefully had the word thankful in my post. I never said you should be thankful, just happy that theyve taken advantage of a situation. I'd also like to say that it was infact a download server that leaked the patch not actually CA SEGA. I think that we all have a right not to be thankful but happy they are going to watch this patch with a little more care than they did 1.0 and 1.1 . Telling someone to be thankful they are doing this would be like saying they aren't getting paid for this, which they are getting paid, so thats not what I said. No what I said was is that I think we should be happy that they are doing the job they are being paid to do which is fix this broken game.
I still wouldn't call this a fiasco, A fiasco is more like my old ISP working for 18 months without a hitch, CEO disappears overseas to some small republic and the company crumbles with my parent just having paid 3 months in advance.
CA's choice to solicit feedback on the leaked patch, that was broken in the first place by thier own hand.
Indeedie, but I'd rather they ask for feeback on the leaked patch than not, you never know they might spot something!
anyway I'm sorry you think I'm self righteous, thats the first complaint of that kind I've had!
Indeedie, but I'd rather they ask for feeback on the leaked patch than not, you never know they might spot something!
anyway I'm sorry you think I'm self righteous, thats the first complaint of that kind I've had!
I dont think your self rightous, I thought your post was moving that direction, if I mis read it I applogize, no offense meant.
Back to the topic, your signature Durallan speaks volumes to my point. You have 4 user created solutions to problems for MTW2. The system of identifying, balancing, and correcting bugs is being done by the community at large.
Thats my point and thats why I think the whole 1.2 business is a fiasco. Why? Should any of the 4 solutions you have in your signature be present at all? Truly, what is the justification for them? Is it because they arent really that bad and they can be modded lets let the game go anyway? (mostly rhetorical questions here).
the point is the release, mod, patch process in the gaming world today is sloppy. Having to pull back a patch on the release date for a crash bug is sloppy, having that patch leaked, is sloppy. Coming out and asking for feedback on the leaked patch is a fiasco in the sense that it screams of the process being broken in the first place.
these problems (lets take the 4 addressed in your sig) shouldnt have been in 1.0, but were. My position is they were because as consumers we not only buy it as is, we are happy to show them even more bugs, on a patch that was pulled back (yadda, yadda) you see where I am coming from?
This whole process is a fiasco.
Durallan
04-12-2007, 19:27
I dont think your self rightous, I thought your post was moving that direction, if I mis read it I applogize, no offense meant.
Back to the topic, your signature Durallan speaks volumes to my point. You have 4 user created solutions to problems for MTW2. The system of identifying, balancing, and correcting bugs is being done by the community at large.
Thats my point and thats why I think the whole 1.2 business is a fiasco. Why? Should any of the 4 solutions you have in your signature be present at all? Truly, what is the justification for them? Is it because they arent really that bad and they can be modded lets let the game go anyway? (mostly rhetorical questions here).
the point is the release, mod, patch process in the gaming world today is sloppy. Having to pull back a patch on the release date for a crash bug is sloppy, having that patch leaked, is sloppy. Coming out and asking for feedback on the leaked patch is a fiasco in the sense that it screams of the process being broken in the first place.
these problems (lets take the 4 addressed in your sig) shouldnt have been in 1.0, but were. My position is they were because as consumers we not only buy it as is, we are happy to show them even more bugs, on a patch that was pulled back (yadda, yadda) you see where I am coming from?
This whole process is a fiasco.
actually the only one I would have noticed would have been the ballista/cannon tower problem if I'd never read these forums :P
I really wouldn't have noticed the others, unless they caused a CTD. Not that I'm saying they shouldn't be fixed, Anyway I see your point of view but I'm saying it isn't a fiasco unless they sold the game, it crashed everyones computers and when we looked to them for patches, the phone numbers for the company has turned into a Laundry Company that also makes copper wiring and the employees are on a tropical island or a kingdom of their own making, now THATS a fiasco :P even though they should be fixing it, at least they are which is more than some people bother with. Especially those interested in villas overseas in some small island republic lol.
Unfortunately this is the way of the gaming industry and its beginning to sound like its going to get worse than this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6523565.stm
if any of that is remotely true, you may end up getting games that maybe just come with england and france and for and extra $19.95 USD you can get all the other factions plus the middle east part of the world! in which point if that ever happens I think I'll just give up on gaming in general. Its already happened with Oblivion which aside from its constant crashing, staying unpatched and paying for things that should have been in the game in the first place (at least CA provide it for free) is why I'm not going to buy the expansion.
getting back to the main topic at hand unless there is something else we can do, until the patch is done and out the door (which there isn't anything we can do) then while ranting ma make you feel better, I don't believe its a fiasco, CA may not have given you the complete game that you paid for originally, but at least they are fixing the game to the state that its worth the money we paid for it. Fiasco is someting more like Take 2's backdated stock options thingy :P I don't know if I'm a lone voice or not but meh, this is my opinion!
CA won't do open beta tests, SEGA like doing all testing inhouse with just using CA/SEGAs testers.
Because that's obviously working out SO well for them?:wall: Like I said, I really hope the results of this open beta they have been forced into will make them rethink this :furious3: policy
One thing I've noticed for sure now - Good lord the General's Bodyguards walk all over everything. I imagine they can be brought down if they get pinned down and then attacked by 2-handers, but that's about the only thing that I think will really be able to dent them substantially. In the early stages of the game I'm having fights where the bodyguards mow through 3-5 units of archers, then a few units of spearmen, and are still well above half capacity (often gaining multiple chevrons along the way). Of course it's not necessarily a bad thing - their armor level is way beyond the level of the rebel units I've been encountering, so they really SHOULD be nigh untouchable at this point. They should remain potent as the game goes on, but units with higher attack values should be able to do sufficient damage to take them down without going to ridiculous lengths. I will say, though, that it just got a lot more handy to have a general or 4 along with every attack. Even wading through melee in the streets, they seem considerably better than before...
I couldn't remember who'd posted this until I read back in this thread. I gotta say the same thing I said to Quickening; are we playing the same game??
So for craps and giggles I loaded up my last game which is using the BigMap mod (doesn't modify unit stats), and assaulted the small city north of Edinburgh. Garrison is 3 units of highlanders, 2 peasant archers, and 1 peasants. Should be easy picking, no? Holy crap, my king and faction heir get eaten alive in the 4 times I tried to assault, using my generals as the attackers. Every time, my king died 3 of the 4 times, my heir died. That's before 50% of the enemy is dead too. That's even on easy too! My guys must be made out of porcelain instead of steel.
:inquisitive: :dizzy2:
Nearly 500 posts in here and a new thread has been started with updated info. Let's move all the Patch 1.2 discussion over there.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83211
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.