Yoo Cheetah, i am good and how are you. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
Its been a long time, years i should say, and my memory isnt as good as what it used to be :smash: :sweatdrop:
did we win that battle?
Printable View
Yoo Cheetah, i am good and how are you. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
Its been a long time, years i should say, and my memory isnt as good as what it used to be :smash: :sweatdrop:
did we win that battle?
I got no problem to try and adapt to new games. I play different games that I find fun in different ways. If I like them, I keep playing them, if I don't, I stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
I have not found RTW interesting to play. Have I tryed hard? Well, I was also part of that exercise of frustration that was betaing RTW1.2. After that beta, I also gave a shot to some modding for MP purpose. I think that was around a couple of hundreds hours in 6 months. Probably more.
And I gave up. I don't find playing RTW interesting. If that's not enough, let me tell you that then it's probably too long for any player to adapt.
Sure, it's my own opinion... And you if you like RTW good for you. If MTW2 is like RTW, you'll be happy with it, and I won't. Then I won't buy it. That's why feedback matters for me here: I'll make a buying decision based on that, and it will also a few evenings that I might either waste, or find fun.
Some of the criteria I base my decision on are simple to assess:
- possibility to play lagless 4v4
- stability (no disc)
- no desync
- lobby interface design -> ability to keep ignore list, ability to have multiple private chat with ease.
So far, MTW2 does not seem to meet my criterias.
Others are a matter of taste, such as speed, kill rate, even balance is a bit in between (although, we'll see in a couple of months if the game ends up with more balanced army, or if "one type" army gets the upper hand).
So far, it does not look clear if it's good or not.
I don't really care about it getting modified, I lost hopes about CA changing the game to please MPer, about bug list or petition.Quote:
For a game that thousands of people enjoy, it sounds strange, no, raging that a handful find it so disgusting, and want it modified to their taste.
It's either to my taste, and I buy it, or not to my taste, and I don't.
So far, my purchase is on hold.
Louis,
well, no doubt about RTW, many if not most of the old clans stoped playing it.
Now u can go and find out why...
MY reason was the lack of style, tactics and the dumped down try of a "tactic" game it was once. When people can win a game by clicking somewhere a few time its already too late.
Adapt to games?
Well, yes ofc, but only till a certain degree, i accepted MTW as a step down already, but in the end it was playable and u could enjoy it.
I tried RTW 2 days, than never played it again, it was to easy to see all the problems in a short time.
Louis hit the nail on the head, i dont try to change a game, either it hit my expectations or not. If i dont like it i dont play, i dont try to learn to find something good.
Right now i will wait some time till they patch M2, when its done i will consider to buy it, but till that day i wont give CA any of my gold, they dissapointed me and many otehr many times already, now there is no need to pay once more for something which is a early beta but not a game which should be sold!
There is no doubt about the stage of this game, its not done and they brought it out with the full knowledge of the major bugs.
Positiv, well, i think that many are sure abotu that its better than RTW, once the bugs are solved and its playable, we maybe will find it entertaining again.
mars
I think that some people have major problems to understand the basic problem within TW.
First, this game doesn’t have the potential to get 10.000 or 100.000 player hugged and playing for months or years. This gamestyle doesn’t work like some other games.
Second, one real problem is the way CA see their own game, they don’t see MP as a big factor, but still the MP cause more problems than the SP. There were minor SP bug and many MP.
The point is, that in a campaign once u build some buildings, u got better units, this units ofc had to make u feel a difference to what u used before. This lead to an imbalance, this imbalance is made on purpose.
Sadly these imbalance cause problems in MP, that’s why we got 3 eras. Still the imbalances between units or counterparts are not feel able or not notice able if u play MP.
How much u care for spears compared to cav in a campaign, where u got 3 times better armies than ur opponent?
Third, the potential of this game is maybe around 3000-5000 people playing it online.
With a good system and an own server ( most important) CA could collect tons of info about structure of setups and change the prices or even stats after using the collected info.
U need a ladder, many people have epeen and want that other know about who is “best” or at least how good they are. We know that the laddersystem was not the best and that it got exploits, but anyway it was an indicator and people know what to fight for.
Forth, tourneys, clanwars….there is so much…
All in all, the last 7 years the TW gamestyle changed a lot and the problem is, that it didn’t change to the better. Grafix got better and we got more units, there are other improvements, but after watching some nice grafix u end with playing a game, if the game is bad the best grafix doesn’t help.
The gamestyle, the basic changed to worser stages, till RTW as we was the final cut and the community changed almost completely. Now with M2 we see a step in the right direction, if it really will bring back some real tactical gamefeeling we will see the next months.
Mars
Please explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
My complaints about RTW are many. New players have always been around, even in STW. The gameplay, the lobby and even the maps and deployment zones are below the standard that the MP community were used to. You already said you did not play MTW online, so I presume that goes for STW as well. Given this fact I do not understand why you criticise players who did. Sure, you may well find negative posts about a game you enjoy to be annoying but you may be totally unaware of the amount of work these players put into the game. I am glad you enjoy RTW, there were plenty who did/do. I mentioned already that the vast majority of the MP community left after giving up on RTW. These were players who played all the games in the series. You do not see them post negatively because they do not post here any more, only the few survivors. Now I ask you a question. Do you honestly think all these players were wrong?
.....Orda
For my taste too much words was already spent on RTW. Not worth it. Atm the only reason why I still log in RTW lobbies is NapoleonicTW 2 mod made by the Lordz. Lobbies are still crowded with poeple who seems to play 1.5 (hardly anyone playing BI) regulary and I don't mind if they continue to play the game which I've left behind after few months of trying to get something of it (NTW 2 is exception - feel almost like a new game).
Two minimums which needed to be fixed.*for the time being let's suppose that gameplay is ok - not too many exploits*Quote:
- possibility to play lagless 4v4
- no desync
I've almost not seen anyone talking about any game exploits yet and this might be due lag issue which is main issue to be solved atm.
I've heard from someone (don't know if this is true or not) that lbows are very strong unit..in melee.
While we are discussing MP issue someone already made a ''mod'' for MTW 2 http://www.twcenter.net/ *sigh*
How do you define "deep" ?Quote:
No I didn't. I played MTW as it's own gamestyle, and RTW as its own gamestyle as well. My philosophy is to find out what works and use it. That doesn't mean these games were as good as STW. After I found out what worked in MTW and RTW it was clear that the gameplay wasn't as deep as STW. RTW and M2TW have an inferior battle engine, and there is no way to bring the level of the gameplay up to the previous games. That wasn't fully apparent to me during the RTW v1.2 beta.
Sooner or later the lag will be fixed, one way or another. I remember in RTW 1.3 I had horrible lag even in 1 on 1's, but then it got fixed magically one day.Quote:
Sweetzero posted that he's been playing 4v4 with no lag. There may be nothing CA can do about it.
Again, why do you see them more "tactical" ?Quote:
STW and MTW are more tactical, and thus more fun, for me. They are different from each other, but more or less their 4v4 are very enjoyable.
I respect your opinion. Though, I just want to comment on adapting. As I've been playing RTW at all versions on MP quite a lot, I can tell you that RTW 1.5 is a game that has nothing to do with either 1.2 or 1.1. I admit the 1.2 and 1.1 were all about exploits, but I can tell you that 1.5 is just perfect. (Even with the Butt-Spike bug for phalanx.. It just makes things hotter IMO)Quote:
I got no problem to try and adapt to new games. I play different games that I find fun in different ways. If I like them, I keep playing them, if I don't, I stop.
I have not found RTW interesting to play. Have I tryed hard? Well, I was also part of that exercise of frustration that was betaing RTW1.2. After that beta, I also gave a shot to some modding for MP purpose. I think that was around a couple of hundreds hours in 6 months. Probably more.
And I gave up. I don't find playing RTW interesting. If that's not enough, let me tell you that then it's probably too long for any player to adapt.
Sure, it's my own opinion... And you if you like RTW good for you. If MTW2 is like RTW, you'll be happy with it, and I won't. Then I won't buy it. That's why feedback matters for me here: I'll make a buying decision based on that, and it will also a few evenings that I might either waste, or find fun.
Some of the criteria I base my decision on are simple to assess:
- possibility to play lagless 4v4
- stability (no disc)
- no desync
- lobby interface design -> ability to keep ignore list, ability to have multiple private chat with ease.
So far, MTW2 does not seem to meet my criterias.
Others are a matter of taste, such as speed, kill rate, even balance is a bit in between (although, we'll see in a couple of months if the game ends up with more balanced army, or if "one type" army gets the upper hand).
So far, it does not look clear if it's good or not.
I don't really care about it getting modified, I lost hopes about CA changing the game to please MPer, about bug list or petition.
It's either to my taste, and I buy it, or not to my taste, and I don't.
So far, my purchase is on hold.
Louis,
Well, it is a rough guess, but I believe in Shogun; due to the better lobby functions, and the diffficulty at which you could obtain an internet connection back then, I would guess there were more mature people.Quote:
My complaints about RTW are many. New players have always been around, even in STW.
Sure they all were different, but not importantly worse. Gameplay.. I can't judge that, but I can say RTW's is good. The lobby, well I agree it is poorly-designed, but I don't enter the game to chat anyway, even though I do that a lot in it, and I don't seem to face trouble. The maps, well, there are like more than 90 maps in map-packs ready for you to pick what you like (If you're talking about their size.. Well, that's another thing. Though, the current map size is enough for a HA army to move good without having any trouble. I can't see why would you need more space). Deployment zones.. I can't judge it as well, but I can't see what's wrong with the current one. And if any, not a game sabotaging thing for sure.Quote:
The gameplay, the lobby and even the maps and deployment zones are below the standard that the MP community were used to.
The amount of work they put into it is simply irrelevant. I didn't like A: TW at all, do you see me "criticising" it everyday? The problem is, sometimes they're simply bashing. Heck, sometimes they're bashing a game they don't even own!Quote:
Given this fact I do not understand why you criticise players who did. Sure, you may well find negative posts about a game you enjoy to be annoying but you may be totally unaware of the amount of work these players put into the game.
No, I don't. The majority of them left at the earlier versions of RTW, the really imbalanced ones. So imbalanced that they didn't allow for the tactical depth of the game to be realized, because simply, with Cataphracts having a tremendous charge attack, and spears phalanx not working, no matter how deep tactics are, the Cataphracts will kill the phalanx.. Sure, you might say an all HA army is just powerful, but it can be countered with the right army.. Oh, not another spam army btw ~:)Quote:
Do you honestly think all these players were wrong?
Three rock, paper, scissors systems operating simultaneously that worked because the units were well balanced resulting in combined arms tactics. Optimal moral level and fatigue rates. Standard money level which was consistently used. Gamespeed that allowed individual control of all 16 units at the height of a battle which is necessary to make use of the combined arms tactics. Seemingly infinite variety of army formations designed to counter particular enemy army formations. No "best" units because all units were useful and cost effective which lead to variety in army composition. No army purchase rules. No max 4 unit type tax. You had to account for every single enemy unit because leaving even a single unit unaccounted for would cost you the battle. Variety of weather effects which had a significant affect on the units and on visibility conditions. Significantly superior battle engine (squeezed too tight melee penalty calculated for individual men, deep formation ranged unit penalty, individual man line of sight and distance calculation for shooters). Large number of events used to resolve unit combat which gives a reasonable level of statistical uncertainty. Proper ratio of cav speed to infantry speed. Well selected reload times for ranged units. Well paced battles which mostly lasting between 20 to 30 minutes. Highly distinguishable units from each other and from the ground textures. Fatigue indicator on the unit icons which provides quick assessment of all the units fatigue level. Definable subgroups within groups. Independent toggles for hold position and hold formation.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
There were some slight playbalance issues, but nothing even remotely comparable to the playbalance issues of the later games.
Not if it's caused by people playing with inadequate machines.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
You can't expect CA to hang back on the Graphics side just to let more people be able to play the game.. "Technology moves on." People eventually will get to upgrade. I can almost guarantee in a period of 6 months to have rare lag issues.Quote:
Not if it's caused by people playing with inadequate machines.
About the "deep" gameplay point, I will reply later since I have no time now..
I don't expect CA to do anything. You just stated a reason for not buying this game for at least 6 months. It doesn't matter if you have a good machine yourself. You're going to have to wait for the players with insufficient machines to either upgrade or quit.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
These fancy graphics aren't necessary for good gameplay. They actually hinder the gameplay by causing performance problems and visualization problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Gah.
What are CA meant to do? Keeep romes graphics for every total war game due to some people not having the machiens to play it. MTW2 is designed to target an audience. The vast audience being those who wish graphics to move on. If you don't wish to, then don't buy the game. But what I will say is you seeem to be critisizing the game which you yourself have said you havn't played. I agreee fair enough there is some lag issue. I can't personly agree its a major problem as the games I have played with that does lag is minimal and doesn't effect the game. To truley critisize the problems at heart you have to play the game m8. Each experience is different from different people due to different veiws. At the moment it is to early for people to be taking one universal veiw on the matter.
Tib
How about blocking AthlonXP from playing online since their game doesn't support it for multiplayer. Also, if a machine has insufficient processing power for a particular hosted game, don't allow that machine to join that game.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
I played the demo, and I can see the visualization problems, and I can also tell you that these fancy graphics don't improve the gameplay. You lost all that stuff from the battle engine that I mentioned in my earlier post for better graphics, and the ironic thing is that the sprite graphics in the new game are worse than the original game they made 6 years ago.
possibly time to move on yukki and orda mates...
total war is not going to be the same as shogun, ever. it's done, mtw:vi is all but done too.
i hear what you are saying and for the most part agree with it, but stating it tenfold is not gonna change anything, it didn't with rome, it won't with m2. there is also little value in attempting to explain to folks who never played shogun or mtw:vi, and no point rehashing old debates with folks who are satisfied with their current mp experience in rome and now m2.
:bow:
for my part, as critical as i was with rome, i am mildly surprised with what i've seen in m2 mp. it's not perfect, it's pretty much a copy of rome, but they've tweaked something that makes the game play more intuitive. at least to my untrained, and lazy eye.
so hope to see you on the field. :balloon2:
Wisest proposal so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
This is very true. I can't think of anyone who has time to zoom in on the action and kill animations and still manage to control all their other units or check that their ally does not need assistance or communicate a problem to team mates. The important factor is battlefield view, there is no need for the graphics other than watching a replay. The current sprites are quite shabby IMO and it is quite surprising. STW sprites were pretty darned good, they were incredibly detailed. From the red armour plates of the Naginata down to the helmet details and even the Katana and Wakizashi the archers had. Puzz3D, I just loaded STW and had a shock, I've got to admit I forgot just how good they wereQuote:
I played the demo, and I can see the visualization problems, and I can also tell you that these fancy graphics don't improve the gameplay. You lost all that stuff from the battle engine that I mentioned in my earlier post for better graphics, and the ironic thing is that the sprite graphics in the new game are worse than the original game they made 6 years ago.
.......Orda
http://www.madminutegames.com/gallery.htm
This game has good Sprites
It is a combination of factors, you would have to experience it in order to appreciate.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
STW
Do not be fooled by the simplicity of STW; despite all factions having similar units and the variety of units are not as many compared to later TW, this actually helps STW. If you looked through the archive, the discussion about game balance, the bashing, etc, was even more than MTW or RTW. However even when most felt the game could be better balanced for MP, it did not make any unit useless; almost all the available units are 'usable', have its tactical value, and are used in battles.
You have the yari, naginata and heavy cav, all reasonably priced and served different functions. You have the yari samurai, nodachi and warrior monk, found in every game hosted; even the super peasants that were hotly debated, didnt tilt the game balance too much, is not all over-power. You have only archers and musketeers, but one doesnt rule the other, and are used in different ways. Later on you have special units like battlefield ninja and the loneman kensai, that are both fun, and not unbalancing (maybe except taking multuple kensai for its morale effect if i recall correctly). And the horse-archers, they are one hell of a unit when used with skill, but even then are balanced and countered effectively by yari-cav.
You have good scissor-paper-stone system between the unit types. It is like chess, the players have similar pieces, all useful and 'balanced' (not a word imaginable then, but looking back..). This provide the mean to give STW very good tactical depth, but by itself cannot guarantee tactical depth.
As proof, see http://shogun-academy.tripod.com/battle_154803_pg1.html
STW games become more tactical primarily because of control imo. Somehow I feel the control interface in STW to be better than MTW, and for sure RTW. And control of the army is one key attribute to winning the day; and control not as in grouping a bunch of horse spam, and clicking it behind the enemies, and routing them off because of super-duper morale penalty effect you get when all the cav charges hit one poor infantry unit along the line. Control then was at individual unit level; although STW has only 16 pieces compared to RWT, but RTW feel more like 5 pieces at most to me, STW is true 16 pieces.
And control is enhanced by what I feel is the right speed of units.. I just feel STW units speed to be the better balanced, between walking and running. You can tell when trying to catch those horse-archers; they are fast, thus serving their function of harassing the flank, but if you dont watch them, they can be quickly caught by yari-cav. You dont get this is RTW.. some how even if I ignore my horse-archers in RTW they do fine by themselves.
IMO, it was these reasons that then the players attracted to STW were mostly tactical minded, and we enjoyed many massive 4v4 (and constantly having heated debate on game balancing :smash:).
Also, the ladder made a difference. Even able to know the ping reading in the foyer made a difference.
MTW
Now you have many many unit choices, and factions have unique units. This expanded the tactical breadth, since now there is tactical importance in making the appropriate team armies, or rather, to employ different tactics with different team combo. The scissor-paper-stone system between the unit type is still there, but imo didnt feel as good as STW. Factions like turk and mongol are entirely different, and this is good; team need to play differently with or vs them (but the mongol in late probably not as fun as turk).
You have cav swipe bug initially but this was resolved later with a patch. Cav is more important in MTW imo, but it is appropriately so given the warfare nature of this period. It was in MTW i think you see players all cav army, and winning games. But these were not that bad as experienced balanced army players can counter effectively.
I still prefer STW maps (and the trees.. man i missed those trees) and terrain, but MTW maps are fun.
4v4 were very enjoyable like STW.
Overall, MTW tactical breadth and scope shifted w.r.t to STW, but is not much less than STW in term of playability, and required a paradigm shift, a change in tactical mindset.
Control of army is still highly relevant.
RTW
Not much I wanna say.. just roman.. and cataprachts. And my favourable faction is the german.
:bow:
Here is my Opinion
Me,being a MTW/VI Vet, Also Realiezes, TW Will Never be like it was, on STW, or even on MTW/VI. Never. Period. We can fight till we can't fight no more, and it stil lwon't matter. That was 6 years ago, when I first got STW. I was 8 1/2 years old, and in 3rd grade. MTW2, now I am 14 1/2 and in 9th grade. Can't change Back Time. We can't go back to STW or even MTW/VI, with the good gameplay, with the clans like GreyWovles,Mizu,7Bear7Bottom and SA and other clans playing... I think People are so attached to the Old Games, like STW/MI or MTW/VI, Like Myself and others here, we can't let go. But We have to move On. We Have to ethier start fresh on MTW2, and start playing so other vets would come back,mabye, or just don't play it and play old STW or MTW like old times... I seen RTW tear up many clans, and I seen RTW take away every single MTW person I known on my unpatched server. Everyone,no lie. All 50+. I think We just have to accpect the fact TW will, Sadly, never be the same..
Only quick mentioning that people are many times mistaking when to mention ''tactic'' and when to mention ''strategy''.
I don't recognize anything such as more strategical/tactical or less. Understanding of this depends only on how good you understand strategy and tactics and how good you are to use this ''theories'' in the practise. So it can be tactical or strategical, average or simply nothing of this.IMO
For example if we would be playing chess against good chess player who knows a lot about chess and it's theoretical approach - meaning that he is better tactician then we. If he is not able to put all his tactics to work with a good strategy he is going to lose against us, if we consider that that we are better strategiest.
x-dANGEr what Puzz is trying to explain to you, is that RTW didn't (don't) requier any finenesses. You need up to 8 rules to made match playable - read:less spam then no rules matches. Secondly you get the feeling that RTW engine is ''behaving'' almost coincidental. Thirdly you had to pick strongest units if you had any intentions to win the match. Fourthly your units won't sustain ''flooded'' attack from your opponent and we could keep counting.
Instead of saying why MTW was ''more tactical'' then RTW, let me use another expression - you needed more effort to put in MTW match if wanted to win it.
And Puzz is trying to explain to you that in STW you needed 90%-100% ''effort'' to win the match, in MTW this was 80%-90% and in RTW it was below 50%(oldies will probably give you less then 20%).
Of course another important thing here regarding game engine is that for example MTW allowed you many more ''tactical situations'' then RTW ever could. This is what Puzz wanted to say with ''more tactical''.
Very simple. In those matches you were almost there. The atmosphere in those matches was fantastic. This is same as reading two different books. Good book is ''deep'' and the other one is ''shallow''. RTW is the other book here. Simple as that.Quote:
How do you define "deep" ?
And about graphics.
I second this. I don't deny that they have done good job on graphics, but honestly how many people - even SP players are going to watch cinematic features during the match? When I want something like this I go to the cinema or I run media player.Quote:
I can't think of anyone who has time to zoom in on the action and kill animations and still manage to control all their other units or check that their ally does not need assistance or communicate a problem to team mates. The important factor is battlefield view, there is no need for the graphics other than watching a replay.
Let's say that after RTW we have finally good nice game with MTW 2, but there is another problem now. You simply can't have lag free games..
Please.. Think closely before you write. Being repetitive only eats more of my time to reply..
Available in RTW 1.5. Though, it is just more complicated. You need to know how to use a spear unit to make it "decimate" cavalry, and how to use infantry to make it "decimate" infantry (It gets to an edge, that you can kill the most expensive phalanx unit with an archers unit in melee), you need to know how to use a cavalry unit to be able to kill a spear/infantry unit.. Of course, the last one doesn't mean that cavalry is imbalanced. Yes, it can kill all, but "can" doesn't mean that it does. If you give your units' backs to it, it will kill them, and that is what I mean by can.Quote:
Three rock, paper, scissors systems operating simultaneously that worked because the units were well balanced resulting in combined arms tactics.
I'd call the Morale level of RTW 1.5 optimal, but then, I can't compare it to STW/MTW, because I barely remember a thing of the later, and haven't played the former. Fatigue rates.. The same.Quote:
Optimal morale level and fatigue rates.
I can't see what has this got to do with "deep". Though, I think the most suitable money level in RTW 1.5 is 10k, though most people use 12.5k, which seems fine. It weakens Barbarians, though.Quote:
Standard money level which was consistently used.
Watch a replay of a battle of some experts, and you'd notice how they have no trouble controlling their 20 units, coordinating with allied armies and executing nice tactics with that speed, even at the peak of battle. As I said, it is a matter of getting used to the game, and adapt.Quote:
Gamespeed that allowed individual control of all 16 units at the height of a battle which is necessary to make use of the combined arms tactics.
How is this different in RTW? The only thing that was gone is the "Elite: Doesn't get affected by lesser units routing" factor.Quote:
Seemingly infinite variety of army formations designed to counter particular enemy army formations.
If this really bothers you, just think that all the non-used units are their for the campaign, not MP. Yet, I think games with 10k would allow even more units to be used. I remember at the start, when playing with 10k was more popular, you could see every unit Roman factions had, same going for other factions.Quote:
No "best" units because all units were useful and cost effective which lead to variety in army composition.
What has this got to do with "deep"? At any cost, I won't stop playing a game because of 1 or 2 rules, and those rules really got born beacuse of the amazing imbalance RTW 1.2 had. If people would give 1.5 another chance, most of them will be erazed, me thinks.Quote:
No army purchase rules.
"What has this got to do with "deep"?" And, you haven't tried it yet, so I suggest you don't comment on it. Maybe it just fits M2: TW greatly balancing it intensly.Quote:
max 4 unit type tax.
So the battle was decided by the army set up? How could that be deep..Quote:
You had to account for every single enemy unit because leaving even a single unit unaccounted for would cost you the battle.
This is available in RTW 1.5, but no one really uses it.. Also, due to the "restricted camera" option always unchecked, it won't matter at all.Quote:
Variety of weather effects which had a significant affect on the units and on visibility conditions.
Let's see.Quote:
Significantly superior battle engine
If you need a penalty through numbers, then yea, it is not there. Though, it is there in a gameplay way.. It gives you a better chance of doing more things to the enemy, it simply just makes him valnurable.Quote:
(squeezed too tight melee penalty calculated for individual men
"If you need a penalty through numbers, then yea, it is not there." Simply, a 4 ranks deep archer unit will suffer more from arrows than a 2 ranks deep one.Quote:
deep formation ranged unit penalty
It was already wrong to count the distance for each man, because really, their isn't a maximum range for an archer. It just varies a lot. So, the difference that this not included in the archer battle is quite minimal, and quite realistic.Quote:
distance calculation for shooters
Hmm?Quote:
Large number of events used to resolve unit combat which gives a reasonable level of statistical uncertainty.
You can't define "deep" by this. It is a matter of taste when it comes to these things, and in mine, they're all fine in RTW 1.5.Quote:
Proper ratio of cav speed to infantry speed. Well selected reload times for ranged units.
I don't know who were the guys you played on RTW, but I know that the least of my battles take 20 minutes.Quote:
Well paced battles which mostly lasting between 20 to 30 minutes.
They were distinguishable in RTW, and I'm sure they would be in M2: TW, after people get to know every unit's look.Quote:
Highly distinguishable units from each other and from the ground textures.
Talk about deep 0-o.Quote:
Fatigue indicator on the unit icons which provides quick assessment of all the units fatigue level.
Isn't this more like a complaint about the UI, rather than the "depth".Quote:
Definable subgroups within groups.
GAH.Quote:
Independent toggles for hold position and hold formation.
Nothing's wrong with that.Quote:
You just stated a reason for not buying this game for at least 6 months.
Well, kind of they are.. In other words, people care for them, which is why it's the best seller point in the game.Quote:
These fancy graphics aren't necessary for good gameplay.
Well, since they can play, they will let them decide wheather they want to have the trouble and get a battle, or not.Quote:
How about blocking AthlonXP from playing online since their game doesn't support it for multiplayer.
What if 2 friends want to play together, even if the battle will lag?Quote:
Also, if a machine has insufficient processing power for a particular hosted game, don't allow that machine to join that game.
It depends on your opponet.Quote:
And Puzz is trying to explain to you that in STW you needed 90%-100% ''effort'' to win the match, in MTW this was 80%-90% and in RTW it was below 50%(oldies will probably give you less then 20%).
How is that "wrong"?Quote:
Thirdly you had to pick strongest units if you had any intentions to win the match. Fourthly your units won't sustain ''flooded'' attack from your opponent and we could keep counting.
@Tootee: Sorry, I couldn't reply to your post.. Simply, because it was filled of "feelings" ~:) No offence intended of course. ~;)
And now you tilt a barrel of oil into this thread. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
People from all world loved RTW, lots of people keep saying "RTW is the best game ever". Now M2TW is out and again lots and lots of people love the game even more! I loved RTW even more than MTW, and i cant wait to put my hands on M2TW. But here you see, again, these old vets complaining cuz M2TW is diferent, cuz its not like an old game released 6 years ago, bla, bla, bla. Dude, i think we should make a new comunity, cuz this comunity, and the others dont express the voice of the people wich play CA the games anymore. This old comunitys are crowded with people cursing every new release. People with no gratitude. RTW was GREAT! M2TW is even greater!!! But they are upset cuz the game is not like STW, or MTW and keep rejecting every good and incredible aspects of these new games. Every single new and revolutionary feature!
"The game is not like STW, The game is bad, i will leave this comunity and i will never buy a new TW game again!' they say, but they are still here, trowing rocks again, and again, and again. Play STW, play pacman, play Age of Empires. But stop.
Lots of people join the comunity cuz they love the game and then they read this crap "M2TW, AI, i will never buy it again bla bla." Come on. There is not a single purpose on complaining and talking about STW, the game is GONE!
Who cares if they had monks of ninjas!? Play Shinobi!
Help the comunity or leave! Do you know how many posts i readed where people sayd "well, if the game is bad like that i wont buy it". Just because of this. :furious3:
Precisely, its the feeling. Numbers only quantify.. they do not qualify. How fast is fast? how depth is depth? In the end its all about the gaming experience, a feeling.
I had enjoy STW immensely, MTW greatly, RTW barely.. I only wish that M2TW can be a good game. So far MP reviews has been mixed but biased towards positive so things are hopeful. Hopefully these will bring back the good players I have enjoyed playing with.
Oh yes, if things go smoothly, I should be having my copy of M2TW in 2 hrs time ~:pimp:
Will post something that is more relevant to this thread :bow:
At first: The name is MEDIEVAL 2 Total War. Not ROME 2 Total War. It is legitimate to compare MTW 1 and MTW 2. And what are the new features? Please tell me new features MTW Vi <--> M2TW. There are some more factions, a new graphics engine and that's it. Don't forget we discuss about MP!Quote:
Originally Posted by Eques
And MTW isn't a game, that you play 40 hours and then you delete it. It makes sense to fight for it. And the "new" community would also have a benefit, if somebody of CA would listen to the "old vets".
To tell the truth, their complaints seem to be much more constructive and helpful to the community than your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eques
Asking other patrons to leave is highly inappropriate in this context.
I'm curious x-dANGEr,Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
are you playing MP battles with unrestricted camera?
Is/was this the norm in RTW?
So you can always scroll over to your allies or the enemy's back to see what's going on without having to move a unit in that area? Seems pretty convenient. For me part of the fun and tactical depth is not to know what's going on at the other end of the field but to guess. That's also where fog and rain come into play. There're many battle reports where fog and rain played immense roles on the outcome of the battle. If I want to know what's going on at the other side I've to go over there with a unit, which is also realistic imho.
BTW, someone mentioned that MTW/VI and STW MP are dead. Well they are not. Both games are still being played online.
R'as
The greatness of a game is relative. Can't you see?
STW and MTW are very similar in engine and design. They come from the same branch and appealed to the same type of people. They were highly-rated games, but hardly mainstream. The community was small and hardcore, very serious and overall mature. We miss those times, along with the simple fact that not being very demanding, the STW/MTW engine allowed large games like 4v4s easily. Moreover, the foyer was simply better and the community was so tightly-knit that it was like a big family, and not simply a huge collection of players enjoying the same game from a distance.
RTW and what followed is very different, and so far M2TW is more of a RTW in a medieval skin, rather than a true successor to the original MTW. There are many who say RTW is great and its the "best RTS ever" and that STW/MTW are way too small, ugly and seemingly simplistic compared to the grandeur of the Rome engine. It's a different community altogether, and I doubt we will ever agree or integrate. RTW totally destroyed the old notion of Total War, while creating a new, even bigger community which is very different but still very loyal to this 'new' Total War.
Posts like X-Danger's and others only confirm this feeling. People try to convince the old crowd that RTW 1.5 is "just fine and very enjoyable" when for you it might be so - as you did not taste the old Total War - but for many of the older players RTW 1.5 is simply a complete disaster anyway, just maybe a little better than the utter and complete catastrophe which was RTW 1.0 - which single-handedly destroyed the old community. The rest of these posts focus on Ok, this feature might be missing or different..but see..it's still good!. NO it's not!
Let me just take a simple example. Yuuki observed that RTW/M2TW doesn't have different toggles for Hold Formation and Hold Position. X-Danger's reply to this observation was a simple GAH!. Many other 'replies' to such problems were along the same lines, trying to justify what is - to the old gamer - wrong. My friend, Hold Formation/Position and with it countless of other things like camera and army control, 4v4s, unit balance and so on were just what Total War was all about, and now they're gone, in favour of your lovely 3-D graphics and mainstream controls. Tactically, the game went down in options and size..you can't play huge games anymore and individual control is much less with dissapearing options and very very poor unit sprites when viewed from above. Simply speaking, RTW/M2TW might look cool but they are "dumbed down" versions of the original Total War games. It was done to appease the masses of the traditional RTS players, and the masses have indeed come - although loud, rude and as a result destroyed the old notions of our community.
Conclusion:
This is simply a matter of taste, but the fine wine that the old community used to savor so well is no longer available in the cellar. We thought that M2TW could be a re-discovery of the fine ways of Total War, but in the end it's just RTW skinned in a different way.
Which might please many, but will dissapoint others and there isn't much to do about it, I am afraid. Maybe Palamedes together with CA can solve some nagging MP problems which are annoying even the new community and maybe throw bones to the old crowd...in the faint hopes things can really be better.
Please can the forum moderator rename this thread "STW/MTW vs RTW/M2TW Pissing Contest"?
And then start a new one called "First Impressions on MP"...
:creep:
Yet, nothing off-topic ~:) (Since a part of my post was dedicated to M2: TW ~;) )Quote:
And now you tilt a barrel of oil into this thread.
I respect and believe that. I did enjoy MTW Campaign a lot more than RTW's after all.. It is just that, to not like a game is one thing, and to bash it is another.Quote:
I had enjoy STW immensely, MTW greatly, RTW barely.. I only wish that M2TW can be a good game. So far MP reviews has been mixed but biased towards positive so things are hopeful. Hopefully these will bring back the good players I have enjoyed playing with.
Sadly, yes! A very great feuture to revive in the new M2: TW is making fog, rain, etc.. worth something by removing the Unrestricted Camera option IMO.. Nothing feels better than surprising your enemy by a couple of cavalry units who went the long way ~;)Quote:
I'm curious x-dANGEr,
are you playing MP battles with unrestricted camera?
Is/was this the norm in RTW?
So you can always scroll over to your allies or the enemy's back to see what's going on without having to move a unit in that area? Seems pretty convenient. For me part of the fun and tactical depth is not to know what's going on at the other end of the field but to guess. That's also where fog and rain come into play. There're many battle reports where fog and rain played immense roles on the outcome of the battle. If I want to know what's going on at the other side I've to go over there with a unit, which is also realistic imho.
BTW, someone mentioned that MTW/VI and STW MP are dead. Well they are not. Both games are still being played online.
R'as
You must be kidding.. If you find one really wrong, just argue it.Quote:
Yuuki observed that RTW/M2TW doesn't have different toggles for Hold Formation and Hold Position. X-Danger's reply to this observation was a simple GAH!. Many other 'replies' to such problems were along the same lines, trying to justify what is - to the old gamer - wrong.
Though, on other basis, as in on-topic:
Up till now, all can be heard is good about the game. Sure, some people are just mad at the lag, but that is a problem that will fix itself. To sum it up, I think the Multiplayer experience will get to it's best in 6 months.. With a couple of patches fixing whatever needs fixing, and the lag problem minimized hugely.
That's not true. Lusted's first post indicates there is a problem in M2TW MP morale level.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
Did it? I thought it just showed a very good drawn out fight between 2 weel matched armies.
I could not agree more,TeraQuote:
Let me just take a simple example. Yuuki observed that RTW/M2TW doesn't have different toggles for Hold Formation and Hold Position. X-Danger's reply to this observation was a simple GAH!. Many other 'replies' to such problems were along the same lines, trying to justify what is - to the old gamer - wrong. My friend, Hold Formation/Position and with it countless of other things like camera and army control, 4v4s, unit balance and so on were just what Total War was all about, and now they're gone, in favour of your lovely 3-D graphics and mainstream controls. Tactically, the game went down in options and size..you can't play huge games anymore and individual control is much less with dissapearing options and very very poor unit sprites when viewed from above. Simply speaking, RTW/M2TW might look cool but they are "dumbed down" versions of the original Total War games. It was done to appease the masses of the traditional RTS players, and the masses have indeed come - although loud, rude and as a result destroyed the old notions of our community.
Similarly, to understand and enjoy one game is one thing. To criticise with no foundation, those who experienced all the games is anotherQuote:
to not like a game is one thing, and to bash it is another.
.......Orda
I agree. :book:Quote:
Please can the forum moderator rename this thread "STW/MTW vs RTW/M2TW Pissing Contest"?
And then start a new one called "First Impressions on MP"...
I've read a post from KenchiTib on their forums:
Me trash and another choas member had a good 3v3 versus Elites of boon/fogolin/kakhan...
With other words it seems that this is possible and that MTW 2 offers a good MP experience. I've played few matches yesterday and I have to say that first impressions are very positive. It gives you that ''good feeling''.
I agree Aonar, there is a 'feeling' there. That feeling would be twice as good if 4v4 once more became possibleQuote:
Originally Posted by Aonar
......Orda
I was not online the last 2 days (shortage of time). But at the beginning of the week, I played some games with the Elite clan together. They used small units if they played 3vs3. In my opinion, these size is too litte.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aonar
Maybe, but that has got nothing to do with criticizing bashing it ~;)Quote:
Similarly, to understand and enjoy one game is one thing. To criticise with no foundation, those who experienced all the games is another
If the casualties you reported are typical, I'd say there is too much attrition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
Other than your own perception of bashing and of course, the way you dismiss things you never experienced so therefore do not understand. Since you never played STW online and certain members are making direct comparisons, why do you get the impression that you can convince them differently? A written response to your questions to prove the point is simply not enough is it? From your reply to Puzz3D's post that should be obvious, there is a counter to every argument and this could run and run until next year and longer. The simple truth is, no matter how much he tries to explain you will never agree with him. How could you? You don't know what he is talking about
........Orda
The other day i fought a 2v2, and casualty rates were much lower on the winning side as we managed to rout lot of the enemy units early on.Quote:
If the casualties you reported are typical, I'd say there is too much attrition.
Played a 2v2 yesterday with 3 guys from the Huscarls clan, my side lost, but still I had by far the most kills of us all.
They simply had units with more morale, while I went for Slash and bash type units which do massive damage on charge. But due to their morale they didn't rout (as they would in RTW) they kept fighting, since my cav (and my allies) was defeated they could kill use easely, even tho I killed more.
Well im going to say my final peice here as ths threads getting rather silly now. Orda, puzz and others. If you don't like MTW2 thats fine, don't play it. But what I do find annoying as how you can critiasize a game you havn't even played? lol? If you don't like it fine. But maby play it or use some first hand comments isntead of trying to make this game look awful. I agreee theres a few issues, personly though they havn't effected me. So far my MP has beeen a good one, much better than RTW at that.
Thanks
Tib
Please don't generalise too much. Personally I see the "new" clan community in two. There is the annoying, yelling "war" (aka screenshot posting) mouthy clans, and there is the respectable side of the community who focus on playing the game and tournaments, clans such as Round Table Knights, Vandal Horde and the Huscarls.Quote:
the masses of the traditional RTS players, and the masses have indeed come - although loud, rude and as a result destroyed the old notions of our community.
Sorry but I just hate it when mtw players automatically think of rtw players like the general yelling lobby people.
I would like to play restricted camera, but only if they modified it. ATM it only lets you see the area around you, this makes team games very hard to play with godo teamwork because you don't have a clue whats going on on your allied sides. If they made it so I can see the fog of war around me, and all my allies then it'd be much more usable.Quote:
are you playing MP battles with unrestricted camera?
Is/was this the norm in RTW?
So you can always scroll over to your allies or the enemy's back to see what's going on without having to move a unit in that area? Seems pretty convenient. For me part of the fun and tactical depth is not to know what's going on at the other end of the field but to guess. That's also where fog and rain come into play. There're many battle reports where fog and rain played immense roles on the outcome of the battle. If I want to know what's going on at the other side I've to go over there with a unit, which is also realistic imho.
BTW, someone mentioned that MTW/VI and STW MP are dead. Well they are not. Both games are still being played online.
However I admit I'm so used to unrestricted now its difficult to go back :shame:
Took Offensfe from that, Because I don't like People, to come here and tell us to leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eques
We Trying to Help the Community Kid, but Like Someone said here Eariler, Mabye Puzz or Orda, not sure, If CA Actually Listen to the Old Vets, we won't be complaining right now. Eques, Why do you play SP/MP? Is it because of the Graphics Mabye? Mabye it becauses you want to see how good you are?
Anyhow, I see no good points in your post for me to talk about, so what I wrote above is it.
Face it, CA has changed, talk to Elmo, t1 or Obake or anyother old Goat, they might not like it but this way CA gets loads more money, why care about 10 people who won't buy it if you can get 10.000 who will buy it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Ok were to start.
2) I wasn't remotley aware you even play mtw m8. If so the few MTW players I know don't know that.
3)Warman. Which side are you on. You played rtw more than any one here probably. So I don't see were your critisicm is coming from.
4) Warman, dont take it out on people like Equeus. There making a point. Please stop taking a side your clearly not on. You played RTW, you liked it. I don't see where your veiws are comign from or if your just trying to imrpess some of the members here. If so, your only liying to yourself.
m8, it's unfair to take it out on some one with a completly different veiw. If you want to say the same to me. I think MTW2 is an improvment from RTW. Im enjoying it. Equeas made a point. Don't be all up in his face blowing his words compelty out of proportion.
Tib
why do you all argue so long about what you do like, about what you don't like and about what you never played?
"the old vets" have a quite unanimous opinion. Many want to know how is MTW-2 before spending the money and ask in the forums... to the other old vets which could not resist and did buy first. What's wrong about it?
and if I have to say the truth, my opinon is somehow different from Tera's: I think that M2TW is a step toward the old Med, and back from Rome. Therefore I tend to be optimist.
2. Yes I been saying that for Years and I made it Known. Again, If you Read my Posts,doubt you haved, you would known I played MTW/Vi on the unpatched ServerQuote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
3.Because it something called Addcition. BHC growed, I got addiction to it, even though I didn't like the gameplay, I came back anyhow to start BHC.
4.Who Ever Said I like RTW? May I have Pics or Links Please? None? there you go. I'm backing my Fellow Vets.
m8, it is Fair. In the World of Debate. MTW2 is a slight imprvoement AI wise, yes I admit, but not much better.
Nah MTW2 is better then RTW, but then opinions differ.
Mind you if loads of old vets buy it, even Elmo will give it a try "hint hint"
May I hope that all harsh language is gone when I log back in 2 hours?
Like, not like. It's all fine with me. Voicing opinions based on feel, numbers, experience, dreams, bad dreams, I don't care. But keep the discussions clean and grant the other to play his game. This my Hulk p@wns your Spiderman talk is silly. You like Hulk: you watch Hulk. He likes Spid: he watches Spid.
Quit nagging each other with words: be happy that someone else buys this game, which in turn allows you to obtain the copy cheaper than it would be otherwise, if at all available.
And if you don't like it: voice in acceptable words why not, move to things you do like and quit telling others that they are not it.
I think all agree that there are problems with M2TW MP. How is CA supposed to fix that if they have to wade through these brawls?
:scastle:
And theres no such thing as adiction with out a cause. No one forced you to play rtw, you chose to. And the one you are yet to play which btw handles MP rather well.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Tib
Thanks, I needed a good laugh :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Elmo, where? I miss Elmo!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
Annie
.com or simply at the Pond
Then, I guess we should just stop arguing. On the same sense, how can you be convinced when you haven't played RTW 1.5, and don't know the tactics/strategies in it. And also, it falls in the same sense, that you are talking bad of a game you haven't played, which AFAIK, I haven't done yet ~;)Quote:
Other than your own perception of bashing and of course, the way you dismiss things you never experienced so therefore do not understand. Since you never played STW online and certain members are making direct comparisons, why do you get the impression that you can convince them differently? A written response to your questions to prove the point is simply not enough is it? From your reply to Puzz3D's post that should be obvious, there is a counter to every argument and this could run and run until next year and longer. The simple truth is, no matter how much he tries to explain you will never agree with him. How could you? You don't know what he is talking about
At any cost, upon the request of others, this discussion as it seems is a dead end, and therefore I will stop it.
*END*
@Tib: To get this topic back on track.. Can you detail to us how your MP experience was? Thanks.
Hi X-Danger. To sumarize my experieince.
Overall feel much better than rome. More blanced feels more relastic so on.
Only bad points I have found is some times it's a little laggy. Only effected one of my many games others have had mimimal if not any lag. Cavalry a little but overpowerd but theres bound to be a few issues.
That's it in a nut shell. ~;)
imo cav is almost underpowered compared to RTW, they're very bad when fighting after the charge.
BTW I don't have any lag, might have to do with the fact I'm on Univeristy network which gives me a very quick connection, but I don't know.
afaik t1 does seem to like this game
You see, when things get out of control, issues become clouded and are lost in endless argument. That I do not have the game does not necessarily mean I do not like it and neither does it mean I have not tried it. If you knew the truth it may surprise you.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
My main concerns with MP are already posted :
Lag.
SSE2.
And before we go back over the "Can't blame CA for progress" approach, it has already been posted that this will not stop AthlonXP users from joining your battles. When someone posts what they see as an issue, the stock reply seems to be motivated by some inert hatred that anyone should dare criticise the gameplay of a game you enjoy. I must admit it is highly amusing.
The game shows some promise, it still has many issues and of course it is very early yet. Who knows what will be uncovered in a month or two
........Orda
Go Get MTW/VI, Meet me on MTW/VI, lets do some games, and you see the difference. I played RTW because I wanted to move on, makes Sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
I also be able to play MP on MTW2 Tib, if I could actually get some help logging on.
Back on Topic:
Cavarly is overpowered, when I did some custom games and such. I had a SP game of, 3 Cav units, 2 Heavy Cav, 1 of them being General Unit, and a few weaker inf unit .vs. a French Army of Armounded Sergeants and 1 General Bodygurad Unit. my 3 cav units took out the whole enitre force themsevles, after my 48 pesaent archers did their damage, and killing about 20 Armounded Sergeants. OverPowerded? IMO yes it is.
elmo elmo elmo elmo.. sorry spam:smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyAnn
blah couldnt get the game till 24th :( has FF started playing m2tw Ann?
NOoononooOOOooOo!Quote:
Hi X-Danger. To sumarize my experieince.
Overall feel much better than rome. More blanced feels more relastic so on.
Only bad points I have found is some times it's a little laggy. Only effected one of my many games others have had mimimal if not any lag. Cavalry a little but overpowerd but theres bound to be a few issues.
That's it in a nut shell.
I said "detail".. Details please, details!
~:)
Overall, I'm quite impressed with MP, other than the lag:
-> Cavalry are only uber in the charge (and boy if they charge right are they uber!), but when they get bogged down its horsemeat sandwiches for supper
-> Missile troops feel about right, not too deadly not to poop
-> Movement speed is a leetle too quick, but the lag kinda makes up for it
-> It just feels a little more polished than Rome in pretty much every department
My only gripes are:
-> Spears don't seem effective enough against infantry. In fact, spears suck at everything except absorbing a cavalry charge. Even armoured pikemen didn't cut it for me. Note that I don't expect spears to be great against infantry, but even decent spearmen get shredded by weak swords.
-> Massively depleted cavalry units (say like reduced to 3 troops) take ages to die/rout even when surrounded.
I can see myself playing a lot of MP. It's not quite like the original MTW, but it feels more like that than it does Rome, IMO, which is a GOOD thing.
It is great to see you posting again tootee. Thanks a million for providing a link to that STW battle report. I'd forgotten about it. Twas a nice walk down memory lane.
The title of this thread mentions "first impressions" and with the game only being out about two weeks, impressions are about all that can be expected. Over the coming weeks and months with patches, tweaks and experience, more definitive pronouncements can be made as to what M2TW is or isn't.
In the meantime, for those of us who must wait until Christmas to get our copies, keep the impressions, good and bad, coming - impressions of the game, that it. ~;)
We can help about this. ~D ~;) How are you mate? Hope to meet you on the battlefield soon. ~:) Visit our forums in the meantime.Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyandHasty
I am fine, thx. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by tootee
Btw, we played against eachother. :knight: You were with Justy playing your usual nodachi/nag cav rush ... ~;p ~;)
And just to stay on topic: IMO the title of the thread is fine, just people need to read it. ~;) It says: MP impressions.
I dont think that it should be hard to realize that different people can have different impressions. Those who started the game in STW will view STW as the "golden standard", on the other hand those who strated it in RTW could be more than happy with the RTW gameplay. There is no contradiction here just people from both sides should realize that impressions -by default- are subjective and thus there is absolutely no point in arguing over them.
Going just one step further it is not hard to realise that there are many ways to balance a game. What might the "perfect balance" for one might be the "worse game" for someone else. Just as before the fine details of "perfect balence" depends on your taste and depends on your previous experience.
Also a point worth consideration that STW is gone and gone forever. I loved STW and I regard it as the golden days of the TW MP community but those days will not come back. I do not want to live in the past, I prefer to live in the present and I do my best to enjoy the present. ~;)
One has basically two choices: either to play the game what we have today and to help to improve it; or not to play it at all.
I prefer the first.
Balance is not arbitrary. You need units in each category of the RPS, and those units have to be cost effective otherwise they won't be used. Imbalance in the units will cause the solution to converge to a limited army composition. We saw this in MTW/VI where sword/cav armies dominated. You need balance between maneuver and attrition which means setting the morale at the proper level. The range of morale over which the system works properly is very limited. You have to set the fatigue rates properly relative to the size of the map, and how long units fight. You have to have the fighting time balanced such that a local superiority achieved by maneuver isn't negated by supporting units coming from long distances, and yet you can't have fighting time so short that there isn't enough time for flanking attacks by supporting units or allied armies that are close.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
If you've worked on stats as much as I have, you can see the units falling into a certain mathematical relationship as the gameplay improves. You can also see that changing the stats of a single unit causes a ripple effect that affects the balance of other units. In fact, it's easy to imbalance a stat, and good players can exploit relatively small imbalances on the order of 10% or possibly even less.
*yawn* .... this all happened before.
I know it's not a very constructive comment, but it's amazing how many circles one can do. I do admire you all for your tenacity, you are CA's best asset, a fanbase which constantly tried to improve the game and does'nt give up. Incredible. My Respect. I really wish you all the best of luck and deeply admire your efforts. Hope you can enjoy MTW2 like you did STW or MTW mp, with all the great graphics (and hopefully some realism too).
Sounds very much like the discussion after MTW was released. At that time, snice I played very little STW online, I was'nt sure what everyone was talking about. Then with RTW, I really got the idea. Well, I'll keep reading around here before I buy.
Meanwhile, I started a 1vs1 Hearts of Iron 2: Doomsday, online. That is the first game I played in a while. terrific. No fancy graphics, but depth and detail, immersion is total. Effortless, glitch free, 'balanced', in depth. Brilliant.
Salute !
Random first impressions:
heavy infantry seem to rule the battlefield, which is ok by me.
horse charges need to be well timed to be effective.
you need to get horses out of melee fast or there dead
archers feel about right.
gunpowder units are very good in the endgame
elephants are easy to counter
fatiuge needs to be upped
maybe spears and pikes underpowered
battles feel a bit like the RTR mod
lobby still ugly
laggy in big battles
Someone told me after a game that they felt the Scots units were overpowered. This may well be the case as ive won about a dozen 1v1s straight with them. Ive been playing TW for a long time but i wouldnt say im that good.
Overall id say if the lag is sorted so we can play 4v4, i could be online quite a lot. Its not back to MTW1 standards, but its miles better than Rome.:2thumbsup:
Good analysis. I had this impression with Scots also, at 10k I was able to purchase a full 20 unit roster and still had money to buy plenty of upgrades. This army completely steam rollered an English army. It is still too early to say but this could be pointing towards cheap units, cheap upgrade relative to unit cost, leaving a unit that even with upgrades costs less than the unit it can now defeat. I hope this is not the case ( I hated this in MTW/VI ) and it's the main reason I keep calling for an end to upgrades in the MP game. Mars already pointed out that upgrades are a SP feature and part of the campaign, where you gain rewards for improvement. You are not building in MP and balance/gameplay is far more important in MP, we all know that. The same balance/gameplay is already very fragile ( see the comment by Puzz3D ) the ripple effect caused by altering stats has a very large influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by peacedog
You are quite right, Cheetah, my argument has never been about this. However I do take issue when those who have witnessed MP in all the titles are being told by those who have not that they are wrong. This kind of argument has no foundation.Quote:
Those who started the game in STW will view STW as the "golden standard", on the other hand those who strated it in RTW could be more than happy with the RTW gameplay. There is no contradiction here just people from both sides should realize that impressions -by default- are subjective and thus there is absolutely no point in arguing over them.
This quote from Sinan (Hi mate, hope you are well) explains my point.Quote:
Sounds very much like the discussion after MTW was released. At that time, snice I played very little STW online, I was'nt sure what everyone was talking about. Then with RTW, I really got the idea.
My main impression regarding the state of MP is that it could be better than RTW. Whether it provides anything near the experience of MTW is another thing and it is way too early to comment on that
......Orda
Hi Orda ! :)
All's well.
It's the same case now, people who never played RTW, will play MTW2 and that will be their standard. People who never played MTW, but played RTW, and that will be their standard.
When I joined the MTW community and saw the comments from the vets, I did not understand them, always, I challenged them sometimes but I respected them always (except the childish whining). Obviously the people who played thousands of hours online in STW must have had something intelligent to say about MTW, and they did.
CA has moved the game away from the super niche finesse of STW towards the mass market of RTS. They have profited (in dollar terms) from the dedicated fan base of STW (subsequently MTW) to launch themselves on a "grander" scale in the RTS market. The research and historical accuracy of each game was less than that of it's predecessor.
The key is to understand that the movement is AWAY from everything STW was. With each title (though MY jury is still out on MTW2), the player base increased and the strategic and tactical aspects of the game were diluted.
With the increase in the player base also came a dilution of hardcore wargamers, who founded the online community for the Total War Series. As this CORE of the MP community became a smaller and smaller fraction of the overall player base, their input was considered less and less important. They became less and less important, in market terms.
RTW could have been much better than MTW, and MTW2 much better than RTW as well. As you know I have little faith that CA will do anything for me. I've moved on from their games since RTW was released. However I'm sure you guys can influence the company to do some thing to make the game better for you, as you have successfully achieved in the past. In general though, as you know, I don't expect much from CA with regards to Mp, historical accuracy, etc. They seem to have a different view of the game now than I do and that's fine. Nothing wrong with that, it's their product and their company and they decide where they go. Just that I can't enjoy their games for playability like I used to, and that's all.
I'd like to play MTW2, probably will once there is a decent mod out for multiplayer. Not sure yet. I want to see the graphics ! Eye candy ! YAY ! Where's my popcorn and coke !! This could be better than Kingdom of Heaven. At least that little girl, what's her name ?... Orlando BLOOOOOM does not star in MTW 2 !! (joke)
All the above is commentary and not gospel, so everyone, remember that.
Salute !
Dragging this topic kicking and screaming back on-topic, i've played a couple more mp battles.
Units which might have been overpowered in mp, such as the cannon elephants, are not if you have the right units to deal with them. Attrition rates vary depending on what units each side has and how thew battle goes. I won one battle with 56% casulaties to the enemies 96%(i routed and chased down most fo his units before dealing with his last unit of elephants), and the next 60% to 87%, with me attacking up hill into his position which was protected by stakes from the front.
M2TW mp is definitely way better than RTWs, things feel much more balanced, and combat last longer, and battles last long enough for proper tactics to be used.
So.. If you had played all the titles in MP, you're a god and can't be wrong? Now I get it, ok. Apology. ~;)Quote:
However I do take issue when those who have witnessed MP in all the titles are being told by those who have not that they are wrong. This kind of argument has no foundation.
@Lusted: That sounds really good.. Can you give more details on the hill situation..
Oh please. If you are unable to understand the point what is the use? Who said a thing about being a god?Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
You constantly reply about a subject you have no knowledge of, you said yourself that you never played STW online so how can you compare any other TW title with STW?
I stand by my statement that your argument has no foundation. No doubt you will have more to say but quite frankly I'm not interested
#ignore
.....Orda
All my argument has nothing to do with STW, go think comparing with it.Quote:
how can you compare any other TW title with STW?
It was the Eifel mountains map, he deployed on the big hill in the corner. He had 4 units retinue longbowmen with deployed stakes in a semi-circle at the front, with a schiltron of sergeant spears on either flank. Behind the archers were 2 units cannons, with 4 units dismounted english knights. At the rear was his general and 2 units demi-lancers. There was a wood on his right flank. We were playing on 10k florins, so he went for quality rather than quantity.Quote:
@Lusted: That sounds really good.. Can you give more details on the hill situation..
I went(Venice) for 1 general, 2 men-at-arms, 4 militia cavalry, 4 pavise crossbowmen, 4 venetian heavy infantry, 5 pike militia.
I advanced all of my infantry and general up most of the hill to behind a small ledge so his cannons could not hit me. I moved my cavalry to the other side of the woods on his right flank, lining them up ready for my assault. I advanced my infantry up the hill, wth my pikemen heading for his left flank. My pavise crossbow militia drew hia archer fire which allowed my Venetian heavy infantry to make it to his longbowmen without too many losses. As they arrived my cavalry also executed the attack on his right flank, wiping out the 2 units of spearmen he had repositioned there, and inflicting severe casualties on 2 units of dismounted english knightsd he had also moved there.
My Venetian Heavy Infantry, backed by my pavise crossbowmen who i move into melee, beat up his longbowmen and the english knights and cannon crews he sent in to reinforce them. My pikemen arrive on his left flank and engaged one of his demi-lancers. His general and remaining demi-lancer he sent in to engage my cavalry who overwhelmed them with numbers.
So overall he had a very, very good defensive position, but by using the terrain to render his cannons almost useless, well timed frontal and flanking assaults, and my numbers i was able to beat him.
~:wave: How have you been my friend?Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyandHasty
So have you bought M2TW or gone online? What do you think?
Just downloaded TC2M demo.. hope this will fill my void between now and 24th :juggle2:
I fought two games today (finally), One against my friend FEAR from the German clan Croton, and one against Kurogane from Grey Wolves. I did good both games, winning my first one, and losing a good game against Kuro. I expericend some Lag, and Cav seem kinda odd, but not bad. Those Handgunners... OUCH!
Salut TooteeQuote:
Originally Posted by tootee
I'm doing good thanks. I have one little ugly running ammoc in the house, and another one due this winter. I hope everything is ok on your side. Is Clarence still playing ?
I have buy MTW2. I'm a bit disapointed. SP look like and fell like a reskin version of RTW. At least speed and killrate seem much better.
As for MP, well i wish i could tell, i keep receiving a NAT failure message when i try to join a game. I'll keep trying, but my patience might run short.
You will love TC2M. That game is a blast !
edit ... 500th post of :spammer:
Thought id add my two cents to this thread... its been quite, well... yes interesting to read considering i know all the MP ppl putting through their views :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
Greetings to all old time players, i joined the series in medieval, found rtw like ureselves not as successful but am highly optimistic of this latest title. I hope u dont find anything i say on these boards too extreme :2thumbsup:
Hi Aonar how are things, we need to get some more games in sometime. Always was a pleasure...
As for the quote, stig i remember our games and i cant see how u can say that considering my clan mate took full advantage of what he has learnt about the game so far concerning cav...
In no way are cavalry underpowered, ud have a much better chance arguing that they are overpowered which they arent. Think of it logically and in a realistic sense... why is it that u think a pikeman is superior to a spear man against cav. A medieval knight is basically the equivalent of a tank, a great amount of weight and force is focussed on the end of a lance which is what makes a knight what it is, a shock unit. An 11 stone man holding a stick cannot withstand such force, he would have his arm torn off even trying... even in tight schiltron the shear force of mounted lancers would hit these guys for 6 in big bloody bulges... A Pike is different as the ground absorbs the force of an angled pike and stops allcomers in their tracks.
Knights die quickly in melee because they shouldnt even be there, end of story really lol. I hope that helps u understand bud, a stopped horse against a spearman is more often than not a dead horse....
Many of us MP players know of Lebedis and his helpful advice to "go flank a schiltron" :D
Ive played alot of multiplayer games, collected alot of replays and watched them... Im enjoying it very much. Sure its all unstable and network problems are more common in team games than ever but thats an issue a patch will certainly address.... i hope.
The gameplay i think is very gd... battles last longer and in a multiplayer aspect things have moved on considerably since rtw. Id be happy to go on but i fear ill be repeating many of u :embarassed:
Looking foward to. :bow:Quote:
Hi Aonar how are things, we need to get some more games in sometime. Always was a pleasure...
Recently I've spent more time playing MTW 2 and I have to admit that MP is quit enjoyable experience (without lag in mind).
After 6 pages of replys we are aware that MTW 2 is different then it's previous precusors of TW series. It is a step in the right direction. Let's hope that this will continue from here on.
Main stain of MTW 2 MP is lag issue, but if I'm not mistaken even STW was laging until it was patched.