Which one requires the most tactics, to me its seems the same but then again what does the rest of the community think?
Printable View
Which one requires the most tactics, to me its seems the same but then again what does the rest of the community think?
Looking to bump up ur post count? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
STW required more precise tactics; there were so few units and each unit had its own strengths/weaknesses it required a great deal of thought to use them right.
In MTW there is the same as above, except that there are now so many units it's become a little difficult to keep track of them. There are also variations on strengths/weaknesses, meaning units don't have so many particular roles.
Ah i see enlightenment, thankyou.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
UM no actually im not Youssof_toda as i ve noticed you seems to have stopped posting just after 500, suspicious.
Thanks for making what i think is a perfectly exceptable post into one that ppl (after seeing what youve put) would turn away from http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif
arg.. ive just discovered the sword dojo after playing my M:TW to hell... anyway, it looks like ill be getting S:TW very soon, and i take it i wont be dissapointed at all.. when it originally came out all i had was a P100.. now my comp is MUCH better... so i think ill be out in the stores after xmas
Well I will give you a serious answer, only my opinion mind. I have not played MTW every day since its release and in fact have not played it a great deal since the patch. There has been a lot of complaining about the state of the game and I can honestly say I can understand why. When you can put together an army of all cav in long lines and win there is a problem with the game. I thought a balanced army was the one that was supposed to perform best but it seems with bonuses for this and penalties for that the plot has been long lost. Florin levels are not worked out so you either have an army that runs at the first sign of the enemy or becomes grossly overpowered due to upgrades. I have been told that Shogun has its flaws, it is too 'simple', well I never noticed them like I do at MTW and of course people exploit these flaws and ruin the fun of those, like me who come here to do battle with different factions as opposed to doing unit analysis, bonus and penalty equations and square root of morale divided by upgrades.
B...O...R...I...N...G
Why not ask a more obvious question like why are some factions stronger than others? Yes there are those talented players who can win with weak factions but let's think about average players . Where is the fun in taking your Muslim army to face a load of boosted Byzantines and Spanish. Unless 12 factions are viable then there really aren't 12 choices are there?
I regularly choose the lightweight factions because they do at least have some units that have some interest. Unfortunately I regularly face armour plated knights (what a joke) and spend a little while watching arrows bounce off them (again what a joke) and then get wiped out.
Have you noticed how everyone picks the obligatory pavise arbalesters? This is one of the silliest things about MTW. If one unit is made so obviously better than the rest why make the rest an option? Artchers, who uses them?
Sorry I have strayed from the subject slightly Sora but I am slowly getting less and less interested in a game that is quite obviously flawed and until a solution is found (and I don't see it somehow) I think we are going to carry on seeing the same old thing.
I downloaded 'La Pucelle' after reading all the fuss about this 'epic' battle. Well all I noticed was that for 90% of the battle it was a 4 v 3. I did not find it epic I found it to be just another game of MTW. I could show you a 4 v 4 at Totomi that was by far more 'Epic'
As you can probably tell I am so disappointed in a game that really could have been something special, the only way I can see it being improved is to start issuing game rules
.............Orda http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/wacko.gif
Now that is a proper post that has anwered my question, few.
You have said everything about mtw that i wanted to saybut i couldnt put it into words because i'd probably add half a dozen swear words.
Thankyou.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif
La Pucelle was a joke, i didnt see much special about it.. all it was was a chase of the enemy acros the map, not even AMP stood a chance at the end. All of the defenders were operating as individuals, while the attackers were more a team... this wasnt too epic
Precisely. Maybe its a way to try and get popular within the community.
Sora, I don't think you are correct there, I have known Lady Ann for quite a while and know her to be a very strong player in both MTW and MI. She has no need to gain popularity and in fact I would go as far as to say she was probably embarrassed by the all the publicity.
La Pucelle was not a joke, it was very near at the end and could still have been lost. The point I was making was that it was not the kind of battle I would consider an 'Epic'. An epic in my eyes is a battle that sways both ways or is clutched from the jaws of defeat
My trouble is that I am naive and fight these battles from an almost reinactment point of view as opposed to gaming. It is for this reason, the appearance of the battlefield, that I hate to see these single line formations. Not realistic. That I want to see archers able to kill, for realism.
I can honestly say that I have never studied the stats side of the game looking for all the bonuses etc I have only ever tried to work out a strategy of attack or defence based on the map, my allies and the circumstances at the time.
I apologise if I have been misunderstood but I was not implying 'La Pucelle' was a joke, just not an 'Epic' that's all
.......Orda http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/wacko.gif
dont get me wrong, Lady An is a great person, and player for that matter, but after reading about the file i was expecting some kind of GREAT battle, but i was let down to see it as rather average.
Hmmmm. Well i just played a game of MTW and experienced the imbalances etc at their worst its a pitty i didnt save the replay.
Who wins ::: Order Foot at valour 3 against feudal seargents at vaour 0 with no armour or eapon upgrades.
You have obviously picked the order foot. Wrong.
Order foot could not even rout 1 unit. This is annoying it would naturally annoy anyone with a paasion for this game.
So therefor i have condemned mtw to be the most imbalanced, slow and most boring multiplayer game i have ever played, no joke
STW shows balanced play, its fast and aint boring so it wins my vote.
Although all credit goes to MTW SP.
lol
i love fuedal sergeants
they are perhaps the best spears in the game if you are attacking.
the reasons why im guessing they won
1. higher morale - these guys are loaded with it
2. if a desert map the FS dont tire as easly
3. the FS have a good charge bonus, and a bonus when attacking
honestly, i can rout enemies with nubian spearmen. Its not about the units, its about how you use them. The same goes for shogun. Just because it costs more, it doesnt mean it will beat anything cheaper than it
What you think the http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif was for http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif? STW used deeper tactics but that was cuz after a while everyone knew the in and outs of the game. I'm still looking for that feeling in MTW hope it will come to it one day.
Stw was a lot more fun, it had less unit inbalances, so you HAD to use tactics, rather than pick lancers etcs. If their was a inbalance there usually was a good enough counter to it.
I have been playing a lot of ol' Shog during these past few days... mostly because my greatly anticipated winter sports vacation blew up, and now I have to, out of politeness towards my parents, stay with them for the holidays and confront all sorts of annoying relatives. And, this computer is barely fast enough to run Shog. Ah, the hardships life can throw at us... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
Ahem. Yes, to the topic. As MTW has more complex mechanics and a greater variety of units than Shogun, it clearly has more options for tactics. For example, the thin-line cavalry charge is impossible to duplicate in Shog. Even on Engage at Will, most of the cav will just keep formation while a small portion engage the enemy.
But, more complex mechanics mean more things to keep track of, and therefore an increased chance of mistakes. MTW is a much more "random" game than Shog, and randomness always increases the chances of the "underdog", or the less skilled player. Thus, I believe that Shogun is the game that demands more skill. Or rather, _benefits_ more from skill.
Orda, it's not _unhistorical_ to use thin lines of cav... most tactical doctrines from the era call for "3 ranks of mounted men-at-arms at the deepest" or something similar. This was to maximise the impact of the charge, the primary weapon of heavy cavalry. (I'm quite sure about this, but please correct me if I'm wrong.) The all-cavalry army is definitely _not_ historical, however, as the bulk of most armies were infantry.
So, thin lines of cavalry are not _unrealistic_, even if they are currently _unbalanced_ in the game. But, even despite the Dark Prophecies of Equine Doom in the Lancer thread, I'm not yet convinced that it will become a problem that is difficult to fix. Currently I'm holding well against all-cav armies, and if it becomes much worse, simple house rules for games should fix it, as ya said.
I fully understand that bit about fighting the battles from a reenactment point of view. I do it myself; I _know_ a great deal about the stats and underlying mechanics of the game, but I just forget it all when I fight. I might be a better player if I were more mathematical in my approach, but I just don't consider that much fun
PS. I almost never use Pavise Arbs, as some peeps have noticed. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif And, I still believe that the balanced army is the best army.
At least in shogun you would have to change ur amry when you lose in mtw you dont need to change ur army because when you lost it could have been the imbalances
You could win in STW using all cavalry armies. In stw it is harder though cause you got guns and spears which drop cavalry fast. Flanking and Rear attacks is what's needed to win with all cavalry in stw. In MTW you don't have missile units that drop cavalry as fast and spears that can be spread out in thin lines to stop cavalry charges like stw. You also don't have to worry about doing more precise timing flank/rear attacks in mtw.
In MTW you have lots of different unit sizes and many different units, which only about half which is used online, if that. So, i think as of right now stw dose require more skill, but mtw could require the same amount or more. All that needs to be done is balancing out the units in mtw. And they are basically the same tatical wise, it's just that mtw has more units, so it's options are greater on the mixes you can use with the units.
Orda I agree to some level... there are certain "overpowered" factions -units that is. Yet, it's not as much of a problem imho. If I see an enemy choose Spanish, I just pick 1 or 2 more anti cav units than regurarely. I think it's a good thing cavelry has become stronger, yet at the same time I dislike archers getting weaker. in STW ,the cheapest unit could beat the most expensive (ash-HC).
I dont agree on the pav arb. thing, when playing early games, only archers are available, just like in the campaign...
imho, MTW is a bit more strategical, due to the big choice of units, there ARE counters to units, all units. My opinion may also be influenced that I didn't play STW online much, and when I did it was a 1 on 1 , though with MTW ,I mostly play online, and preferably 4 vs 4 or 3 vs 3...
-Mithrandir.
HahahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
You got my vote for President. My sentiments exactly, same thing happened after the initial release of Shogun, afterwhich I totally lost interest in MP.
Thinking maybe I'll give Shogun MP another go, as I'm hoping most of the type of players you described have moved onto MTW.
Same feelings. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/argue.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
Shogun was more 'exclusive' in the sense that we knew the units SO well that deep and precise tactics where necessary, we knew the timing when all units routed, we knew the rate of death...there were fewer units and armies were similar...precision and deep thoughts were vital.
MTW..still...lacks this feeling for me, at least for now.
Tera
P.S.
Late in STW and MI most were bored of Totomi, yet looking back I can safely say it is one of the best, if not the best map we ever had, along with Nagashima (original), 4th and Aki. We knew well everycorner of those maps especially Tot...it was so great to rush to get the best positions and think quick...phew...I wish everyone played it on MTW... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
in mtw u have overpowered units dominating teh game and underpowered units which hardly are fielded which added flavour to the tactics in stw.
I'm going to have to say STW was deeper. There were fewer units so the tactics had to be stronger, and MTW has too many units whose stats are either too strong or too weak.
Plus, I miss cavalry units with 60 soldiers. I'd give my left pinky to be able to ride into a game of MTW with my general as a Yari Cav.
On reflection, I've come to believe that the biggest difference between the two is not tactics or strategy. The difference is in the tension STW created that MTW does not.
In STW, the first few years choices in infrastructure builds and troop construction were critical. The AI opponents could be expected to take advantage of any errors in your planning. It was never a question of whether you would be attacked, but how soon.
MTW opponents, though, permit me to virtually denude an entire front for years while I prosecute a war on the other end of my lands. MTW is simply too slow to seek advantage. It seems the AI only risks attack when it has a decided advantage OVERALL, not locally.
Need a decade to build forces or replace losses? Usually not a problem.
I have never had to deviate from my production theme. It consists of using only a few provinces, the most advanced, to create only the most advanced troops with my cutting edge armor/weapons. I've never wasted a florin on peasants and never more than a handful of militia types have I needed to create.
This luxurious allowance of time was never possible in STW.
yes thats a part too, somehow stw mi manage to cerate some tension in battles which i have much less in mtw, maybe its the in and outgame bugs that camouflaged it.
lets hope the devs learn from it and roman total war starts with lets say 40 units max
and use the spare time to add more formations for units.
I don't know anymore guys... I got myself all worked up for the MTW... I made a break from STW MI cuz it was sort of growing on me already and the community was in shatters trying to fix all the crap by imposing rules and making patches... man I hated all that crap.
I did my share of honour hunting on Ironing Board. I also gave away that honour to whoever wanted it, that was fun...
Then I switched to hilly maps and finally to hikoku hilly games, which I loved, but not many seemed to appreciate them, finally I just called it a day and made a big exit.
I went to fly Il2Sturmovik, great game, best sim ever. I made it to the best squad =Flying Barans=, I'm =FB=Charnota, if anyone cares... that game rocks, but I still have a place in my heart for the kind of strategy game that has a concept of STW.
To my dissapointment, MTW went for somewhat arcadish approach. I expected some geeky game, with a lot of history being tried to explain... fat chance. Its sort of have a touch of a history program on a second rate channel (Channel 5 for all the British folks)
As for online gameplay... I don't like it. I didn't go into much detail to explore the game, but I was turned off by the lack of stuff for Russians and has never recovered from it.
As for tactics, I haven't been playing MTW long enough to be the judge of that, although for me the simpler the army choice, - the better. There is too much shopping you have to get to grips with.