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?

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........

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?

Well, I guess he just knows how to have fun way better than we ever could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhedd

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fookison

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

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.

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://img182.imageshack.us/img182/189/0018xi7.jpg


https://img182.imageshack.us/img182/8805/0019cp8.jpg


https://img182.imageshack.us/img182/159/0020wb9.jpg


https://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7882/0021er6.jpg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaher

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

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?

Quote:

---

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://img407.imageshack.us/img407/3403/0024fs9.jpg




https://img407.imageshack.us/img407/3282/0025xd8.jpg




https://img407.imageshack.us/img407/9772/0026cw2.jpg


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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diotavelli

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?

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.

And even then they'll be inconclusive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joe4iz

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

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.