Printable View
Dear All,
Talking vanilla MTW:VI, how do you find handgunners? Personally I have great difficulties in making them hurt the enemy in more than the slightest way. Sure guns scare people and animals, but when playing on expert I have a feeling the AI bonus kind of negates this effect.
Do you apply handgunners on expert? And if so, how do you use them effectively?
yours,
/HG
It's better to treat then as medium melee troops with the bonus of handguns, than ranged troops. Get them on a flank, fire and then charge.
Not that I normally use them, although when I accidently had thier accuracy at 0.7 (instead of 0.07), they were quite nasty.
On a side note: play on Hard - expert only gives AI cheats and unrealistic battle bonuses - its a waste of time and energy to beat the various Obi Wans and master Yodas.
Handgunners under a good general and with a few upgrades are extremely powerful - they are very decent swords (some of the best in the game in fact) - the firepower is just an added bonus. All you need to do is inflict one casualty to an enemy unit and they get a morale penalty that combined with the handgunners' charge may route pretty much anything that can route.
To do that, approach the enemy with enagage at will on and fire at will off or let them approach you. Once you (or they) are in range just put fire at will - the gunners will shoot now as they have their weapons loaded. Do that at the very last moment/closest distance possible so the chances that you make a kill are maximised. Now after the volley just press alt and click attack/charge. Your gunners take their swords out and throw themselves to the enemy taking a few scalps on the way.
Remember that volleys depend on the number of the front row troops - the more breadth your formation has the more bullets are out of them (at the expense of speed reload for reloading ranks units such as arquebusiers). This is true for sword units' melee as well as they tend to wrap round enemy flanks and make their formations crumble. It pays to have a 3 to 2 if possible ranks deep handgunners formation as they take ages to reload and you aren't really interested in getting a series of volleys out of them. The disadvantage is in terms of meneuvrability.
Optimally you want to flank as Ironside says - then you really get the best out of them.
There's more than meets the eye in this unit.
Many Thanks
Noir
Very good advice from Noir - especially the bit about playing on "hard" rather than "expert", as it makes all the difference to AI morale. (Someone did make the point once that using expert is also bit of a player exploit too, as the AI will fight to the death rather than run - giving your troops more valour from more kills).
I tend to use guns for their morale effects rather than the outright kills. Careful use of the fire-at-will command is key. I tend to leave them in hold formation rather than engage at will, but either will stop them skirmishing which is a real killer to their usefulness. When the enemy come within range, just toggle fire at will and they let loose one coordinated volley like Noir said - this usually is enough to send them running. It's also a good way to use arbalests etc, too.
I also like to pair handgunners with arquebusiers, as that way the enemy are under fire longer, suffer more losses on their way to you, and consequently have a more fragile morale. Also when I play a Muslim faction, HGs (as opposed to the wimpy Mamluk ones) make a really useful addition for their melee abilities.
HG, from the numerology thread:
http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic...gy.html?page=1
On Expert, the AI units only get +4 to morale and about 30% more combat power than otherwise. As you probably know, the AI units still rout. I've never had a problem with playing on Expert. Just my 2 cents.
Fair enough - however:
In vanilla lowly units start at about 2 to 4 basic morale - this can be turned to +4 with a general that has 4 command stars (rather the norm in vanilla), and further increased by buildings (church, monasteries, cathedrals, military buildings) to say another +4. So far its 10 to 12 morale for units like arbalests & feudal sargeants - note that knights start at 8. If you now add the "only" +4 of the expert that takes it up to +16 for lowly, i repeat units such as junk spears and shooters. IIRC 16 morale is about the jedi threshold - that is units won't rout all that much.
A unit of knights in the same stack would be at about 20+, since they start at +8 and all this before your units even enter the battlefield and get more valour due to the in fighting valour up that they tend to get even faster since they fight for more time. Units do eventually rout (outnumbering and fatigue penalties、charged from the rear etc) - but the fragile relationship that keep armies together (by mutual support) is forever broken.
The campaign game kills this relationship because it provides more morale than the engine range is capable of supporting meaningfully IMO.
In vanilla MedModIV after 30 turns almost all units would fight to the last man - so i just modded all upgrades out and reduced the stars of the generals considerably (no more than 3 at the beginning) to get to a level that i consider optimal - ie unsupported units generally rout, units down to 20% of man strength generally rout. This is reflected by the base stat/status of units.
Many Thanks
Noir
I imagine they'd be quite good for assaulting castles too, especially for muslims, who dont get halberdiers. Handgunners and arqubusiers are the only "heavily armoured" infantry the Turks and Eggies get.
Their armour would reduce fatalities from missiles and from boiling oil. And their handguns would be handy for shooting down those pesky jedi generals that can make for some very costly assaults.
I've found that the morale bonus on expert is an advantage more than a disadvantage to the AI. I've had a few battles which I've lost because the AI refused to rout and managed to tip the balance in their favour when, had I been playing a lower level, they certainly would have routed and been massacred.
The only major disadvantage I have found with handgunners is simlar to halbs; they are damn slow! If you are trying to maneuver quickly, gunners are not great.
Yes, of course, on balanced odds, the morale bonus wheighs a lot, but on a battle that you're sure to win because of better troops, your troops will gain easliy more valour. I think that is why some (very good) players consider the morale bonus for the AI as a bonus for them.Because they can turn this bonus as an advantage for them by outsmarting the AI in campaign manoeuvering.Quote:
Originally Posted by General Dazza
Which, by the way, is not my case (I hope "yet"! :sweatdrop: )
So the argument Noir proposes against Expert level is that +4 morale gives “more morale than the engine range is capable of supporting meaningfully”. Well, any faction can get +4 morale for any units that are produced in a province with the right religious structure, so you can’t escape that by playing on Hard. However, these units will not have the higher combat power/greater challenge that AI units have on Expert.
Now for the argument that it is an exploit on Expert if I fight units that I know I can defeat, because I will gain valour more quickly than on Hard. If this is indeed the case, then what about AI faction units that fight each other on Expert? Wouldn’t this exploit make the AI units “valour up” more quickly than on Hard as well? Then my units are fighting more powerful AI units than I could hope to meet on Hard. Doesn’t sound like an exploit to me. Besides, when I have set up a battle that I knew I could win, the AI retreated from the province. In battles where the AI cannot retreat and must fight, they already get +8 morale, even on Hard.
I recommend playing on Expert to everyone and remain, humbly, unconvinced.
Fair enough. I will argue my case for one more post- the best practical example i could give would be in through comparing MP games without valour to SP games - there you can really see the difference. If you are interested further please don't hesitate to pm.Quote:
Originally posted by Agent Miles
So the argument Noir proposes against Expert level is that +4 morale gives “more morale than the engine range is capable of supporting meaningfully”. Well, any faction can get +4 morale for any units that are produced in a province with the right religious structure, so you can’t escape that by playing on Hard. However, these units will not have the higher combat power/greater challenge that AI units have on Expert.
Now for the argument that it is an exploit on Expert if I fight units that I know I can defeat, because I will gain valour more quickly than on Hard. If this is indeed the case, then what about AI faction units that fight each other on Expert? Wouldn’t this exploit make the AI units “valour up” more quickly than on Hard as well? Then my units are fighting more powerful AI units than I could hope to meet on Hard. Doesn’t sound like an exploit to me. Besides, when I have set up a battle that I knew I could win, the AI retreated from the province. In battles where the AI cannot retreat and must fight, they already get +8 morale, even on Hard.
I recommend playing on Expert to everyone and remain, humbly, unconvinced.
All i am saying is that its not "just" +4 - there is a world of a difference between +12 Feudal Sargeants and a +16 feudal Sargeants. If the starting differences are of the range of 6 (between say spears and knights) then obviously +4 is a significant addition i would have thought - proportion wise.
As for the "range of the engine", in fact you'll notice that there are morale "levels" until some number (the highest level) - past that units will behave with little difference between each other generally - this means that this level makes morale redundant as a gameplay element - hence we've reached and breached the meaningful range the engine can support - i'd say that this resolve to above morale 16.
BTW you can see what morale your units have during battle by pressing F1: you get a very comprehensible summary of every unit's morale (and of other things too!): try it in a battle after 30-40 turns: most likely you'll get something close to the numbers i describe above. It ain't fun for me playing with and against +20 morale knights and +16 spears: match ups simply matter very little and mutual support much less. You can see that chain routing is hardly an issue with such units in battles with relatively reasonable starting odds.
I play my own home modded SP version of MedMod IV that has no morale/valour/weapon/armour upgrades at all other than those given by the command stars of a general (and still things manage to get out of proportion if a 7 stars general appears) - i also play without valour/weapon upgrades in MP - the relationships and performance of units should be clear and do not be over the capasity of their class.
I used to play expert only in SP in vanilla and various mods for many years - once i realised how things were i dropped it and never put it on again. You can tell the difference somehow if you compare battles during the first 20 turns of a campaign (morale more close to base) and battles after 40+ turns.
If challenge is higher combat power for you or anyone else - fine - its a preference no comment on that - BTW and this is not a pun, why don't you turn morale off then? The AI will be infinitely "more challenging" in the way General Dazza is describing. I enjoy the game largely due to the key relationship between match ups and flanking maneuvers and the fine morale line that needs to be held up by mutually supporting units during battle: that key relationship should be so as for example if your low class spears are encircled by the enemy they route - if instead they are knights they may fight till being down to x% (20? 15? not less than 1 though...). Now if both fight to the end under such a situation then morale is hardly a "gameplay element". Expert is not the only cause of that but an additional one that is not to be ignored as an "only +4" IMO.
Having morale base more than 10 for spear units - that is: higher than the base morale for knights - simply ruins that. Knights should be knights and spears should be spears - they should fight within the capability and the morale of their class: with all the campaign parameters including expert mode, they don't - all units fight with capabilities and morale of elites/knights - that is morale hardly makes as much difference as it makes when you fight battles with them in their "base" level. For example you wouldn't use spears for suicide missions at the beginning of a campaign - past some turns though you can use them for everything. The roles each unit occupies gameplay wise become leveled out; a medium cavalry valoured up and upgraded can be as devastating as a unit of knights. In effect you get units that can do more roles and so a poorer gameplay because all units can substitute reasonably other units of their type (= shooter, melee infantry, cavalry, spears). In fact sometimes even the types are trancsendent: upgraded shooters may perform just as good as melee infantry, and more famously upgraded swords perform just as well (if not much better) as anticavalry than spears (that is also evident in MTW MP).
An extreme case as example of what i am saying would be a unit that would be able to do everything reasonably well (say valoured up mounted crossbows?). You could make only stacks of them and beat everything: they can charge, skirmish, shoot, pursuit, melee: no need for a combined approach - no need for other units even.
I in turn reccomend against expert and also against: more than 2 command stars, valor upgrades & provincial bonuses (that by the way make the AI not financially developping such provinces crippling him in the process if they happen to be his "rich ones"), weapon upgrades, armor upgrades and morale upgrades of any kind. The units have a role and a character already - altering them in a way that they differ less from each other in their uses and specialities due to campaign parameters doesn't help getting tactical battles as far as i can see - its just making the game assymptotically tending to arcade mode - that's just my preference & opinion.
Many Thanks
Noir
*edited for clarity*
So... you regularly use 0 morale (base) spears? Try 5 hobilars vs 4 spearmen outside a forest sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
Or steppe cav vs UM and peasants.
Or to put it otherwise, you shouldn't base those modifications on the unmodded game as the morale bonuses are accounted for with too low morale for some units to withstand a cav charge. Would end up as RTW...
I to a large extend agree with Noir in that the beauty of this game lies in the combined arms approach. In some of the "pics and history" AAR the battles have been won with a setup of 3 arbs and 13 halbs. And the AI got slaugtered. What happened???
There should be a unit to counter other units, also under different circumstances. Having said that, I find it very important that there is some kind of upgrading your units, otherwise the game would be about unit-producing. The choice between spending money on upgrades or new units is essential to the gameplay IMO.
Having said that, a fully upgraded killer arbs & halbs stack that can take on 16 stacks of mongols and win just isn't fun. I havn't modded the game but 'roleplayed' my way out of it. Sending crusades with much less troops than available, not building specific units though affordable ect. If people want easy victories - let them have them. I want challenges.
Thats why I still play on expert, as the enemy army might not break as easily, and has a decent chance of routing me from the field. Wich in fact they often do, though I consider myself a decent player. I still get victories with breaking armies, though I have to admit this often only happens when the general dies/flees.
I think we should either close this discussion or move it to a topic called "expert vs. hard"
yours,
/HG
Apologies for going so far off topic - it developed rather... unexpectedly.Quote:
Originally posted by History Geek
I think we should either close this discussion or move it to a topic called "expert vs. hard"
By the way there are plenty of things to do if you play without the upgrades:
1. Diplomatic dealings (marrying, closing alliances and breaking alliances in order to benefit powergroups that benefit your cause objectives)
2. Subterfuge (assssinations, rebellions, religious dealings etc)
3. Develop your provinces as logistic centers (army production) depending on the layout and objectives of your faction.
4. Develop your economy in the provices and choose, take over and safeguard trade routes and trade partners.
5. Managing the internal power levers of your state. This currently amounts to managing your dynasty and the loyalty of your generals to your kings, that is assuring the right heir gets to the throne and assuring that civil wars don't happen or happen to a good cause.
Parts 4 & 5 i find incredibly fun, although somewhat underdeveloped in TW (especially in the newer games mind you). The game could include more features outside the players control inside his kingdom, and some of them coming to the hand of strict/effective rulers or drifting off the hand of ineffective ones. The Pope is one such force for the catholics, that may turn your own poeple against you if you get excommunicated.
I agree that the game (MTW) should have more strategic options that it currently has - but that's total war: a tactical battle game in a strategic shell. The direction RTW and M2 took it are not examples of extra strategic options BTW IMO. I think that TW has not "evolved" almost at all in these games - just bells and whistles were added, that you can play with but make little difference as strategic options/tools.
Vanilla spearmen (i mean the unit called spearmen not generally spears) have 0 morale but they often fight with much higher than their base morale due to the general's stars (and other parameters). The problem with spears in MTW is that they get a massive defensive bonus against cavalry (+1/+4) - that makes their confrontation against it one of endurance that they win only if they are not flanked - the 5 hobilars would win as they have ample time to outmaneuver and flank the much slower spears in your example.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronSide
So... you regularly use 0 morale (base) spears? Try 5 hobilars vs 4 spearmen outside a forest sometimes.
Or steppe cav vs UM and peasants.
You probably also mean that the spearmen break too soon and run - however that shows a flaw in the game design (spears not effective as anti-cavalry) and its irrelevant in the point i try to make above - that is that most units get too high a morale past 30 turns. I can see where you are coming from (small initial morale in some units to compensate for the upgrades), but that isn't working as intended and morale gets anyway too high in the game, all the more so with expert on. Vanilla MTW further complicates the thing by giving a choice of various units that are (no secret) badly balanced - what i like in the Medmod IV is that all factions get at least one decent unit in every role in all periods. Although 0 morale is admittedly low, 2 is relatively ok for the role spears hold in SP, i think.
I agree that "lowly units" have a somewhat too low morale without any upgrades - however as i mentioned is to compensate for the upgrades that will happen inevitably in SP. Its a fair point that lowly units should have a base morale (especially if one fights without upgrades as say in MP) in order to be useful if they play with only it. Spears in MP MTW suffer from a low morale for example - pretty much as you mention and upgrading money is worth spending in swords, that led to the sword cavalry armies dominating.
BTW most other spearmen other than the lower class ones (and two others) in vanilla have a base morale of minimum 2 (that i used for the comparison in the above post) - so the case you are bringing up is rather not the norm.
(https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=31444).
Peasants i do not use at all even in the early days i was playing vanilla so i can't comment on them.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ironside
Or to put it otherwise, you shouldn't base those modifications on the unmodded game as the morale bonuses are accounted for with too low morale for some units to withstand a cav charge. Would end up as RTW...
No it wouldn't, i think. In RTW the chain routing element and the "losing badly"-kill rates element are too high (my guess) as well as the cavalry charge being essentially unstoppable - but in MTW chain routing well in a campaign is simply not an issue (not a gameplay element) due to the upgrades/command stars with relatively reasonable opposing odds. Units fight well and to high spirits wether they are mutually supported or wether they are not usually. Battles in RTW were designed to be fast in order to catch up with the average attention and click speed associated with a more action oriented a more "fun" notion of the general gaming public and also with the increased amount of battles per campaign that the new pseudo"3D" map was now offering. For example in MTW there are chances to rally your troops once chain routing happens, in RTW there are practically none - the confrontation deteriorates fast one way or the other - a balancing point is hard to find. That's really bad gameplay as you imply (no time for flanking, essentially even no time for match ups - just a set up and a charge - at most a flank attack) - but it doesn't mean that too high morale is the asnwer.
The beauty of battles IMO using the old engine is that there is a range of morale for each unit class/type that produces a combined arms approach (RPS principle) as a necessity: that is units (and teams of units) need to cover each other at all times in order to fight in full potential (no routing) during a battle. Some units need more "covering" and others less, and detachments of units as well as the whole army needs to be taken care of in that respect. However the design of the campaign tilts the balance of the morale scales towards a more arcadish gameplay that units stay to fight with high opposing odds - essentially match ups matter less and combined arms also.
There is more slack if you want in the gameplay - its more forgiving to tactical mistakes that make winning possible by playing less "optimally" in the sense of good combination/coordination (that can be achieved through various battle tactics maneuvers etc) with the units in hand. This is why i am saying that the battle gameplay is not good like this.
There is another repercussion of "expert" though - generally speaking AI factions play more to get the player than be concerned with their situation and rushing in the campaign prevails. That's good and fine initially again, until there are 4 mega-factions and about 20 in the reapperances bin. That also detracts from campaign enjoyment as the only strategy that works is to do the same - kill or be killed. Even making trade routes is becoming somewhat of a chore because AI factions with naval access simply spam boats - the 3 turns boat production rate may as well mean that you may never take over the seas until that faction seizes to exist. The gameplay is unflexible and unicolored with conquest rushing as the best bet. In hard factions play more concerned with their well being, than the destruction of their neighbours and there are more ways to play the game strategically including conquering rushes/sprees.
Hard, has conversely the same weakness: if you rush the AI factions early on, the rest of the campaign is bound to be most likely easy. However if you let the AI factions alone and turtle for 20-30 turns (or even better click on the menu in the mini map and let the AI manage your everything and you just do the moving around and fighting) then you will really get your money back as the AI factions have financial and military substance and they are not dry twigs that snap easily. To put it otherwise rushing comes with a risk regardless if its succesful or not (you become vulnerable during the "consolidating phase") and the gameplay is more enriched as this is not the "single winning recipee" anymore.
Many Thanks
Noir
*edited for clarity and an inaccuracy*
Well, I don't know, maybe the AI is "valouring up" its units as it want anyway, whatever the level? But you have a point there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Miles
This is, IMHO a tough case, the AI probably takes the morale stuff in account. But I rememeber when i was a TW "kid" a year ago, my first campaign on easy, playing thevikings: I had several times a unit of viking landsmen holding preternaturaly, stil standing and fighting while being reduced to 30 people approx. So help had been succesfully provided. On normal the unit wa routing and made another unit root and an easily won battle on easy just because of the morale boost became, with the same strategy a lost battle on normal... So this +4 our -4 for "starting morale bonus" has a big impact on the battle outcomes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Miles
I agree with the fact that a morale boost can be found with religious monuments (but I think you need lots of those to have +4, this is a reliquary + a church, or cathedral + monastery for christians, it takes ages to build them), and I know that a good strategy gives more tan +4/-4 morale bonuses/maluses. THen the +8 when cannt retrat turns to +12 on expert: the basic morale of berserkers who usually stay tothe last man...
I'm not saying expert is easier than hard. I say that there are some ways of using part of the difficulty as an advantage
Sorry for answering this with such a starting topic, But Agent Miles did have very interesting views, I could'nt help! :shame:
Thanks! I've actually never played on Hard. Maybe I'll do a comparison.
I'm torn everyone - I'm TORN! :dizzy2:
I was so happy with my decision about Expert being better, but Noir and co do make sense.
Then - the other night I had a battle with Swedish troops in my hospitaller game (on high, expert, XL) which I'm 100 turns or so into. It was a tough affair and the Swedes got on top. Their high valour/morale troops were proving hard to break down.
My troops fled, but I managed to retreat/rally some towards the back of the map. The Swedes gave chase, but one unit at a time and with archers and other types in the front (~:rolleyes: ).
So then their troops catch mine, which were not exactly in fighting order, but they again steamroll mine. They had archers killing my FMAAs in a 1 on 1 fight! Archers killing my (admittedly exhausted) mounted sergeants!
I was really annoyed cos I thought I had re-rallied my troops enough to fight off.
BUT - i think there's 2 ways you can look at this:
1. Archers should never kill FMAAs so this is just plain bad - and hard is the way to go
2. The AI is not as good tactically as the player, and the AI will do silly things sometimes (like chase with isolated archers units and send them into a 1 on 1 fight). And this evens it up.
I'm still not sure which way to go. But there is 1 thing I think worth noting - in this example it's only the AI that can afford to not fight according to accepted realistic tactics (infantry at front, flank with faster units etc etc). It kind of makes it evewn more important for the player to play good solid tactics. In this case even though the AI took me on with archers, I still was forced to treat them like elite warriors and do hold and flank maneouvres, and to structure my units effectively. Whereas in hard I could have just taken advantage of the AIs stupidity and mowed down his archers.
Food for thought?:inquisitive:
Like I said - I'm still not sure which way I'll gof rothe next campaign. I might play hard to see the difference.
Do you remeber anything more? As those archers can had quite a bit of valour and/or your FMAA can have been exhausted or worse.
Exhaution makes a serious difference. I often use a desert corp that lacks armour and they have a heavy tendency to loose the first wave while winning the rest (when exhaustion has striked).
Expert gives a 30% combatbonus= about 1 valour and +4 morale, while hard gives a 15% bonus, but 1 valour is a far cry from making an archer being able to match FMAA.
Being severely outstared is a much bigger problem.
General Dazza, history is replete with battles where one side mistakenly thought that they were superior, only to meet William Wallace or someone else who just wanted to tear out their rib cage and throw it on the bar-by. Archers beat FMAA’s? It’s not the size of the man in the fight; it’s the size of the fight in the man. Every battle should have an element of the unknown so that they don’t get stale. That’s why I play Expert.
I don't know that I'll ever play on Expert, to be honest. (Of course, I finally started regularly playing on Hard just this year, so I'm probably not one to talk. :dunce:) I think I just dislike it when anyone receives artificial bonuses, be it the player or AI -- I avoided playing on Easy for the same reason (since the player gets the +4 morale bonus on Easy).
I don't mind the AI getting some advantages in strategy games, as the human has plenty of natural advantages. I like a really good challenge, so for me gameplay has to be challenging.
The times I don't like the AI getting advantages is when the game makers just give the AI large troop numbers or whatever - things that don't make it more interesting, just more time consuming.
I think MTW is nicely balanced though, so doesn't suffer from that too much.
Ironside - I can't remember much more now - I didn't have a full FMAA unit, but neither did the archers. Mine were tired and had probably routed shortly before. But I do remember yelling "you've got to be kidding me!" at the screen. :laugh4:
Hey - one other thing I noticed in this battle and a few others shortly before/after, and I'm not sure if it's an Expert thing - I had at least 3-4 battles where a little bit of rain meant that my troops were close to exhaustion before they even got to the enemy. Granted, they were your full metal uniform army, but the rain wasn't that bad. They were largely field battles with no hills. By the time my army had marched up to be close, most were one 1-2 bars. Very frustrating, as within a short time the raised valour of the other army, and the exhaustion of mine had mine routing, even though I had the better quality army.
Not sure if I just haven't noticed it before, or if on expert you get any penalties?
Except for the AI morale and combat bonus, you start with only 4000 florins. Other than these, I haven't read about an exhaustion penalty. I think that some things that people complain about, like general's hit ponts and exhaustion, aren't affected by difficulty level.
I am an advocate of saving your battles. You can then replay them at your leisure and better check what is actually happening. This is also a good learning tool. For instance, if you stopped short of the AI army in a good defensive position, like on a hill, then you could rest your force and attack when they are back to three or four bars. That's what I do.
Agent Miles is correct. The only bonuses/penalties on Expert are the player starting with less money and the AI receiving the valour/morale bonus. Exhaustion still works the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by General Dazza