View Full Version : MTW2Kingdoms - Expansion? Mod? Joke?
Hello all.
5 min ago i decided never get any TW game in future, unistalled Kingdoms and throwed them into window. Thats it. However, i will play MTW2.
You may ask why? My answer is :" because i want to play expansion for MTW2 and not some mod to MTW2" . I apreciate what Lusted did and doing for community, i tryed many mods, including LTC, but always returned to vanilla, and was hoping that expansion will be for MTW2 and not for LTC. Any modder can make his own mod, and then, some ppl will like it and some - not.
If CA got their TW brand , they must to keep it the same height.
May be i am overemotional right now, but when i playing Kingdoms i imagine, that warriors are thick, probably as result of plague. Superweak poor knights getting slaugtered by +7 missile attack units. I duno how nobles was existing in this situation, because general bodyguard never reach first line of enemy, even with cool partial plate armor. Well, 2 archer units can kill gen bodyguard without problems. To be short, cavalry is not cavalry anymore ( except missile cavalry ), and archers are just Terminators in modern terms. This remind me of RTW without patches units balance. May be knights are pages of archers? Or they exchanged their armor for bottle of vodka? I dont think so. To be sure, i stop to play Kingdoms.
I decided it when i noticed that most profitable units in Teutonic campaign are prussian archers, and i dont need to build nothing to win the game. Knights, which all came under different name and status, with stats like " good morale" and more, they all are just same yellow chickens for my Big Terrible Prussian archers. I dont agree with that. Anyone else?
So, I guess you prefer it the way it is in vanilla, where four hundred archers might kill a handful or so of militia before they hit the front line?
Where the same twenty score archers might down a knight or two, out of ninety?
No, I'm afraid I think you're crazy. Kingdoms isn't a mod, doesn't feel like a mod, and I'm happy to see archers more than a slight annoyance, now.
I think it's funny that everyone was nice enough to release some soon-to-be-official balance changes in a mod, and now everyone complains that Kingdoms is just a mod, because it uses those changes.
Are archers strong now? Yes, thankfully.
Are archers too strong? That's a matter of opinion.
Does that mean that Kingdoms isn't made to a professional standard, and is just a very expensive mod? Certainly not!
PS: I love it when people exaggerate when they complain. I just went and did a test. One unit of bodyguards, with an armor upgrade, against TWENTY units of Welsh Saethwyr.
That's 31 plate-armored knights versus 2241 of the very best archers in the game.
Thirteen knights reached the front line.
I did feel sorry for them, though.
Final death count upon route: 27 knights dead, 21 archers dead. So, even though they braved an INSANE hail of fire, they still took down nearly one man for each of them.
Did I mention, INSANE hail of fire?
Fookison
09-11-2007, 04:41
I'm with you Rhedd.
I am having a hoot with Kingdoms (and have with M2TW since it came out). I am finding the same complaints are now surfacing as when M2TW came out and everyone wanted to play the same tactics as RTW. The tactics are different, the game plays different and the units react differently. Perhaps if people would take the time to do some history research on what went on in those days and how tactics were played out, you would see that things have been done very well in these games. If you want to play Roman tactics, go to RTW, if you want medieval tactics go to M2TW. If you want to complain, then perhaps try another game........
IrishArmenian
09-11-2007, 05:00
I can't understand how you dislike mods, or Kingdoms. Okay, I like Kingdoms, but I see where some people's complaints are, but mods? Mods have endless possibilities?
doorknobdeity
09-11-2007, 06:41
Well, I guess he just knows how to have fun way better than we ever could.
The Stranger
09-11-2007, 06:53
So, I guess you prefer it the way it is in vanilla, where four hundred archers might kill a handful or so of militia before they hit the front line?
Where the same twenty score archers might down a knight or two, out of ninety?
No, I'm afraid I think you're crazy. Kingdoms isn't a mod, doesn't feel like a mod, and I'm happy to see archers more than a slight annoyance, now.
I think it's funny that everyone was nice enough to release some soon-to-be-official balance changes in a mod, and now everyone complains that Kingdoms is just a mod, because it uses those changes.
Are archers strong now? Yes, thankfully.
Are archers too strong? That's a matter of opinion.
Does that mean that Kingdoms isn't made to a professional standard, and is just a very expensive mod? Certainly not!
PS: I love it when people exaggerate when they complain. I just went and did a test. One unit of bodyguards, with an armor upgrade, against TWENTY units of Welsh Saethwyr.
That's 31 plate-armored knights versus 2241 of the very best archers in the game.
Thirteen knights reached the front line.
I did feel sorry for them, though.
Final death count upon route: 27 knights dead, 21 archers dead. So, even though they braved an INSANE hail of fire, they still took down nearly one man for each of them.
Did I mention, INSANE hail of fire?
that would actually be quite realistic... although horses if unarmoured would have fallen easier...
The Stranger
09-11-2007, 06:58
I'm with you Rhedd.
I am having a hoot with Kingdoms (and have with M2TW since it came out). I am finding the same complaints are now surfacing as when M2TW came out and everyone wanted to play the same tactics as RTW. The tactics are different, the game plays different and the units react differently. Perhaps if people would take the time to do some history research on what went on in those days and how tactics were played out, you would see that things have been done very well in these games. If you want to play Roman tactics, go to RTW, if you want medieval tactics go to M2TW. If you want to complain, then perhaps try another game........
medieval tactics generally was, rush in infantry vs infantry, cavalry vs cavalry, break through main line and charge back... cavalry defeated equals army defeated... the reserve of the losing army tries to change the tide of battle if not achieved cover the retreat ABAP... because more are killed in retreat than in battle...
I don't see the AI doing that...
Look, anyone have his own preferences. If Kingdoms is expansion for MTW2, then it must remain with same conception of units and tactics, because it happens in same medieval era. If they invited Lusted because many players like his mod, they must think about those who didnt like it. I may sound crazy, but i played LTC and dont like it. May be i am 1 from 100, but i just usually playing MTW2 and addicted to its vanilla version and wanted the same vanilla expansion. If Kingdoms was total New Game, i would say nothing. But for now.. I can imagine, that times was hard and many knights died from plague, and then, their pages took their place, but cant wear their armor, because knights was much stronger to wear armor with weight 30+ kg. And this armor was pretty expencive i imagine, and was made to protect from arrows and weapons without AP bonus.
And i was angry not because i was losing to AI. Actually i found the way, at least to play campaign vs AI as Teutonic Order. The secret is: 90% prussian archers and 10% other units. But i prefere archers underrated more than overrated. At least they must be weaker than every light cavalry ( not including missile cav ). Now, AI even dont use archers as scirmishers, it put them off-scirmish from start. And i talking about non-elite archers.
On other side, the price and upkeep of mounted knights is too big, compare to their actual abilities. I dont want to pay 800+ florins and 250 florins every turn for unit which can actually kill only routing units.
I prefere weaker archers and slower cav charges more than what exist now. How can 1 Kazak with +6 missile attack kill Order spearmen with plate and shield value 8? Only if they slept without armor.
Anyway, i am alone here, and nothing can be turned back. My last hope is if someone will produce Vanilla Mod:idea2:
diotavelli
09-11-2007, 09:17
Not sure if those complaining about overpowered archers have ever heard of the battles of Crecy, Poitiers or Agincourt?
I'm sure the French had similar misgivings when they discovered that bowmen in decent numbers could have a devastating impact on armoured knights; in fact, they almost have been as irritated as you are. Almost.
that would actually be quite realistic... although horses if unarmoured would have fallen easier...Yep, I didn't think it was too bad, myself.
I was honestly surprised that any of them made it through. I was trying to test the most impossible knight-vs-archer scenario I could imagine.
Jack Lusted
09-11-2007, 09:28
You may ask why? My answer is :" because i want to play expansion for MTW2 and not some mod to MTW2" . I apreciate what Lusted did and doing for community, i tryed many mods, including LTC, but always returned to vanilla, and was hoping that expansion will be for MTW2 and not for LTC. Any modder can make his own mod, and then, some ppl will like it and some - not.
If CA got their TW brand , they must to keep it the same height.
Well, as i said in the Kingdoms balance blog, most of the balancing was Jason Turnbulls(aka Palamedes) work, i just helped contribute to it. So when you were playing LTC you were effectively playing with an unoiffical version of the balance from version 2.3 onwards.
So the balancing in Kingdoms is the balance CA OZ wanted in the game, with some contribution and feedback from modders. It's not my balance, i just helped with it.
Not really me just putting my mod into Kingdoms, i joined the company months after the balancing for Kingdoms had basically been decided upon.
I can't understand how you dislike mods, or Kingdoms. Okay, I like Kingdoms, but I see where some people's complaints are, but mods? Mods have endless possibilities?
I dont dislike mods. But usually i playing games 1 time. I may love game, but not getting addicted to it. So, if i like game, and the game is without critical flaws, i play its vanilla version and become happy. Another side is multiplayer modding, like MP servers in Neverwinter Nights game.
But i beleve mods are interesting things to play with, especially if you "addicted" to one game. But atm i got STALKER ( FPS),Guild Wars ( RPG),
MTW2 (RTS) and Movies ( sim ) on my PC and pray for time to play them. Some ppl got only one game installed and have no time to play it too. Some even dont get games installed. I affraid even to imagine myself in this situation:laugh4:
Well Zaher you will going to lose in such discussion you started in such place because you argue againts english style of fighting and prefer typical european warfare with powerfull cavalry. Im with you in case of poor cavalry, where its a big :daisy: that knights cannot succesfully make frontal charge because someone made from tw game a well-balanced blizzard's rts. Many guys not-from-that-island argue about the power of longbow as to not be practically able to penetrate every armor. But its a game, you have knew from this site that it will look like that.
Well, if someone was looking for extreme historical accuracy, than this game is not it.
Most of the army composition would be footmen as the training to be a knight would take years. Knights would only be able to be trained, say every five years and would be only 5 or 10 in number. Also most of those footman units would be of peasent composition.
Composite bows in northern europe would suffer from the damp weather conditions. Most bowmen would be of poor quality and smaller unit size due to the years of training needed to be a bowman.
Most unit stacks would have to have a "rally general" as those units would only listen to their Lord. These generals may or may not follow the directions of the main general depending on his command ability. The defeat of the French at Agincourt was due to the fact every french nobleman wanted a piece of the English so bad , they forgot to follow their own battleplan.
While this would make for more historical accuracy, the gameplay itself would suck. I like Kingdoms the way it is.
kingtiger
09-11-2007, 10:37
hi longtime stalker first time poster.
i have bought every game in the total war series and i plan on buying every other one in the future.
But i believe kingdoms was a waste of money. After finishing all the campaigns on VH/VH i was craving to play grand campaign again and have yet to touch kingdoms again. I would have preferred an update on the grand campaign e.g. more territories and factions as well as improved gameplay and more detailed historical events ( e.g. spain invasion of england).
Well at least Empires looks great ( now i wonder how long till total war: WW2)
Cheers
Icek, I , personally, beleve in power of longbowmen and not the power of longbow. In my imagination english longbowmen was so skilled in use of their longbows that they even didnt need bodkin arrow because they was shoting precisely into holes in the/between armor.
Anyway, i just did experiment in which i put 2 prussian archers vs 1 lithuanian Chivalric Knight and they won with 1,5 units left. I will try to post screenshots now.
Here are screenshots from my experiment:
https://img182.imageshack.us/img182/9162/0016ef3.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
https://img182.imageshack.us/img182/189/0018xi7.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
https://img182.imageshack.us/img182/8805/0019cp8.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
https://img182.imageshack.us/img182/159/0020wb9.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
https://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7882/0021er6.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
The value of 2 prussian archers with armor upgrade is 850 flo. The value of Chivalric knights is 870 flo. But in single player you get padded armor upgrade almost from start for free, it take 2 turns to build leather tanner.
Forgot to say, that in this experiment Lithuanian general was alive and runned away like a dog.
CeltiberoMordred
09-11-2007, 13:56
Here are screenshots from my experiment:
The value of 2 prussian archers with armor upgrade is 850 flo. The value of Chivalric knights is 870 flo. But in single player you get padded armor upgrade almost from start for free, it take 2 turns to build leather tanner.
Forgot to say, that in this experiment Lithuanian general was alive and runned away like a dog.
Here are the screenshot from my own experiment:
Human controlling a 870 florings Chivalric Knights vs 2 Prusian Archers armour 1 (850 florins). My knights charged frontally and archers got slaughtered easily. I lost 14 knights and archers lost 226 men. The balance for me in this case is perfect.
https://img76.imageshack.us/img76/953/knightswt9.th.jpg (https://img76.imageshack.us/my.php?image=knightswt9.jpg)
Experiments always confirm whatever you want to probe if you play against the AI.
Regards.
Mordred, first of all you cannot deploy for your enemy in such experiments. But it incredible that AI initially deployed my archers in right position, i even didnt moved them, only set them off-skirmish, which is vital for battles like this. But considering this part beeng good for human player, we will consider another part beeng bad for AI, which was weak a long time before. Because for now, i can see use for missile units only, but AI dont, and i will shot them to death. Imagine gold chevroned Peasant Archer Nobles catching remains of Knights in the woods. Poor AI:sweatdrop:
And i am sure, if you do such experiment in MTW2, something like 2 units of Lithuanian archers ( those,with attack +7 and without stakes ) vs 1 unit of Chivalric knight, and will play with archers, you never will be able to win.
If we came to comprassion, we can see how huge is difference between basic principes of battles and unit selection in MTW2 and Kingdoms. I always took archer units in MTW2 , especially i liked elite ones. Some ppl like to rush with cav. Well, if that was a anti- rushers drug, let rushers use it. I am not a rusher, so you want me to take 12 archers instead of 4? Yeah, some didnt took archers at all, now they regret it. They will simply not survive without archers. Right, we will teach them! But what to do with just normal intelligent ppl, who dont want archer domination both in SP and MP?
Originally posted by CeltiberoMordred
Experiments always confirm whatever you want to probe if you play against the AI.
I second that.
Nerfing the cavalry in frontal charges is a good move as it makes flanking necessary and worthwhile - no more charge retrieve repeat - win. The effectiveness of the charge (numerically speaking) was too high as whole units could be wiped out.
Making archers worthwhile is a better one as they enter the map again as a tactical component; it's not a secret that they were not worth taking in the mp game.
Noir
Here is a result of comprassion with MTW2:
Taken 2 units of Dismounted Lithuanian cavalry ( 820 florin cost, melee attack and defence is slightly better than prussian archers have ) vs Feudal knights ( 730 florin cost )
https://img407.imageshack.us/img407/6172/0023ih9.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
https://img407.imageshack.us/img407/3403/0024fs9.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
https://img407.imageshack.us/img407/3282/0025xd8.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
https://img407.imageshack.us/img407/9772/0026cw2.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
As you see, results are much different from what i got before. The questions are: Something changed in Medieval Europe at same time? Recently cavalry are sheeps and archers - wolfes? Was Medieval kings fooled by their vassals? Or may be archers got scopes? Well, i dont know answers atm.....
I didn't know Lithuania was known for it's awesome knights...
"Most of the army composition would be footmen as the training to be a knight would take years. Knights would only be able to be trained, say every five years and would be only 5 or 10 in number. Also most of those footman units would be of peasent composition."
What about men at arms? They comprised the 'majority' of most armies in most conflicts. Hordes of peasants were not *usually* a significant part of armies in most battles, because they were far better employed tilling the land and producing revenue for their lords. They might be called up for a big battle near their lands, but when professional armies went campaigning across France and Britanny, there were not very many 'peasants' there.
"In my imagination english longbowmen was so skilled in use of their longbows that they even didnt need bodkin arrow because they was shoting precisely into holes in the/between armor"
Well, that's clearly wrong, so it sounds like you aren't trying to model history at all, just sort of imaginary fantasy land?
I didn't know Lithuania was known for it's awesome knights...
Well, that's clearly wrong, so it sounds like you aren't trying to model history at all, just sort of imaginary fantasy land?
1. Thats was just Chivalic knights, same like everywhere else.
2.
" In the hands of the English the bow had become, in the form of the longbow, the most deadly and formidable weapon of its time. Every English boy was trained to use it and was taught to bring every muscle of his body to bear upon it ... The result was that arrows were discharged with great rapidity and accuracy and with such strength that they were effective in the matter of penetration at astonishingly long range."
J.W.Fortescue, Military History
Ulstan, go Google some history. If mongol composite bow weilders was great archers, so anyone other cannot? Some ppl got fooled in their countries by their goverments too much, that what i can say.
lancelot
09-11-2007, 19:23
Not sure if those complaining about overpowered archers have ever heard of the battles of Crecy, Poitiers or Agincourt?
Recent studys have shown that, at least with Agincourt, terrain and weather probably played a much more significant factor rather than what was historically attributed to the power of the longbow.
"The result was that arrows were discharged with great rapidity and accuracy and with such strength that they were effective in the matter of penetration at astonishingly long range."
J.W.Fortescue, Military History"
Yes, exactly. English logbow fire was deadly to armored knights because of the volume of fire and the penetration factor. It was not because the longbowmen were striking weak spots in armor on a charging mail clad knight 400 paces away.
We have some basis for archer fire being *somewhat* effective against cavalry. It's not of the Hollywood proportions, where every shot goes through the armor and kills a knight, but it is not insignificant either.
You seem to be complaining an awful lot, given that you don't know what you want in the first place.
"If Kingdoms is expansion for MTW2, then it must remain with same conception of units and tactics"
That's just silly. I think every strategy game expansion ever made shook up the tactics used for battles, often by introducing completely new units. An army that would crush everyone before may not anymore.
In fact, you don't even have to wait for an expansion for unit rebalancing, as it happens all the time with patches as well.
And stop complaining about mods. There are no mods involved in upgrading from MTW2 to kingdoms.
If you don't like the unit balance in kingdoms, feel free to mod it according to your tastes. But it's asinine to pretend like there was some sort of holy set of statistics that CA wasn't allowed to change, and that this represents the only way to play the game.
What version of MTW2 are you playing, anyway? The straight out of the box version? Or did you patch it?
Rhyfelwyr
09-11-2007, 21:19
Just a note on those tests, they have to be on VH, otherwise the player gets a bonus. It's not like RTW where Medium was the "fair" setting regarding the player and the AI.
Gaius Terentius Varro
09-11-2007, 21:23
And even then they'll be inconclusive
Nikos_Rouvelas
09-11-2007, 21:26
Well, if someone was looking for extreme historical accuracy, than this game is not it.
Most of the army composition would be footmen as the training to be a knight would take years. Knights would only be able to be trained, say every five years and would be only 5 or 10 in number. Also most of those footman units would be of peasent composition.
Composite bows in northern europe would suffer from the damp weather conditions. Most bowmen would be of poor quality and smaller unit size due to the years of training needed to be a bowman.
The Byzantine Empire had a professional army with Excellent heavy cavalry (not Knights but at least the equal of some Knights) and had no feudal system. During the komnenian period (in which M2TW is set) Byzantium had (arguably of course) the most effective fighting force in all of Europe.
You seem to be complaining an awful lot, given that you don't know what you want in the first place.
Sorry Ulstan , i dont like trolls, i was trying to discuss something here, and thinking that i can discuss it with you was my mistake. Now :wall:
And dont go to England with your silly composite bow, leave it at home.
nameless
09-11-2007, 22:27
Just a note on those tests, they have to be on VH, otherwise the player gets a bonus. It's not like RTW where Medium was the "fair" setting regarding the player and the AI.
Uh no.
AI/players gets no bonuses at all.
Increasing difficulty simply increases the morale/fatigue effects on the battlefield and makes the AI act faster.
I've yet to see the AI or the player get any bonuses.
IvarrWolfsong
09-12-2007, 01:57
I will say that cavalry is a bit underpowered in the frontal charge now. Charging into pikemen should be suicidal... charging down the throat of town militia should be an easy win.
Right now, even mediocre spearmen take ridiculously low casualties from a charge if even a few degrees of your attack vector fall into the frontal arc.
I don't need this to historically accurate to the point of having the dons at Oxford satisfied, but this IS Medieval: Total War and the mounted knight should be extremely strong.
Gaius Terentius Varro
09-12-2007, 02:03
Sorry Ulstan , i dont like trolls, i was trying to discuss something here, and thinking that i can discuss it with you was my mistake. Now :wall:
And dont go to England with your silly composite bow, leave it at home.
I think you just crossed over into the troll/personal attack niche. Now mention Hitler and we're good to go.
Cadwallon
09-12-2007, 03:29
I reckon Kingdoms is a brilliant expansion, with few flaws. I've almost finished playing the American campaign as the Apachean on VH/VH - not sure how anyone could have finished all four campaigns unless they don't have anything else better to do!
As far as balance is concerned - Von Clausewitz said that you need a 3 to 1 advantage in a siege situation to ensure victory - yet in siege scenarios in 1.3 MTW2 you would regularly get equal or smaller armies winning against well defended castles. Storming a castle was not the norm - it was too heavy on casualties winding up with a 'phyrric victory'. Starving them out was more normal. The rebalancing (and I have yet to really explore it fully) is not before time. If in someway it counters the fact the fact that units move a lot faster than in real life, thereby allowing archers to be charged too soon - all the better.
As the Apacheans, we are missile unit heavy. Particularly in the early period, we lack any melee units with punch. Now, an eagle or jaguar warrior unit only makes it through with about half its numbers intact - it still does a lot of damage when it charges, but this is mitigated by the fact that only half the unit is left, and its morale is suitably damaged as well.
An aside - many armies were made up of illtrained militia and peasants. The fact that in Medieval you spam knightly units in the latter half of the game is a big issue for the balance of armies. If increased efficacy of missile units makes it harder on elites - then perhaps it may force more generals to use a wider variety of troops - even utilising peasants and militia units as missile screens rather than the elites we tend to use in end-stage games.
Each to their own - though I reckon CA are brilliant. The only reason I upgrade my computer! My feeling is you don't beat the goose that lays the golden eggs - and there are few other games with the replay value that the Total War series has. If you don't like it - don't play it!
nameless
09-12-2007, 06:12
I will say that cavalry is a bit underpowered in the frontal charge now. Charging into pikemen should be suicidal... charging down the throat of town militia should be an easy win.
Right now, even mediocre spearmen take ridiculously low casualties from a charge if even a few degrees of your attack vector fall into the frontal arc.
I don't need this to historically accurate to the point of having the dons at Oxford satisfied, but this IS Medieval: Total War and the mounted knight should be extremely strong.
Actually it's better this way.
Now people can't simply just "charge" cavalry full frontal and instant win. They have to focus on flanking and hitting the rear.
I reckon Kingdoms is a brilliant expansion, with few flaws. I've almost finished playing the American campaign as the Apachean on VH/VH - not sure how anyone could have finished all four campaigns unless they don't have anything else better to do!
Well, now i understand why all seems good for you. Because you play missile faction and dont have horses.
I remember discussions about RTW, where was pointed that missiles are strong because units almost have no armor. But since then units got armor and bows havent improwed until crossbows or gunpowder. I am not talking about Livonian auxillaries or other missile units with AP, which was developed specially to penetrate heavy armor, which knights usually used in MTW2. But , for now, peasant archers with their +5/+7 attack bows will totally dominate battlefield, because of their unconfirmed ability to penetrate armor and shields. And knights? What are they useful for? They will wait for peasant archers to do their job, and then, will kill remains and routing units. They will not lead attack and rally troops? No, thanks.
Again, this is only game, and the game cannot be 100% historical accurate. But Kingdoms, beeng expansion for MTW2, dont keep standarts MTW2 brougth. Leave behind all discussions about historical accuracy. I liked a game with rules like: " knights are powerful, peasant archers are weak, elite archers are strong, spears effective vs cavalry and particulary vs infantry, crossbows and gunpowder is effective vs armor, pikes are good only vs cavalry, missile cavalry are scirmishers", and so on, beeng close to "historically accurate". Now, i get expansion to this game, and what i see here? " Knights are weak, peasant archers are strong, elite archers are Gods of War, Knights are useful for frigthening enemy ( if you lucky enought to get those ones ) and killing routers, light cavalry useful for filling ranks, infantry is useless because will be shoted by archers too ( due to weak AI )". Imagine, you get expansion for Doom3 and recently discovering that your Lazer Gun shoting with dead chickens ammo, but you can throw your knife with nuclear explosion effect.
monsterfurby
09-12-2007, 10:49
I agree that M2TW's steamroller knights have become somewhat weaker in the Kingdoms expansion - but is that really a legitimate ground to hate the whole expansion? I made the mistake of building a cavalry army as Ireland in the Britannia campaign and, obviously, got whacked by Scotland's pikemen. I adjusted and build a more ground-based army (Muire really DO rock..) - et voila, the cavalry in my army became utterly effective for flanking the enemy, which is the original purpose of cavalry.
As far as I know, a frontal charge of cavalry became useless with the development of shield rows backed by longspears. But if LARP taught me one thing, it's that shield rows are defenseless when broken or attacked from behind. That is true for M2TW as well.
Charging uphill against archers is just the same thing. Even if you are clad in heavy plate and about 50% of all arrows bounce off your armor, it just needs one hit to bring your horse down on you. However, I never found cavalry to be too slow, just somewhat stupid. The AI pauses before charging, which appears a bit... pointless. Also, light cavalry is much more effective in taking out archers than heavy cavalry, mostly because of their speed.
All in all, I noticed that M2TW:K requires more of a balanced army than a stack of knights to overrun the enemy.
This thread will be locked if the posts do not remain civil.
rebelscum
09-12-2007, 14:45
The longbow was not the preferred weapons vs armoured knights, most missle units in the medival period used the crossbow for the purpose.
http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html
"The result was that arrows were discharged with great rapidity and accuracy and with such strength that they were effective in the matter of penetration at astonishingly long range."
J.W.Fortescue, Military History"
Yes, exactly. English logbow fire was deadly to armored knights because of the volume of fire and the penetration factor. It was not because the longbowmen were striking weak spots in armor on a charging mail clad knight 400 paces away.
We have some basis for archer fire being *somewhat* effective against cavalry. It's not of the Hollywood proportions, where every shot goes through the armor and kills a knight, but it is not insignificant either.
You seem to be complaining an awful lot, given that you don't know what you want in the first place.
Rhyfelwyr
09-12-2007, 14:57
Uh no.
AI/players gets no bonuses at all.
Increasing difficulty simply increases the morale/fatigue effects on the battlefield and makes the AI act faster.
I've yet to see the AI or the player get any bonuses.
Exactly. If you play on low difficulty settings, AI units will both tire and rout faster than your units. The only setting on which the player gets no bonus is VH.
All in all, I noticed that M2TW:K requires more of a balanced army than a stack of knights to overrun the enemy.
Heh, i never played role of rusher, never get more than 5-6 cav both in SP and MP in MTW2, and never blitzing too. I read descriptions for every unit and beleve to them, they remained the same in Kingdoms, but they are lying now.
Some guy posted topic about difference between description stats, picture in description, and real unit model. 90% of replyers blamed him with word "whiner", despite he was actually absolutely right. You wanted units balance? Describe me then why Norse axemen cost 700 flo, Varangian guard -520 flo and Berdishe axemen - 380 flo ? Because Norse axemen wear Plazma shields on their back? Because Varangian guards was ascended by Ctulhu and was given axes combined with shields ? Or because Berdishe axemen dont have viable shield at all ? But they both have no shields at all, as stated in description. Varangian guard have better stats than Norse axemen, why they are much cheaper then? Do Norse axemen twice as strong as Berdishe axemen? BTW, from history known, that Varang guards was assembled from axemen which was sent by Danes and Russia to emperor of Byzantya, and i dont think kings of Danes or Russia sent their b e s t guards. Here is all historical accuracy atm, and its not better than "Rise of Nations" historical accuracy. With Kingdoms it even worsened.
And last question: why we need heavy armoured knights animations, stats and picture? To have them do the job of light cavalry - flanking? You think its accurate for heavy armoured ( 30-50kg )knights with heavy lances ( 10-15kg )in their hands? I doubt it.
And last question: why we need heavy armoured knights animations, stats and picture? To have them do the job of light cavalry - flanking? You think its accurate for heavy armoured ( 30-50kg )knights with heavy lances ( 10-15kg )in their hands? I doubt it.
You need heavy knights because no unit can match their charge. Light cavalry even flanking aren't going to do much, whereas heavy knights can deliver a heavy punch that can devestate units.
And that is of course ignoring the fact that against non-spear or pike infantry heavy cavalry still cause lots of damage in a frontal charge, especially against non-shielded opponents.
Light cavalry are best against missile troops because of their speed.
Its amazing that people are so attached to heavy cavalry taking on anything head-on that they actually now campaign for the feature to be brought back.
Heh - can't say that its surprising after RTW, BI and M2TW. The policy of introducing the "Forth Eorlingers" charge in TW paid off, i guess.
Archers are for all intents and purposes almost useless in M2 and giving them a bit of potential has nothing to do with the English way of fighting and other such claims as far as i am concerned.
Heavy cavalry was never supposed to take on any opponent head on historically and from a gameplay perspective. Light cavalry is meant to flank as a last resort; their main purpose is scouting, protection/harrassment of battleline flanks and encirclement of joined lines to reduce morale; encircled patches of units get substantial penalties in TW - but i guess who cares to play like this anymore when you can devastate the enemy with straight on charge-withdraw-repeat.
Obviously chasing of routers is also the domain of light cavalry as the heavier units are better used breaking pockets of enemy resistance while the lighter/faster ones ensure that the enemy is taken out of the map.
These are the roles each cavalry category was traditionally and historically filling, and it has been like this in TW as well before RTW, that introduced cavalry which was mowing down infantry essentially. Kingdoms is probably the first time eversince CA has gone 3D that cavalry is taking up a role as a tactical component instead of the main tactical component. I did twice so before, but however i repeat so here: well done to the proponents of the re-balancing (Palamedes, Lusted and Clan Celtiberos). This is in the right direction and i hope that balancing takes a more prominent role in the vanilla releases as well in the future. This thread may give the wrong impression about reactions to the effort, perhaps increasing the chances of future such efforts to be reduced to a halt. Its the wrong thing to happen from my perspective.
Noir
People always like to underestimate the power of archers. I was not going to buy Kingdoms because of SecuRom, but changed my mind when I found that archers were more powerful (I know, I'm weak :P).
A few years back I did my own test. I have a friend who makes longbows similar to the ones that the English used at Agincourt. They are quite expensive, and I could not afford one, so I asked him to do an experiment for me. He set up a scare-crow made up padded canvas, covered it is a suit of padded clothe, and 8 layers of sheet-metal. He then shot forty replica arrows into it. 3/4 of the arrows penetrated deep enough to kill someone. I was arguing with him that the archers in AOE were to strong, so that is how we settled it. This was long before I ever played a TW game, but it is no less true. Archers did a lot more damage than people think. In M2TW, I would have 5 units of archers firing into a group of spear militia, and the spear militia would lose 5 men! Once I had a unit of peasant archers shoot into peasants, and they killed 2 peasants!! That is obsured and Kingdoms is a huge improvement.
Vuk
But since then units got armor and bows havent improwed until crossbows or gunpowder.
This is not historically accurate at all.
But , for now, peasant archers with their +5/+7 attack bows will totally dominate battlefield
Someone in this thread has already illustrated that it's possible for one unit of knights to annhilate two units of the archers you complain so bitterly about. What exactly are you upset about here?
But Kingdoms, beeng expansion for MTW2, dont keep standarts MTW2 brougth.
Of course it does. You're complaining over the fact that something was changed at all. Do you still have MTW2 1.0? Or have you patched it? Bear in mind the patches introduced balance changes too. The expansion introducing balance changes is par for the course. Indeed, I don't think I've ever seen an expansion that didn't change the balance.
and so on, beeng close to "historically accurate
The kingdoms balance is far closer to historically accurate than before. Each successive patch to MTW has made it more historically accurate.
Granted, it's got a ways to go, but it's improved. At least we no longer have the 'charge mindlessly into everything' ahistorically powerful cavalry nor the 'my entire quiver of arrows cannot kill one soldier' ahistorically useless archers.
You'll need to build a more balanced army now, instead of just spamming cavalry armies, but I view that as a good thing, rather than a bad thing.
Originally posted by Ulstan
You'll need to build a more balanced army now, instead of just spamming cavalry armies, but I view that as a good thing, rather than a bad thing.
Agreed and even more so, the gameplay is more rich as armies start to have a counter army; the gameplay can be more stable and the AI may also benefit as it is tuned to doing good match ups and the occasional flanking. CA has too long over-emphasized the cavalry charge with domino men and jumps; but it has to be reckognised finally that the "fun" from the jumps lasted three minutes and the gameplay fun lost due to the dominance of cavalry three years.
The balancing in Kingdoms is most welcome IMO, and i'd be very happy if the developers consider it for vanilla releases too; its impossible to really well balance gameplay if factors decided in the initial development of the game (such as the animations) do not allow for the flexibility to do so. This is probably one of the reasons why unit card descriptions differ from unit performance in Kingdoms. People forget that the stats don't say the whole story anymore - something that was repeatedly proven.
Noir
Kingdoms is probably the first time eversince CA has gone 3D that cavalry is taking up a role as a tactical component instead of the main tactical component. I did twice so before, but however i repeat so here: well done to the proponents of the re-balancing (Palamedes, Lusted and Clan Celtiberos). This is in the right direction and i hope that balancing takes a more prominent role in the vanilla releases as well in the future. This thread may give the wrong impression about reactions to the effort, perhaps increasing the chances of future such efforts to be reduced to a halt. Its the wrong thing to happen from my perspective.
I agree with you , Noir. I know, that all those ppl doing their best. I am sorry i touched Lusted personally, but i had no intention to make his role in community or CA smaller. If CA was giving this job to them before the original MTW2 was developed and then produced with their help MTW2 and MTW2:Kingdoms, i am sure i'd be much happyer from the day i got MTW2 and not only after sekond patch. But the changes are too radical for me after playing MTW2 almost year.
Ridiculous, in serious battles i never did frontal cav charges, only vs peasant /militias which i considered fair. I think any normal player will decide not to do frontal charge vs raised pikes. So, there IS a point in difference of styles of battles. Why we need pikes then, if cavalry got slaugtered before they reached them?
You say archers was weak? For who? For AI? Because England AI never trained their national special units? For me they was strong enought, i mean archers like Muslim, Trebizond, Byz Guard archers, Scot Guards, dismounted Dvor, Venetian archers, Mongol archers, Turkish archers, they all have good missile damage potential and can kill a lot too. Now guess what did enemy AI when i brougth 2 units of Livonian auxillaries into battle? They rushed with all their cav to kill them ,despite they had 3-4 units of baltic archers with long range bows and lots of missile cav. I know, if i take 2 Scott Guard units into MP battle, my opponent will fear them. Because it is dangerous unit. Same with other elite archers. I consider missile cavalry with attack 8+ in MTW2
is good too. Well, at least i was thinking so during 1 year. Now, i even duno what to think.
Fookison
09-12-2007, 20:48
Thanks for that Ulstan. I tried to make these points earlier in the thread. I applaud M2TW/Kingdoms for becoming more and more accurate and the battles becoming more interesting because the old "Tally Ho" charge will not work any more!!
I remember being so sad in RTW when I discovered that Rome's vaunted heavy infantry was pointless: I could sweep all before me with repeated Equites charges.
It's taken a while, but we're finally heading back into the realm of all unit types being both capable and vulnerable.
It's taken a while, but we're finally heading back into the realm of all unit types being both capable and vulnerable.
Dozens of grey " balanced" units with same abilities? Drunken slaves riding horses? Heading back to what? To AoE1? No, thanks:laugh4: Civ4 is more about warfare now.
lancelot
09-12-2007, 23:20
A few years back I did my own test. I have a friend who makes longbows similar to the ones that the English used at Agincourt. They are quite expensive, and I could not afford one, so I asked him to do an experiment for me. He set up a scare-crow made up padded canvas, covered it is a suit of padded clothe, and 8 layers of sheet-metal. He then shot forty replica arrows into it. 3/4 of the arrows penetrated deep enough to kill someone. I was arguing with him that the archers in AOE were to strong, so that is how we settled it. This was long before I ever played a TW game, but it is no less true. Archers did a lot more damage than people think. In M2TW, I would have 5 units of archers firing into a group of spear militia, and the spear militia would lose 5 men! Once I had a unit of peasant archers shoot into peasants, and they killed 2 peasants!! That is obsured and Kingdoms is a huge improvement.
Vuk
However, did you see that program on Tv with that weapons expert historian guy (I forget his name). His tests with the longbow found precisely the opposite- that the penetrating power of the bow was much less than was originally assumed- and if his results were anything to go by, the casualties at Agincourt for example would have been very difficult to achive by longbow alone.
Cadwallon
09-13-2007, 01:56
Actually Zaher, the Apacheans do get cavalry units, after they fight and win against European armies with horses. When you also get muskets, your mounted apachean thunder braves OWN the primitive mesoamericans to the south....
Which makes me wonder how much you really have played Kingdoms! Which faction did you play? The mounted curaissers and conquistadores, if used correctly, make an absolute mess of my elite archers.
Anyway, like it, hate it, play it, don't. Think its broken? Makes not a whit of difference. Still the best military simulation out there - whatever you think of some of the balancing.
Frankly, I would be fine with Medieval's battle system with Medieval 2's strategic map. But I like the rebalancing of Kingdoms, in general. I didn't play much Medieval 2. I got bored with it. But Kingdoms is much more fun, IMO. I do wish my knights, encased in the best armor of their dead, didn't die so damn much but, well, there are always tradeoffs. Archers are more annoying but I can generally handle them with ease. I do actually include archers in my armies now. That's the only serious issue I had with Medieval and Medieval 2. I would pick swordsmen, cavalry, or spearmen over archers most any day.
I asked him to do an experiment for me. He set up a scare-crow made up padded canvas, covered it is a suit of padded clothe, and 8 layers of sheet-metal. He then shot forty replica arrows into it. 3/4 of the arrows penetrated deep enough to kill someone.
There are two problems with this test. First, it disagrees with the historical evidence. Agincourt has been disputed by modern historians. Accounts of Crecy generally supports the idea of powerful arrows but Geoffrey Le Baker, an English monk, wrote that the arrows of the English simply bounced off the plate harnesses of the French at the Battle of Poitiers. The English dispute this but if the archers were doing so well, why did they choose to move to the flanks of the cavalry and shoot their horses?
Second, sheet metal is not armor, it is sheet metal. It is flat and usually unhardened. Plate armor is curved, 1.5 to 3mms deep, and made of hardened steel. What kind of arrowheads was he using? None of the bodkins so far recovered have been hardened, making them generally inferior to any modern arrowhead. How close was your friend? A straight on shot at 20 yards would not have been the typical shooting condition.
This test (http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=79261) shows that, even in a test skewed against the armor, the thickest section of plate armor would have beaten arrowheads some 3 times harder than historical examples.
Archers did a lot more damage than people think.
Notice that all the anecdotes about powerful archers come from English battles, ones they won. No other West European power placed as much emphasis on the bow. It would not be fair to base all of medieval history on England. Consider:
[the Crusaders were protected by] very heavy felt and so stout a coat of mail that our arrows did no harm… I saw foot-soldiers with as many as ten arrows in their backs, who marched on as usual without breaking ranks.
In this street was my Lord Walter of Châtillon with his naked sword in his hand. As often as he saw the Turks entering this street, he charged upon them, sword in hand, and hustled them out of the place; and whilst the Turks were fleeing before him, they (who shoot as well backwards as forwards) would cover him with darts. When he had driven them out of the village, he would pick out the darts that were sticking all over him; and put on his coat-of-arms again; stand up in his stirrups, and brandishing his sword at arm's length cry, "Châtillon! knights! where are my paladins? " Then, turning round, and seeing that the Turks had come in at the other end of the street, he would charge them again, sword in hand, and drive them out. And this he did about three times in the manner I have described.
And this was nothing more than mail and linen coats.
Cadwallon
09-13-2007, 07:02
So you're saying that the English victories at Crecy and Agincourt were won due to what? Better swear words?
So you're saying that the English victories at Crecy and Agincourt were won due to what? Better swear words?
In large part, poor generalship on the part of the French.
At Crecy, the English had the high ground. No French reconnouter(sp) of the battlefield prior to caused their line to lose cohesion going across the battlefield. The French had to advance across a plowed field . In the middle ages, field furrows were generally 3 feet deep (Crops were planted on the top and in the rows) They also slew their own mercenary crossbowmen who were withdrawing under withering English fire. (The French thought they were fleeing, while all they were doing was repositioning themselves).
There was a History channel special on Crecy which was very interesting. I think it was called Battlefields , though I am not sure of it. The high ground the English was on did not look at imposing as it sloped gently into the field below.
At Agincourt, the knights and royalty were so eager to make up for Crecy, and for the transgressions of the English, that they rode thru and or over their own infantry trying to kill the English.
They had a battle plan and threw it out the window.
Both were tactically stupid.
However, the Longbow did play a significant part in both battles.
One other fact I thought was interesting about Agincourt was it was the first documented death by a firearm in Europe. Just another interesting useless fact....:2thumbsup:
lancelot
09-13-2007, 10:45
So you're saying that the English victories at Crecy and Agincourt were won due to what? Better swear words?
Particularly at Agincourt modern reassesments suggest that terrain was a huge factor- the French were funnelled into a very small area making arrowfire generally more deadly on a per shot basis. Also it had apparently been raining very heavily IIRC, French Knights were getting stuck and falling off their horses, the weight of their armour making it difficult for them to get back to their feet (along with the aforementioned funnelling).
Apparently, the longbowmen would rush forward and kill the knights with knives while they were stuck. Their were reports of the terrain being so water logged that some Frenchmen actually drowned.
Agincourt was a fatal evidence of french stupidity because how can a chaser in his homeland allow enemy to put a bottleneck againts him. And when it comes to super abilities of longbowmens do you talk about this slaughter of crossbowman when french forgot to give them pavises at crecy or the fact that longbowman shoot in horse when it comes to cavalry? If both then i dont see how this has something to do with killing every heavy armored footmen with shields when shooting head-on.
crpcarrot
09-13-2007, 13:46
umm i dont have kingdoms but i've bene playing LTC for a while and i cant understand what Zaher is comlaining about. if LTC doesn anything it makes battles last longer so that actual decisions have to be made to win a battle. to me that is moving away from RTS type battle where u just broup and click. so why all the fuss?? cavalry seem to do fine in LTC i assue they would in kingdoms as well
On the battle of Crecy:
The history channel story said that the where Milanese Pavise crossbowmen. The original position they were in was apparently not a good one. While they were not dying in droves, they understood that they needed to reposition and were withdrawing under fire. When the French nobility saw this, it caused them to fly into a rage, and they killed them.
Also there was/is a stream at the bottom of the hill, more of a runoff type stream, that could have played a factor in the French advance. There is now a 8 foot trench or gully there. The host of the show surmised that it may have been there at that time. This would have caused the French knights to stop and look for a way down and then back up the other side.
Again as you stated, they were funnelled into an effective kill zone. The first dozen or so guys who die cause the ground to get wet and slippery with their blood and everyone has trouble getting their footing.
The part about the tilled field came from a book I read about Medieval village life. Apparently, they followed the same furrow year after year, which causes the furrows to get deeper. As soon as the host said the field had been recently plowed, I knew what happened.
It is impossible to keep an orderly battleline marching across something like that ,much less a charge.
My Agincourt source came from a history report I was "forced" to do in high school. I had forgotten about the field being soaked but you are right. King Harry was dismayed that his men ran out to kill the French knights, not because he was concerned for his fellow man ,but because you can't ransom a dead nobleman.
However, did you see that program on Tv with that weapons expert historian guy (I forget his name). His tests with the longbow found precisely the opposite- that the penetrating power of the bow was much less than was originally assumed- and if his results were anything to go by, the casualties at Agincourt for example would have been very difficult to achive by longbow alone.
Real plate armour is different from sheet metal of course.:P
The point is that it could penetrate. If the archers could shoot the horses out from under the men, there was a good chance that they would die. There are a lot of weak spots between armour (and places where armour didn't cover) that the arrows could hit. I think what won Angincourt is the archers taking carefull aim, while the stakes and infantrymen held the horses off. While the archers couldn't defeat the French by themselves of course, they, nevertheless, no doubt inflicted most of the casualties. If archers could own by themselves with no one to hold the enemy back, there would have only been archers.
My point was that archers inflicted a LOT more casualties than is generally believed, and (if used correctly) could turn the course of a battle.
Vuk
lancelot
09-13-2007, 17:18
Real plate armour is different from sheet metal of course.:P
The point is that it could penetrate. If the archers could shoot the horses out from under the men, there was a good chance that they would die. There are a lot of weak spots between armour (and places where armour didn't cover) that the arrows could hit. I think what won Angincourt is the archers taking carefull aim, while the stakes and infantrymen held the horses off. While the archers couldn't defeat the French by themselves of course, they, nevertheless, no doubt inflicted most of the casualties. If archers could own by themselves with no one to hold the enemy back, there would have only been archers.
My point was that archers inflicted a LOT more casualties than is generally believed, and (if used correctly) could turn the course of a battle.
Vuk
Well, I agree partially but see post 56 above for other factors that I believe significant.
And I dont think archers take 'careful aim'...yes of course they aim but I doubt they are aiming for the neck for example, the distances would be too great. Volume of fire and area saturation is what is gonna win it for the longbow.
I still think you are over subscribing to the power of the long bow...dont get me wrong- as an Englishman, I found it very hard to believe that the longbow was not England's saviour but other factors (or combination thereof) but there is a strong case for it.
Put another way, if Agincourt was fought on an open plain with different weather conditions I would suspect a very different result- longbow or no.
Lol, this topic became a discussion about longbows and their use.
Yesterday i decided to pick Kingdoms from the street ( it was there 2 days and noone took it from the ground ) and try again. So, i defended Town with 3 units of peasant archers and 2 order spearmen vs 20 units of lithuanians. Guess who won? Guess who killed 19 from 20 units? Right, peasant archers ( not prussian, peasant with attack +5 ).
"You need heavy knights because no unit can match their charge. Light cavalry even flanking aren't going to do much, whereas heavy knights can deliver a heavy punch that can devestate units." ( Lusted )
They can? Really? Is it written in description? To be fair, they even cannot catch prisoners now. They are rich bastards, wanting peasant archers to do their job.
I dont care how called special kind of elite archers ( longbowmen, dismounted dvor or something else ). Rules of game describe to us, that peasant units cannot be reliable at the field of battle, and knightly units can. And I want the game to prove it.
May be i have to change difficulty from VH to H or M? This can change something in this problem for me? I like to have 3-4 archers units in my army, but i liked balanced army in MTW2 and dont want to play archer dominated army now. May be all things are well balanced in Kingdoms, but archers are just TOO STRONG? May be. You say, the problem is unarmored horses? Try to put 1 Prussian archer vs lancers or gothic knights. You will see, that ALL armor is fiction for them.
Need to say, that i like enemy AI in Kingdoms much more than in MTW2. They are agressive, making good army composition and acting better on battlefield. And i would like to play Kingdoms with old balance rules. But i am " whiner " and deserve electric chair.
Zatoichi
09-14-2007, 11:16
Well, the AI is generally not very good at winning town battles, and bottlenecking the streets with excellent spearmen while archers rain down on the attackers would give you a victory in vanilla M2TW 9 times out of 10 as well.
Each of the 4 campaigns is balanced differently, and each faction plays out differently. I actually got beaten up pretty badly by the Teutonic Order while playing as Lithuania because my archers were not killing enough of their heavily armoured spearmen, and my foot troops were no match unless I outnumbered them and could flank.
But it's all a matter of opinion - I'm sorry you don't like the game and feel you've not got your money's worth. I am happy with the new challenges the game has brought, and am enjoying it immensely.
diotavelli
09-14-2007, 11:41
Well, I agree partially but see post 56 above for other factors that I believe significant.
And I dont think archers take 'careful aim'...yes of course they aim but I doubt they are aiming for the neck for example, the distances would be too great. Volume of fire and area saturation is what is gonna win it for the longbow.
I still think you are over subscribing to the power of the long bow...dont get me wrong- as an Englishman, I found it very hard to believe that the longbow was not England's saviour but other factors (or combination thereof) but there is a strong case for it.
Put another way, if Agincourt was fought on an open plain with different weather conditions I would suspect a very different result- longbow or no.
But Agincourt wasn't fought on an open plain and nor where Crecy or Poitiers. There was a good reason for this. In each case, the English found themselves a position which would work to their strengths and against those of the French. The French could have avoided battle in such circumstances but neglected to do so (in the years following Agincourt, they smartened up on this considerably).
So the battle was fought on terrain that worked to the advantage of the English. Specifically, the French weren't able to utilise their cavalry advantage and were forced approach the English in a fashion that made them more susceptible to longbow fire. The longbow was the basis of the English victory at Agincourt because it was the basis of their strategy throughout this period.
Arguing that the longbow wasn't decisive would be like arguing that the German panzers weren't decisive in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa - the flat, treeless plains of Eastern Europe were. Simple fact of the matter is that the Germans chose to use those weapons in those circumstances because it gave them a tactical advantage. They used different weapons in other circumstances.
Same with the English in the Hundred Years War. Whilst the French had a cavalry advantage, the English didn't fight them on the open plain; whilst the English had a missile advantage, they tried to force battles in circumstances that exaggerated the strengths of their archery.
Just because your victories owe something to an ounce of tactical nous, it doesn't mean they owe nothing to your choice/use of weapons.
Well, the AI is generally not very good at winning town battles, and bottlenecking the streets with excellent spearmen while archers rain down on the attackers would give you a victory in vanilla M2TW 9 times out of 10 as well.
Sorry, never. Never 3 peasant archers with no experience, which i trained by mistake, was thinking i train prussian ones, will have enougth ammo to kill 20 units. In MTW2 if you put peasant archer vs peasants, they will have ammo to kill 1-2 units max. And Lithuanians had many strong axemen units, together with heavy cav. I placed Order spearmen in normal formation near gates, 2 units, one near another, and placed archers on walls, and they managed to shot all enemy units before Order spearmens was killed ( 10-15 men left in each unit ).
Zatoichi
09-14-2007, 11:48
Well, the wall towers were firing too, right? The AI bunches up and makes archery kills more likely when attacking cities/castles.
Try that battle again on an open field and you should lose unless the AI gets it spectacularly wrong - and hey, much as I like M2TW, we all know that can happen.
You can pick and chose your evidence to back up your opinion that something is wrong, and so can I.
It all boils down to opinion. In yours there is a problem. In mine there isn't.
Zatoichi, i forgot to tell, that at same time, while Order spearmen was near the gates, 2 units with ladders attacked the walls, and peasant archers managed to fight at same time and make attackers run away. I have nothing against peasants, i know, in time of peace they drink bad alcohol and growing pigs, sometimes they fight each other in a Tavern with bottles in their hands, and " their bows are weak and of simple construction ". The only decision can be made, that " their wifes are witches and gave them some local mushrooms and seeds, which make them invulnerable to charges, their bows become powerful instruments, their muscles become iron, and their eyes can see the holes in/between armor ".
Zatoichi
09-14-2007, 12:31
OK, well again, wall defenders get bonuses in Kingdoms, just like they did in the original.
This one battle you fought is not representative of combat in the whole Teutonic campaign, and this again is only one campaign out of 4 offered in the expansion.
But hey, I'll shut up about it now - I'm obviously not going to change your mind.
I do like your style though!
crpcarrot
09-14-2007, 12:32
@ zaher
how big were your walls?
what seige equipemt did the lithuanians have?
what wall upgrads did u have?
was it the passice AI bug?
personally i dont beleive you.
i could never defend a city without canons with such small forces and unless the AI came without a general and did something really stupid.
how many of the kills where the archers and how many from the city defences?
you seem to just creaste situations wich the AI will mess up to prove your point.
lancelot
09-14-2007, 12:46
The longbow was the basis of the English victory at Agincourt because it was the basis of their strategy throughout this period.
So the heavy use of longbowmen was by choice alone? Do you really think that if the English could have fielded as many heavy knights as France that would not have in favour of the bow?...perhaps but I doubt it.
Arguing that the longbow wasn't decisive would be like arguing that the German panzers weren't decisive in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa - the flat, treeless plains of Eastern Europe were. Simple fact of the matter is that the Germans chose to use those weapons in those circumstances because it gave them a tactical advantage. They used different weapons in other circumstances.
Well considering the panzer divisions were down to half strength in actual machines within a few weeks I wouldnt shout too loud about their decisiveness.
In fact you are helping to support my point- the germans did well not just because of the equipment but because of a multitude of other factors- leadership, terrain, doctrine etc etc. Same as it was in france- one can hardly shout about german equipment when most of their tanks did not even have sufficient firepower to destroy enemy tanks- yet they prevailed... ergo- its not just about the weapon system- which was my point to begin with...
Just because your victories owe something to an ounce of tactical nous, it doesn't mean they owe nothing to your choice/use of weapons.
I was far from suggesting that the weapon system had no measure in the outcome, my point all along was to not over-estimate the significance of the weapon when there is ample evidence to suggest that other factors were just as important.
diotavelli
09-14-2007, 13:47
So the heavy use of longbowmen was by choice alone? Do you really think that if the English could have fielded as many heavy knights as France that would not have in favour of the bow?...perhaps but I doubt it.
The Platagenets encouraged escutage amongst many of their feudal liegemen. The nobles would have served as heavy knights. The troops retained using the return from escutage were primarily foot troops, with an emphasis on longbowmen. It's not that I believe the English deliberately focused on longbowmen: I don't see how anyone could seriously doubt it.
Well considering the panzer divisions were down to half strength in actual machines within a few weeks I wouldnt shout too loud about their decisiveness.
And within a few weeks, the Germans were in control of vast tracts of Soviet territory. The sheer speed of the German advance had stretched supply lines and pushed the tanks to their technical limit. The panzers were decisive in the success of the advance - if not them, then what else? Yes, the Soviets were badly led and ill-equipped but the Germans knew they had an advantage in their tanks, knew tanks would be decisive on the steppe and planned accordingly. Tanks break down in battle, same as archers run out of arrows: they can still be the decisive weapon.
In fact you are helping to support my point- the germans did well not just because of the equipment but because of a multitude of other factors- leadership, terrain, doctrine etc etc. Same as it was in france- one can hardly shout about german equipment when most of their tanks did not even have sufficient firepower to destroy enemy tanks- yet they prevailed... ergo- its not just about the weapon system- which was my point to begin with...
I am not supporting your point, I'm disproving it. If the Germans had not known that their tank superiority would be decisive on the steppe, they would have adopted different tactics (as they did elsewhere). The Germans knew their strengths and adopted tactics to suit - and the short term victories they achieved were due to the effectiveness of their tanks. The other factors were not as important. The terrain came as a surprise to no one. Russian leadership was poor but, without equipment or tactics that could match the Germans, better generals would still have struggled.
Your example of France is a bad one. The German advance was not based largely upon their tank superiority, as was the case in the East. The two are not comparable.
I was far from suggesting that the weapon system had no measure in the outcome, my point all along was to not over-estimate the significance of the weapon when there is ample evidence to suggest that other factors were just as important.
But there isn't "ample evidence to suggest that other factors were just as important". The terrain was important but was chosen by the English on the basis of their missile supremacy. The weather was important but the French fought the English in dry weather and lost in the same way: the constant was the longbow, not the weather, but the outcome was the same - hence the only sensible conclusion is that the longbow was more decisive than the weather. The French adopted poor tactics but they lost because of the longbow. Given the terrain and troops at their disposal, the French shouldn't have fought at Agincourt - because the circumstances were always likely to make the longbow decisive.
I'm not suggesting that a given weapon is decisive in all battles. For instance, if the French had won at Agincourt, then another factor would have been decisive, as the circumstances were such that the longbow was always likely to win the battle. Similarly, if the English had fought the French on an open plain and won, it would have been down to factors other than weapons, as the French should always have won such a battle due to their superiority in heavy cavalry.
Your arguments seem to be based on one man's tests on one TV programme (if not, my apologies - please post your sources). He could well have been wrong. Most other researchers disagree with his findings.
Think of it like this. The English adopted the tactics they did because of the longbow. The French adopted the tactics they did because of the longbow. Both sides put the English victory down to the longbow (the French changed their tactics when facing longbows following Agincourt). Maybe, just maybe, they were right. They were there, after all.
@ zaher
how big were your walls?
what seige equipemt did the lithuanians have?
what wall upgrads did u have?
was it the passice AI bug?
personally i dont beleive you.
i could never defend a city without canons with such small forces and unless the AI came without a general and did something really stupid.
how many of the kills where the archers and how many from the city defences?
you seem to just creaste situations wich the AI will mess up to prove your point.
Beleve me or not, it was stone castle ( 2400 flo ) without any upgrades, it was turn 25 in my SP campaign on VH/VH difficulty. Lithuanians had 2 ladders and 2 siege rams, they moved with 1 ram and 2 ladders first, broke the gates pretty fast, and then rushed as usual with all their army througth the gates ( except 2 units of infantry which attacked walls with ladders. Yes, something was shoting from non- upgraded towers , but you know, when army reach the gates, it stop to shot. Sorry, i dont have screenshots of it , but if i will play a little more, i will post something like that. Just 5 min ago in my game, in almost same situation, 2 units of sword brethren and 3 units of peasant archers defended a bridge vs whole stack of lithuanians and won. 2 units of brethren near bridge, and 3 units of peasant archers behind.
crpcarrot
09-14-2007, 15:03
Beleve me or not, it was stone castle ( 2400 flo ) without any upgrades, it was turn 25 in my SP campaign on VH/VH difficulty. Lithuanians had 2 ladders and 2 siege rams, they moved with 1 ram and 2 ladders first, broke the gates pretty fast, and then rushed as usual with all their army througth the gates ( except 2 units of infantry which attacked walls with ladders. Yes, something was shoting from non- upgraded towers , but you know, when army reach the gates, it stop to shot. Sorry, i dont have screenshots of it , but if i will play a little more, i will post something like that. Just 5 min ago in my game, in almost same situation, 2 units of sword brethren and 3 units of peasant archers defended a bridge vs whole stack of lithuanians and won. 2 units of brethren near bridge, and 3 units of peasant archers behind.
well i dont kow if your actually experienceing these results maybe someting worng with yur game i dont seem to experience these sorts of results. specially with peasant archers.
i dont have kingdoms but play LTC 3.1
I've found that playing as Lithuana that my archers were ineffective against Order spearmen, unless I could fire into the flank or rear as they advanced against my line. It surprised me as I was sure I would win easily. Once I adjusted my tactics, I did much better.
Seiging cities now requires me to bring 3 times as much artillery as before. The first seige I did, I brought two catapults. I had a full stack with ladders and rams. I thought I would destroy the towers before I ordered an advance. The stupid catapults only destroyed one tower before running out of ammo. Yes if I had used them to knock down the walls I could have just rushed in but I was trying not to damage too much of the city. I still won but it was not until I got gunpower units that I was able to effective knock all the towers around the gate down.
I have seen regular towers shooting, it looked to me like they were shooting arrows instead of ballista projectiles.
Seiging , at least to me, now requires the "standard" two to one ratio to succeed without heavy losses.
Exactly how much credit the longbow deserves for the english victories, and how powerful it was, will always be hotly debated.
However we know that the armor worn by knights was fairly effective at preventing arrows from killing the knights. A mounted charge would still find it very hard to proceed through a hail of arrows, because some men would go down, wounded, and horses would go down, and then the path of the ones behind would be blocked. If it was a muddy day with limited maneuverability, your charge would basically be halted, even if there were very few outright kills on knights caused by the arrows.
Longbowmen were a lot more devastating against run of the mill infantry and archers than against knights: the scottish absolutely loathed longbowmen.
We also know that none of those 3 battles were won by archers alone, there were other factors such as the terrain and weather. However, I doubt that the english would have won without their archers. They played a very important role. As did England's men at arms, once the french reached the english lines.
IvarrWolfsong
09-14-2007, 21:15
Actually it's better this way.
Now people can't simply just "charge" cavalry full frontal and instant win. They have to focus on flanking and hitting the rear.
I want armored sgts and pavise spearmen to wreck my cavalry charge. That is their purpose.
I don't want Bob the candlestick maker's son slaughtering my 1500 lbs of high speed armored fury because he tied ma's kitchen knife to a stick.
I want their to be a difference between hardened soldiers trained to stop a charge with their spears and militia who are armed with spears because they are cheap to make.
IvarrWolfsong
09-14-2007, 21:28
Heavy cavalry was never supposed to take on any opponent head on historically...
Noir
I am sorry but that is exactly what they were meant to do.
I am sorry but that is exactly what they were meant to do.
:yes:
I think people here confuse the fact that it was expensive to train and mantain heavy cavalry, then the fact they were extra powerful. At this rate soon war elephants will not be able to disrupt and trample enemy units since they were rarely used...
Gaius Terentius Varro
09-14-2007, 23:13
I remember destroying/routing 2 full stacks of greek hoplites with 2 units of general's bodyguards in RTW, it sort of ruined it for me after that. Now i can't send a unit of mailed cav head on against archers if they are armor piercing but then again why should I, to be realistic they are too slow for that and even light cav should be deployed ONLY when the archers are moving as not to get a nasty surprise. You actually get missile duels now or the losses might be big if you try to bum-rush the archers. That again calls for smarter generalship which according to me is good gameplay. Game just got little harder. L2Play or buy a Wii...
Edit Oh and Ivar your sig doesn't tell the whole truth the pope overturned the verdict and they got fried allright.
I remember destroying/routing 2 full stacks of greek hoplites with 2 units of general's bodyguards in RTW, it sort of ruined it for me after that. Now i can't send a unit of mailed cav head on against archers if they are armor piercing but then again why should I, to be realistic they are too slow for that and even light cav should be deployed ONLY when the archers are moving as not to get a nasty surprise. You actually get missile duels now or the losses might be big if you try to bum-rush the archers. That again calls for smarter generalship which according to me is good gameplay. Game just got little harder. L2Play or buy a Wii...
You mean no more scirmishing, just duels? Noone will dare to scirmish because they will be killed on their way? I saw term " archers harrasment" somewhere... In MTW pavise crossbow duels was most annoing part of MP.... The fact that 2 Livonian auxilaries ( pavise crossbowmens ) in your army make AI army full of archers rush at you isnt normal in my opinion.
I beleved in myth CA developed and now its looking like toy with repleaceble parts. Ok then. Now i know that units are digits and I dont want to become the object of such experiments in future.
Gaius Terentius Varro
09-15-2007, 02:03
It is a game i play every day. If it stayed exactly the same in every incarnation i'd find something else to do. I see the new rebalance as a challenge iI intend to try out. Problem with your thread is if you go back to the first post i thought you were talking about the Archers:
"I decided it when i noticed that most profitable units in Teutonic campaign are prussian archers, and i dont need to build nothing to win the game." not the Xbowmen which i found disturbing since i can't see them killing anything of value due to short range. So now my archers own the horse archers big deal I hate the twats that play HA only armies online anyways. It's still a glorious game series and at the end of the day it's a game: not happy? mod it or wait till someone does.
IvarrWolfsong
09-18-2007, 21:30
Edit Oh and Ivar your sig doesn't tell the whole truth the pope overturned the verdict and they got fried allright.
Doh! BTW what is your source for that? I was under the impression that by the time the pope reversed it and ordered them re-tried, the vast majority of them had gone to Teutonic Knights.
Gaius Terentius Varro
09-19-2007, 00:06
I'll try to dig it up, read teh book together with another about the Cathar extermination in France (Albigensian Crusade) about 20 years ago. Or was it in Indiana Jones hmmm,
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.