I left MTW/VI because I got fed up with the cav/sword armies. I suppose it's better than all cav gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by {KotR}Sir_Raison{P}
Printable View
I left MTW/VI because I got fed up with the cav/sword armies. I suppose it's better than all cav gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by {KotR}Sir_Raison{P}
STW tracks the trajectory of every missile, most likely as if it were a ball or a point wieghing x amount etc. What I am talking about is all of the swinging swords, axes, shields, etc., all of the moving parts in teh game adhering to the laws of physics and having their own independent effect on combat results depending on the movement and trajectory of each striking weapon, piece of armor, and shield. Its just nuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Animations from stats is the only way that makes sense, not visa versa, with the only exception being ranged missile fire should take into account line of site based on the position of each man.
I think we agree on that.
That's right. So, clearly it can't be done. The old battle engine is elegant in the way it models combat, and it provides robust combat results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dionysus9
Do you remember the reason CA gave for refusing to change the speed of skirmishing infantry when lots of players were saying that it was too hard for cav to catch them? CA said that if they changed the speed then the men's feet would slip along the ground. So you can see from this response that CA values visuals over gameplay considerations.
Fat chance of this happening when the visuals take precedence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dionysus9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
But better than no balance as in mtw2. A good team can use anti cav very well. And anti cav works in MTW VI in opposite to mtw2. And soon heerbann is maybe in stw mod too :D
what about the thread that stated that the combat results were predetermined before the animation takes place. ie missile trajectories.i have watched my ballistas do it make angle cuts in their trajectories.
Certainly the finishing moves take place after the game determines that the man is killed. The movement speeds of the units and how fast a man strikes with his weapon are being determined by the animations. In the old engine, you had independent control in the unit stat file over the walking, running and charging speeds of every unit. It"s really important to have this control over unit speeds when you go to balance the dynamics of the gameplay. The gameplay is adjusted for balance at the end of development, but now the person who does that has no control over the unit speeds. Changing the combat cycle also involves changing the combat animation speed, and I doubt that's a parameter in the unit stat file. I think it involves changing the game code in the main exe.Quote:
Originally Posted by mad cat mech
Each missle followed a true physics model in the old battle engine. It is possible that they have changed this to a statistical model in the new engine which would save on calculating the individual projectile trajectories and collision detection with a target. This is probably calculated for the whole unit rather than individual men which would account for the "all men shoot" behavior that I've observed in RTW. It would also account for the increased effectiveness against moving targets that I noticed as though target motion isn't included in the calculation. Target motion is automatically included in a physics model.
True physics would involve drag and kinetic energy, those are not present in STW. Not even in the most simplified way (only do simplified calculations on the hits), as can be deduced from the several glitches caused by bullets and also by arrows. MTW didn't fix it all either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
The way missiles, particularly arrows, work in vanilla RTW reminded me of RTS games like stronghold with all men in a formation firing and damage being very over the top. I haven't really looked into M2TW much, and probably won't buy it until my machine is upgraded, but am I to understand that this hasn't changed?
It's a vacuum physics model. There is no drag because there is no air, and the kinetic energy is therefore constant when firing on level ground. The kinetic energy would change when firing over different vertical elevations, and that isn't modeled. However, the accuracy is changed in that case, and the range changes as a natural consequence of the model.Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
They are not as damaging as RTWQuote:
Originally Posted by Cambyses II
.......Orda
Missle troops are quite laughable atm, damage is minimal however crossbows can cause alot of damage if given time. The problem is that in mp time is not given and "rushing" has become extremely common... its come to the point now where its rush vs rush, archers are indeed alot weaker in this game. They either need to increase their potential in either firing rate/damage etc or decrease their cost massively...Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
Going through the list of units it certainly looks like many missile units do cost a lot. They would have to be quite powerful to justify such costs. Does Palamedes know about this issue?
CBR
Ive played several games with pala but the main concern in those were to find the causes for lag... Melon probably knows more as he is in the same clan as pala. I believe CA know what the issues are, whether they are going to put the man hours into fixing them is another question.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
the reason for my comment was to find out if damage truly is calculated before animations then it should be easier to make larger games run more smoothly. it seems in my rome games on highest settings i can see pike and hoplite spears clear across the battlefield but on mtw2 even on highest settings the pikes will disappear after a certian distance albeit a good distance.
it would seem simple to get the game to play as smoothly as rome on larger games.also the missile system is different than rome in that individual soldiers need to have a line of sight to target to hit accurately. the big problem is that those that dont waste projectiles by shooting them up in the air and running your ammo expenditure down when it shouldnt be.
how possible would it be for them to smooth out large mp games. even dual cores arnt using faster processors if anything they are still slower than single processors right now. and until they start using some of the newer materials their developing cpus are pretty much maxed out.
on single player sure you can max it out all the way but on mp even with the fastest systems you still have to crank it down some. this should not be.
GAH!
Vanya tossed out the notion of "competitive play" when Olde Shoggy went out of style.
MTW I was still fun to play.
But Vanya rarely played RTW online, and has yet to attempt MTW2 online.
Why?
Simple...
When Vanya goes online, He just wants to play a nice, big game and have fun. But doing that is almost impossible any more. Every game, it seems, is a version mismatch. And if Vanya does find a game to join--or somebody to join His game--they quickly boot ole Vanya 'cause they don't like the stench of His 2-week-old Grapefruit surrogate head, or if they joined Vanya's game, quickly run away claiming they joined the wrong game.
It's no fun if Vanya has to mull around for 2 hours just to get ONE game in. :wall:
And if Vanya is lucky enough to actually play a game, it usually ends with some rat bastid escaping the game half way through and ruining it for everybody! Vanya had to wait 2 hours for that?!? :skull:
In the Olde Shoggy days, Vanya could sit down and in a 2 hour span, play TEN games!
Balancing issues and all that are secondary to the ability to actually play.
And that is why, in a nutshell, Vanya thinks MP has been in a steep decline for some time now.
GAH!
Samurai Wars is on a steep incline: best engine, best server, best playbalance, largest maps, stable battles, no lag, deep tactics, intuitive gameplay, two or more battles per hour and nobody quits a battle before it's finished.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanya
Hey,Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
that's why I always try to play Samurai Wars alot during Sundays. on RTW, I used to hate it (still can't get over I was addicted to RTW :skull: ) when I sit there for 2 hours, and NO Games. Hontestly, I sit there for 1 1/2 hours-2 hours, and not one Game.
When I used to play VI back in 04, when I first Started. I remember I used to come on every day of the week. or at least 5 days a week. On School Days, I could fit 5 games into a 1 1/2 hour time span. Good games. On Weekends, I would spend 6 hours and we would do Castle games, Steppe Games, etc..., 1v1,2v2,3v3's and 4v4's, all great game and no one ever quit. Hell, I remember Once I played for 6-7 hours straight with only relogging once because I was having so much fun.
:flowers: :idea2:
I never had this problem before the patch. Infact I couldn't even log into multiplayer at first with the patch, but I fixed that after a while, being the clever cookie that I am.Quote:
The game itself may be contributing to the disconnect. RTW had this same problem in v1.0 and v1.1, but it worked much better after the v1.2 patch. I had no problem staying connected to the MTW/VI lobby and don't even today, but I had terrible problems staying connected to the RTW v1.1 lobby, and they both use GameSpy. Many players, including myself, experienced disconnects in MTW v1.0 until it was patched to v1.1. The disconnect is something CA should definitely look at in the M2TW v1.2 beta and try to improve. CA seems destined to repeat mistakes over and over with every new release which is part of the reason I didn't rush out and buy M2TW.
Anyways thats good news that it might just be the patch. I got a 360 and Xbox live over christmas and I just assumed it was that. I mean, undoubtedly the 360 would slow my connection down but I can still play any other game and I can still play lagless M2 with people. It's only Gamespy I have the actual problem with. So it could be the patch thingy :):2thumbsup:
according to an email sega sent me about a month ago they have responsibility for connection, server and network code issues. they intend to improve the network code for the software in the next patch. at least thats what they told me.
GAH!
Vanya wonders what is this thingie called "Samurai Wars"?
GAH!
It's a throwback to an era when the game was simpler, but ironically the tactical gameplay more complex. samurai warlords forumQuote:
Originally Posted by Vanya
Vanya needs a Bear Hug to pop out of third person typing........:knuddel: :gah: :gah: :gah2: :gah2:
does samurai wars have a campaign or is it just for multiplayer and custom battles?
It has a campaign. It's a full conversion of MTW to STW, so to say.
Here're some screenshots: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...1&postcount=12
When you click my signature you'll be linked to our subforum. For MP we use the beta_5 version. For SP beta_7 is fine.
:bow:
R'as
Damn and here I am fielding predominatly archer armies and winning. I generally use 14 or more. Maybe its themass of fire that works. But as has been said VI is still the best. Also the Lordz are releasing a comercial version of NTW that is centered on micro managing your individual units. I cant wait I do really enjoy MTW2 bugs or no. The biggest drawback is so many games dropping. But after experiencing pre patch MTW1 its nothing.
You shouldn't be able to do that. It's represents another playbalance problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Closing your eyes to the problems is a way to enjoy it. I'm not going to do that. They either improve the game up to the previous level or you won't see my clan playing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
at what point will your clan decide it's not worth playing and posting about?
:dizzy2:
That's interesting, Gawain. I was surprised when looking into the ratio of archers in historical medieval English armies and 14/20 would not be unreasonable for the iconic Hundred Years War encounters. I could not imagine such an army working in SP, let alone MP. I would have thought you need more of a meatshield - even enemy infantry is upon you after a couple of volleys in M2TW. However, given what you say, I may try to play my English SP campaign with more historical proportions of archers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
But, Puzz3D, I'm not sure why you shouldn't be able to win with an archer heavy force? Isn't that historically what the English (and, if we consider mounted archers, Mongols) did? I would have thought the ideal would be to allow a variety of army styles to be competitive, not set up the RPS so that only a balanced force should be able to win.
I didn't say a balanced army should be able to beat that, but there should exist a counter army that beats it. Only when counter armies exist do you get a variety of army styles used. Players should be able to take any army they want with no tax penalty. The fact that CA has put a tax on more than X of the same unit type is an admission that the units aren't balanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Balanced armies shouldn't be able to beat all other army types. Unfortunately, we can't demonstrate that in Samurai Wars because of that confounded tax on more than 4 of one unit type.
I'm never going to drop the issue as long as people keep claiming something is better when it isn't. M2TW has better graphics, and that's the only thing that's better in MP. You know as well as I do the large number of excellent players that have left Total War MP. They wouldn't have left if the newer Total War games were really better than the original game. Online participation in STW was still increasing a year after release up until the horribly balanced MI add-on was released.Quote:
Originally Posted by t1master
There's winning and a simple walkover. A unit that results in a (say) 9 out of 10 victory without requiring much input from the player is probably too strong. STW WE 1.0 had the Nag Cav, MHC and MLC, MTW had the lancers in high era (in combination with swipebug and bfu). Of course a archer heavy army should have a chance to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I'm not sure the English won because of the bow. Sure, it was more than just a fine weapon and those guys knew how to use it. The battle at Agincourt for example was not just decided by raining 100,000 arrows upon French knights though. There's even research that the bodkin largely failed there, because of the class armour used by the French. The archers did kill a lot sucked into mud knights by stabbing into their visor with small knives. At any rate, terrain, weather, pride and human behaviour influenced the battle a lot.
My personal view is that the English did not win the conflict but the French lost it.
The mongols are yet another story. Their strength was being mounted and an array of unusual tactics.
A balanced army is nice as you almost always have a best unit to counter, it also has a drawback because may find yourself short of just that extra archer, or just that extra knight to combat the other.
It's not a problem when a player likes to wage his chances with a archer heavy army and get good results with it, it does become a problem when that/those units start to dominate every battle because no other army manages to beat them (regularly).
I recall hearing other signals about archers. So, seems Gawain of Orkney just knows how to use them properly?Quote:
I am fielding predominatly archer armies and winning. I generally use 14 or more. Maybe its the mass of fire that works.
i agree yuuki, that the old community and game are pretty much gone for good. i just don't see the point in restating what has been. the new community, many of whom never played shogun or mtw, do not care about the game play issues that the rtw and m2 brought. at what point does it stop becoming worth the time and effort to point out over and over again how things were better?
This is an interesting point. There are several interesting points actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by t1master
The conflict between old and new is not good.
Old can not tell new to stop enjoying the game if they do. But new can't simply tell old to shut up either. The previous titles had their flaws too and old, some of them are playing TW since 2000, had their hopes for improvements with patches or future titles.
And of course, if new likes the game, by all means enjoy it. However, the old is not just a senile pissing in your tea. It took me at least two years to understand all the flaws in STW, though I enjoyed the game. How much better could STW have been if an older one pointed at the flaws right away so they could be ironed out? Of course you need CA for many things if something needs to be patched. But right now, nothing can change or improve. Not because there is no agreement, but because of lack of discussion. That discussion doesn't have to result in a big compromise where everyone is a bit happy and a bit sad, heaven forbid. Modern software is flexible enough to give everyone the best.
Perhaps the knives should be put away when talking with each other? Talking with each other instead of yelling at each other? Also keep in mind that humans have to make it for us. Perhaps it will turn out beneficial for everyone?
Tosa is right, expecially given that I was probably one of the ones shouting and losing sight of the bigger picture. A plan of action is needed to at least attempt to improve the situation; and I believe that if anyone disagrees with my previous statement then they shouldn't participate.
So far in my experience every thread that has attempted to improve multiplayer and relations with CA with a sound and workable plan has been crashed by posters advising that CA 'will never listen'. It's just my conclusion that you should devise new plans or at least keep trying; because if you're not participating constructively then why are you here?*
*By the way that was not a knock at older players or a threat to anyone etc etc... just advice that working to improve the situation is the only option we have really.
Gawain said he was winning with archer heavy armies, but that does not imply there is no counter army. Another player said M2TW missiles are "laughable", so the jury's out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
In SP, archers seem nicely balanced. Nearly everyone must have played the Agincourt M2TW demo and got a taste of what massed longbows can, and can't, do. They remind me a little of MTW arbalests - slow firing, but lethal when they hit. But they are not as overpowering vs the AI as arbalests were. In effectiveness, they remind me more of STW archers - nice to have, but not the only trick you'd want up your sleeve. I'd want to hear more MPers report similar experiences to Gawain before I drew any conclusions about them being too strong. Right now, I think missiles are one of the things M2TW got right.
Indeed. Or his opponents don't know how to counter them properly. I suspect it's a rare army type that most players are not very experienced in countering.Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
Or maybe Gawain is just a good player. :bow:
Me neither - my point was merely that, from a realism point of view, missile heavy should be a viable army style. Having 60% of their troops armed with bows certainly did not stop the English winning some of the key battles of the HYW.Quote:
I'm not sure the English won because of the bow.
the best thing we can hope for is that another developer comes along with a better game engine and balance. to me there seems to be a rift forming between people who want a historically unit balanced game and a small minority elite who could soon as less care what the game purchaser thinks.
and as has been stated before most of CAs developers only play it in single player if they play the game at all.
the old vs new community strife will not necessarily hurt the community discussion overall it does happen elsewhere, it will simply hurt it here.
it's good to have many viewpoints as to what is good in a game and what is balanced, but what we have at the org seems to be the same 14000 posts from the old crowd, who stopped playing rome during the first months telling the new community, who has grown up on rome and now moves into m2 that the game is not worth the time. why even bother to post then? if you have no intention to play the game; accept that you have moved on(or you have moved or been shoved by ca aside, develop a gamestat for m2 that will have the appeal of the old community, or sit in the shadows and have a pint. ~:pimp:
you can counter the arrow army with a strong rush. gawain is good at getting his army out of the way, all whilst shooting at you.
we make clan games because randoms normally crash games. they do not understand that GS SUCKS and that if they have a router they need to forward ports. seldomly do randoms display skill or respect (CTRL+A and left-clicking the enemy general displays neither). these things ruin games that take ages to get hosted and are a miracle if they make it to the 'start deployment' button.Quote:
Originally Posted by peacedog
lack of respect b/t clans is also off-putting. WIN WIN WIN at all costs! 8 max cav? ok ill go 12 upgraded pikes 8 upgraded cav! imo, playing like this displays no honor and winning is hollow. this is almost entirely CA's fault for making such an unbalanced BETA. moreover, screenshooting every single win to be used later is disgusting. it's utterly hopeless.
the main reason i still play mtw2 mp is because RTK retains their membership in a silly tournament. foolishly, i volunteered to captain the team. i am beginning to regret this decision.:shame:
i'd rather find something else to do sometimes...*frustrated*
Easy answer. I have bought the game, because the demo was too poor to test it right. After the disappointment of the full version I have sold my mtw2 and told the community my opinion about the game. CA should also know, that not all are happy with their game. The bugs in mtw2 are many in number and heavy in impact. A forum is a location for discussion. And a discussion consists of different opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by t1master
He's winning with a 70% archer army. He shouldn't be.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
That doesn't mean they are nicely balanced in MP.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
It shouldn't be a mystery how to counter it. The gameplay should be intuitive and clear. If it's not, then this is another problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Or maybe he's just beating up on newbies.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I'm looking from a gameplay point of view which according to CA is also how they look at it. A 70% archer army should not be viable unless the opponent has taken an army that's vulnerable to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I post for the people who are considering purchasing the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by t1master
I'll play the game when CA brings it up to the standard of play they once had in the series. I spent over 1000 hours of my time beta testing for them, so I would say I have a big investment not to mention the $245 usd I spent on Total War games and the MP mods I worked on which helped promote their game.Quote:
Originally Posted by t1master
Well he must be head and shoulders above his opponents to be winning most of his games with 70% archers or maybe skirmishers are too fast?Quote:
Originally Posted by t1master
We're going round in circles. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
The fact that one player out of dozens reports winning with archer heavy armies does not to me imply any fault with the game. Quite the reverse: that non-standard but historical armies are viable is a strength.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
The problem with a "gameplay point of view" is that there isn't much external reference. Some people like one style of gameplay, others like another. That's why I'd rather anchor things on realism and then tweak things if realism makes for poor gameplay (which I'm not convinced it will).Quote:
I'm looking from a gameplay point of view which according to CA is also how they look at it.
But anyway, as I say, I don't understand why one player winning with archer heavy armies indicates a gameplay problem. (Anymore than one reporting winning with a more balanced army).
Scores of players reporting winning with cavalry heavy armies seems the more likely problem with M2TW until the shield bug is fixed.
do not forget that also cavs have the shields, and the shield bug do not affect just infantries. When the shild bug will be fixed cavs will be stronger too, not only inf.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
It's a fault if it's stronger than other armies. If that's the case, the gameplay will converge to archer based armies. If he's experiencing these wins because he's playing weak opposition, then his post is disingenuous. He's obviously saying that he can win consistently with that army. I'm saying that if he can do this against equal strength opposition, then there is a problem with the playbalance.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I'm all for realism, but you get nowhere with CA if you argue for a change based on realism or historical accuracy. I certainly learned that being on four of their beta teams, and they've said publically that gameplay considerations are first. I also recall a dev saying their game wasn't intended to be a history lesson, and that the gameplay was like the movie Gladiator or Braveheart. Remember the opening battle of Gladiator? The artillery barrage looked like something out of WWII, and the game is like that as well with siege artillery being use as anti-personnel weapons. If you ask CA why they made the artillery that effective, they'll say because it's fun. Even moreso than gameplay considerations which do have an objective aspect to them, any kind of gameplay can be justified in the name of being fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
He's using it to indicate there isn't a playbalance problem, but if what he says is true, it itself represents a playbalance problem. This is the same player who thinks v0 heavy cav should be allowed in an all valor 1 MTW/VI tournament because it makes the gameplay better. It makes spears cost as much as the cav that they beat. The cav pays nothing for its higher mobility and yet mobility is a valuable attribute in multiplayer. What v0 cav allows is for players to take more cav, and that is exactly the gameplay Tomi is trying to get away from with the all v1 rule. MTW/VI is dominated by cav and swords and this is because CA didn't balance it very well, and they had 3 cracks at it in MTW v1.1, VI 2.0 and VI 2.01.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
M2TW v1.2 is a bug fix patch just as was the RTW v1.2 patch. We'll see if SEGA is willing to do a patch just for playbalance purposes after the v1.2 is released and the multiplayer feedback starts coming. I can tell you that the only time CA did a patch strictly for playbalance purposes was way back in STW/MI v1.02.
They will also have to fix the click behind, and then they will have to balance it. This is going to take resources. They also will have to use proper debugging methods otherwise they will end up with the situation they had in RTW where every patch introduced new bugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
The anti cav units are only weak because they are a little too expensive, they are too weak against swords and the biggest disadvantage is, most of them are slow. But they are not useless like many units in mtw2. It isn't fair to compare the game balance of mtw2 with mtw1. In mtw 1 you can use anti cav units without regret. It is also a question of convenience/skill to prefer cav instead of anti cav.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Pikes and halberdiers will experience a lot of difficulties to beat cavalry then. While spears will not do any better than in M2TW 1.0/1.1. So basically cavalry would be even stronger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paolai
I'm not comparing the two. I'm pointing out that CA didn't get mtw1 balanced, and that was with the help of excellent community based beta teams for the mtw v1.1 and vi v2.01 patches and tons of multiplayer feedback. Even with all that, the price of spears was not adjusted, and all that we were asking for was a 12.5% reduction back to their original prices. That 12.5% overpricing had a major impact on multiplayer gameplay. It was a very reasonable request and wouldn't have adversely affected SP. Someone from CA could have logged onto mtw 1 multiplayer and seen that spears were underutilized if they didn't want to believe the players and the beta team.Quote:
Originally Posted by |Heerbann|_Di3Hard
Take note: it's the Australian division that's working on mtw 2 and that's the same division that worked on mtw 1, and while this division is more responsive to multiplayer requests than the other division, several of the requests that were implimented in mtw 1 were done incorrectly. When the mistakes were pointed out, they weren't corrected in the subsequent patches.
Good point, but the typical infantry shield is +6 whereas for knights, it is +4. If I am understanding the shield bug correctly, fixing the bug will imply a net +4 shift in favour of the infantry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paolai
Incidentally, just following on from that calculation, the really big effect of fixing the shield bug will not be on cav vs infantry balance but on overall kill rates. They should also slow down considerably, other things being equal.
Right now if we forget about the charge bonus and any spear bonus vs cav[1], the stats imply that a militia spear vs a mailed knight is striking at +6 (attack - defence + shield); the knight at +10.
With shields working properly, they both switch to striking at -2 (attack - defence - shield).
I'm really looking forward to the reduction in kill rates this should generate. Spears and knights both kill each other rather too fast in the current version of M2TW. A unit can be mangled before you've noticed it.
[1]BTW: does any one know what the spear bonus is for spearmen against cav?
It will imply a shift of 2 in favour of the infantry using these figures?Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
It should influence it yes.Quote:
Incidentally, just following on from that calculation, the really big effect of fixing the shield bug will not be on cav vs infantry balance but on overall kill rates. They should also slow down considerably, other things being equal.
The shield is the difference. The miltia strikes the knight and it's the knights shield that reduces the militia's attack. The knights shield being 4: 6*-4=2Quote:
Right now if we forget about the charge bonus and any spear bonus vs cav[1], the stats imply that a militia spear vs a mailed knight is striking at +6 (attack - defence + shield); the knight at +10.
With shields working properly, they both switch to striking at -2 (attack - defence - shield).
*=( militia attack - knights defence). So militia strikes knight with 2 instead of 6.
Knight striking: 10-6=4. So knight strikes militia with 4 instead of 10. A reduction in killrate indeed. But the knights striking power is twice that of the militia now, whereas it was only 10/6 times more at first. We'll have to see how it works out. A bug is fixed, the battles are slower, both good things. But I'm not sure the spearunit will perform better now.
That bonus may have to be increased to fix it further.Quote:
BTW: does any one know what the spear bonus is for spearmen against cav?
Maybe I am wrong but my understanding is not that the shield stat is currently ignored. It is that the shield stat is subtracted from the defence stat. If so, patching this bug will shift the stats differential between shielded infantry and cav by 4, not 2. I am not sure exactly what such a stats differential corresponds to in actual kill rates, but have some memory of Puzz3D saying it was about 10% per point in RTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
Then it's 4 yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Still, mounted knights will be harder to kill, while pikes and halberds remain the same.
Maybe we are saying the same, but my understanding is that the shield value counts negatively atm. When it should be "+6" it's "-6". This makes 12 points difference for the overall defense value when fixed. If a Knights shield's value is now -4 then it will be +4 and the difference to the infantry is 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
The shield value is definitely not ignored, otherwise all would be fine.
R'as
Not sure how it's done, but the effect is the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul
Correct.Quote:
When it should be "+6" it's "-6". This makes 12 points difference for the overall defense value when fixed.
The difference when fixed is 8 points. The mounted knight gains 8 points, the infantry 12. So infantry gains 4 points in such a matchup.Quote:
If a Knights shield's value is now -4 then it will be +4 and the difference to the infantry is 2.
That's not true. The infantry would still be relatively 2 points weaker than supposed. It's true though that it would not have such a huge effect on killrate as a negative shield.Quote:
The shield value is definitely not ignored, otherwise all would be fine.
The main effect of the shield bug being fixed, or at least from what i've observed using the shield bug workaround, is that spears fair much better in the charge with their higher defence. With the shield being added negatively to combat, it meant that any unit with shields would be seriously handicapped against charging cavalry, as their defence is reduced lots by it. With it fixed, shielded infantry will lsoe in the charge, and in the case of spears, probably kill more charging cavalry, and then do better in melee.
I was going to raise the issue of the charge. IIRC, in MTW, spears negated the cavalry charge bonus. That doesn't seem to be true in M2TW - my impression is that cavalry still plough into spears and cause a lot of casualties on impact or follow through. Once the cavalry are stalled - e.g. in settlement street - then the current M2TW seems reasonably balanced. Against stationary cav, the spears often seem to win through weight of numbers. I suspect the spear bonus outweighs the current +4 stat advantage to cav I mentioned above. It's the cavalry charge effect that allows cavalry to beat spears at the moment.
I wonder what happened to the negate cavalry charge bonus property of spears? Is it still in M2TW? Was it in RTW? I also found spears rather weak in RTW - triari were underwhelming against cav. Or has it been reserved for pikes?
Maybe my impressions are all wrong and it is still there. I do recall people emphasising the requirement for spears to be "braced" when receiving a charge.
Perhaps there's something subtle at work, like cavalry charge bonuses still working if they "push back" individual spearmen.
Not sure if this helps. Mostly based on STW and MTW experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
In STW spearunits largely cancelled a frontal charge. In MTW, you also had cavalry refusing to charge spears. While a charge is something special, it's still a meleevalue.
Assigning a huge defence value to non spear STW infantry units, had about the same effect as being a spearunit. Cavalry charge could hardly/not dent it (of course the unit was also much stronger after the charge and won easily). So, the normal defence is also used against a charge.
Spearunits, being defensively stronger now, should be better able to survive the charge.
The near total cancellation of the charge in STW is not very realistic. A fast moving horse would dent a standard spear formation, dead or alive. Not as much as say an archer line though. Pikes in formation would do better, but a bit damage should be done.
In STW, the charge bonus of cav was canceled when hitting spears frontally. There were also no pushbacks on spears. The anti-cav bonus of a spear was 8 points; each point making a unit 20% stronger in the old engine. In MTW/VI v2.01, the charge bonus is still canceled if there is no pushback, but there is a chance of pushing back the spear which gives a +6 attack bonus (the anti-cav bonus of a spear is 5 points and of a pike 8 points) on the next combat cycle, and only some of the cav's momentum is taken away. The cav's charge bonus stays in effect until the cav's momentum drops below a certain value, so it's possible for a cav to make multiple pushbacks.
RTW/M2TW is a 3D engine where men have a mass parameter so the pushback is going to be different depending on the value of that parameter. I don't know if there is any bonus on the next combat cycle after a pushback. However, I think the big difference is that spearmen and pikemen can be forced to switch to their secondary weapon and thereby loose their anti-cav bonus. I think the anti-cav bonus is 4 points for spear and 8 points for pike, but each point is worth only about 10% in RTW. This may be different in M2TW. Another effect in RTW v1.3/1.5 is that the cav's charge is reversed and used against the cav when it charges a phalanx frontally, but this also happens when cav charges into the back of a phalanx which I don't think was intended. I believe you can negate this reversed charge feature using click behind, but then the cav won't jump on top of the pikes and penetrate the formation as easily. However, the click behind works quite well with inf vs phalanx. I think these are issues brought on by the 3d engine trying to simulate melee combat.
Sounds like what happens when you don't get the prettiest girl and you have to settle for something less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dionysus9
Alright to clear up a few issues:
All spear and pike units get +8 attack against Cav, plus a further unspecified bonus from having the Spear Attribute.
they also get an unspecified defense bonus vs. charging Cav from their spear attribute and an unspecified penalty vs. infantry from the same source.
Based on the fact that (with fixed Shields or working pikes), many Cav seem to die on impact, I also suspect a reflected charge value.
The formed charge is NOT a push-back type effect at all. A Cav-man that impacts somebody will inflict an attack on them (how this is calculated is unclear). If they survive it and are directly in front of the Cav-man, (he can hit those to the side as he plows into a unit), the Cav man then sometimes drops dead so the man hit must always get a kind of free attack in, I'd guess spears/pike get to reflect charge too as they seem much more successful than their performance in general melee vs. Cav suggests they should be. If the Cav man survives that then he may be stopped or he may inflict another hit on the guy he has collided with and even get it reflected back again. This is probably where momentum comes in in M2TW, and probably also mass as it would be that that determines momentum. Naturally the attack and defense of both the charging Cav and defending soldier are considered in this, but high defense is far more important for receiving a charge than high attack. If your defense isn't' above a particular value (varies with the type of attacking Cav), you haven't got a chance full stop of stopping them.
The defense bonus from spears appears to be quite large as fixed Spear militia with Gold Armour (base defense of about 14), are about as charge resistant as DFK (defense 21) so it looks like the bonus is about 50% extra to the defense score.
Hope all that helps you out.
Thanks, Carl. That's going in the FAQ. :2thumbsup:
The elegance of the original engine is that it was done with only an anti-cav bonus, and the gameplay in multiplayer was exceptionally good.
How do you know what he says is right about all these reflected charge bonuses. You're going to put unsubstantiated stuff in a FAQ?Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Actually, it sounds like a healthy mental state. One where knowing there is no such thing as a "prettiest girl", you settle for a pretty one who is "real", who is "available", and who will make you just as happy in the long run, if you forget about finding the impossibly "perfect girl" or trying to turn your old one into this idea of "perfection". Otherwise, you will remain unhappy and appear to be a grumpy old curmudgeon to most.
The things going on right now in the MP community are exactly the same things that went on during STW/MTW1 days. Nothing has changed but the game engine. There are the same type of imbalances, bugs, etc . . that there always have been.
As for the type of game (Samurai Wars) some consider closer to perfection than any other: As you know, I never enjoyed playing a game where everything is known. Where there is no chance for surprise before or during battles. It bores me.
I have always enjoyed playing with armies which caught the enemy off guard, and forced them to adapt. I have seen the type of play which some have been working towards: it is predictable, the outcome of unit vs. unit battles already fully known before contact, no unusual armies which when used correctly, could affect the outcome of a team battle. This type of play isn't a game more than a historical recreation. Unfortunately, history/realism takes a front seat to actual gameplay and THIS is why you do not see everyone flocking back to play Samurai Wars and why some of the new players consider STW/MTW boring. Using the last patches for each and/or the mods, most of the fun was taken out and people left. It wasn't because the battles weren't realistic, it was because they were no longer as much fun.
Samurai Wars is a very good mod, and very nice for those who want a more historical/realistic battle simulator, but it is not what the majority of current/or older players want(ed). If so, you would see all those old MTW1 clans come flocking back and you wouldn't currently be limited to one-night-a-week MTW1 gaming. Right now, Samurai Wars is a small niche game for a small section of the old veteran community.
I am glad for this section of the old vet community still enjoying the TW game, and I don't mind the continual self-promotion of the Samurai Wars mod. However, I have noticed certain patrons continually pointing out the inferiority of the new game compared to the old. It isn't inferior: It is different. It has the same type of problems the old STW/MTW1 games had (and STILL have) and this will never change, but it isn't STW/MTW1 and never will be.
Its a matter of choice and personal tastes in gaming. I don't begrudge others enjoying the Samurai Wars mod or the old STW/MTW1 games, but neither should this group begrudge other enjoying RTW/M2TW.
Stop telling people HOW the current game should be. Stop telling them, because they have less experience they do not know WHAT a good game is. Lose the arrogance, it will go a long way in convincing the new players of RTW/M2TW that the old STW/MTW1 engine had some really good features which added to gameplay and which would increase the enjoyability of battles using the new engine.
Or some can continue to complain, whine, moan, and try their best to scare people away from a game, under the guise of "I'm just trying to warn people who are thinking of purchasing the new game of its faults, so they can make an informed purchasing decision." When in reality, they are just bitter about CA leaving them behind so callously, and want to exact some sort of petty revenge by maybe convincing a few people from buying the new game.
I know one thing this group HAS accomplished: I notice CA rarely posts here any more. This used to be the only place to go for any type of contact with CA reps, but it looks like they have been chased away from here as well. Good job.
I do the same in VI but with more success yet you claim its a strictly sword cav thing. Maybe I just am used to having so many archers. I find any decent army can win with the right tactics.Quote:
He's winning with a 70% archer army. He shouldn't be.
Yeah like the Hunters :laugh4:Quote:
Or maybe he's just beating up on newbies.
we let you win gaw so you keep joining the games... ~;)
Yup, sue me.Quote:
You're going to put unsubstantiated stuff in a FAQ?
My FAQ consists of tips and answers to commonly asked questions culled from Org posts. I've merely quoted Carl's post with proper attribution in another Org thread, caveat emptor.
I'm not pretending the FAQ is only hard information from CA (some code is reported on, but CA staff have posted few insights) or empirical testing (there is some referenced). As we are discovering how the game works, no doubt some of the posts in the FAQ will be revealed to be misinformed. But I suspect collating what we know, believe or even just suspect may induce more critical examination than just letting such contributions drift away in old threads.
In the end, though, I am just gathering what I think are useful contributions.
He only said he suspects a reflected charge bonus. I don't know if that suspicion is right or wrong. I haven't noticed that, but then I haven't done the modding and testing that Carl has. Carl is one of a group of "bugfixers" active in the Citadel and they tend to be pretty rigorous in figuring out how M2TW works. If one says something, the others are likely to tear them down if they disagree. It was that kind of interaction and testing that uncovered the shield bug, IIRC. If someone presents evidence that Carl's suspicions are wrong, I will modify the FAQ entry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Does this sum up your position Elmark:
One gameplay isn't better an another it's just different. The more unpredictable the gameplay is the better. Game bugs you don't know about don't hurt you. I don't want my opponent to know what I have so I can trick him. Don't make an informed purchasing decision, since you can sell the game for a loss later. Just have fun. All it will cost you is $50 usd, some time and a lot of patience.
I didn't want to get into that, but you know as well as I do that the ranged units get discounts on upgrades which turns them into melee units. This is probably another reason why you don't like the all v1 rule for mtw/vi because you're 70% archer army will fall flat on it's face under that rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
In MTW2 they already are melee units like the turks but there are more factions with good melee and very long range archers like the moongol and Tems.Quote:
I didn't want to get into that, but you know as well as I do that the ranged units get discounts on upgrades which turns them into melee units.
I play my archer armies for fun. I learned it from Elmo. Ive always said the biggest problem with VI was that spears were to weak and bemoaned the fact that they were so useless. I dont like v1 only because its too restrictive.Quote:
This is probably another reason why you don't like the all v1 rule for mtw/vi because you're 70% archer army will fall flat on it's face under that rule.
Elmo doesn't care if the gameplay is balanced or not. One gameplay is as good as another according to him, and he loved to use those pumped handgunners in mtw v1.1 which turned out to be the most powerful melee infantry unit in the game after upgrading, and the unit which inflicted the largest morale penalty. Maybe he doesn't realize it, but it was no fun playing against that unit which had no counteruint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The all v1 rule for that mtw/vi tournament is an attempt to get a more balanced gameplay. CA made three passes on that: mtw v1.1, vi v2.0 and vi v2.01 and still didn't get it balanced. Total War games are now being defended with the argument that playbalance doesn't matter. That's a little different from the previous defense which was that CA doesn't have the resources to balance it.
I certainly could make a more informed decision about purchasing the game if CA said, "We hope you enjoy the unbalanced gameplay as much as we do!". It would be helpful if that was printed right on the box.
Yes, the infantry gains 12 points defense (shield) and the Knights gain 8 points defense. That's adiffeence of 4. But the end value of the shield is 6 for inf and 4 for cav, which is a 2 point difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
"Everything would be fine" was exaggerated. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
I don't understand what you mean with "two points weaker than supposed".
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul
:daisy:Quote:
"Everything would be fine" was exaggerated. :beam:
Case.Quote:
I don't understand what you mean with "two points weaker than supposed".
The first step in the proces of implementing the battlefield behaviour is to make the combat engine with all their bonusses: archers can shoot projectiles, cavalry can charge (maybe receive some sort of bonus then), units can flank each other and receive a combatbonus, units can have a shield which adds frontal protection to missiles and extra defence in melee and so on.The engine is then likely to be tested again and again to check whether all these things actually work. The third step is to assign real values, then it's tested again, values of parameters get adjusted, tested again, and so on until the units work as planned. In this scenario, a spearunit would have +6 extra defence because of the shield, the knight only +4. So the difference is a +2 for the spearunit and that works as proved by the tests.
The unitbalance phase can now be considered completed, it's an time extensive and thus expensive one.
It's possible that, for whatever reason, the shieldpart gets deleted/inactivated from the equation. Then the spearunit does no longer have the extra netto 2 defence and thus the spearunit is two points weaker in the matchup than intended.
Something else happened now, a plus became a minus or vice versa. Perhaps an even harder to spot error with even larger implications. Yes, it would be only 5 minutes to test and fix: once you know it is broken. That's the problem with many errors: seeing it is there, or even realising something is wrong takes more time than fixing. Many people will recognise this.
A prime in MP-CA forum communication being early 2003 where longjohn2, the CA employee working on the battlefieldunits, started a topic (his own move!), prior to the release of a new TW title and discussed with the MP people how things should be. Not enough? Maybe. But MTW VI saw important changes because of this.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=23738
We also got several other topics like this
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php (mind you: some verbal violence is deleted).
The 1st topic is a very good example of how constructive it can be. The second one is not.
What do the the people at the left, center, right, upper, middle, lower, new and old want? Bicker and snipe or achieve something?
Hmm?
Well?
:inquisitive:
Ah, okay. Understood.
I don't know, the whole spear vs cav issue turns up numerous times in the advisor speech, for example: "Charging your Cavalry in the front of spearmen is a good way to loose your Cavalry" (Right. Watch this: Annihilates spearmen with a straight charge and dismisses advisor)Quote:
Something else happened now, a plus became a minus or vice versa. Perhaps an even harder to spot error with even larger implications. Yes, it would be only 5 minutes to test and fix: once you know it is broken. That's the problem with many errors: seeing it is there, or even realising something is wrong takes more time than fixing. Many people will recognise this.
I mean how can you miss the fact that this is not working? That should've been something that they should've tested and finetuned in a custom battle. It's one of the essential points of the combat mechanic and, as the advisor tells us, is supposed to work exactly as Puzz3D and others are demanding. You can only miss it when you autocalculate the battles. Which, iirc, they've said to have done a lot.
R'as
Well, when I stated that it's not enough (the participation), I meant today.Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
I for one would welcome any CA interaction. Remember how they told us to create "Can you explain.." threads? There's not a single CA post in the "Can you explain..Cav vs. Spearmen" thread. I've tried a similar thread in the Citadel because I thought they might be offended by the MP section style of discussion/ ranting. Alas, to no avail.
What do we have to do?
Elmo has a point here and so does Puzz. Thought I'm more on Elmo's side. If you take away the surprise elemnt in RTS then it not RTS anymore. Once I've already been asking about predictability in RTS games and you know what the answer was. Puzz from my point of view you take all this things very personally - you were involved in TW series on all aspects I understand that, but from my point of view this should not be an excuse to take all this issue so personally. Please take this words only as a critique and nothing more.
Let us hypotheticaly suggest that there is a RTS game which has no bugs - meaning no exploits no matter the upgreads, charges, clicks behind units, etc.
And in this bug's free RTS game any kind of army (more or less historicaly accurate - for example pesant armies are not supposed to win at all) can beat any other type of army under the condition that you know what you are doing. And each army setup has a counter army setup. This games should be more like what Elmo described. Would you be preapared to play a RTS game like this? Puzz would you play it? Di3Hard would you? What you say R'as al Ghul? What about the rest? Would you be looking for any other kind issue just to make it more your way? I know I would be glad with it.
Chess is chess. RTS is RTS. You can only simulate a real warfare. Take notice on SIMULATE. This is not a real situation. It is only a simulation. And even Samurai Wars or any other RTS are only simulations. And no matter how good you belive Samurai Wars suppose to simulate particular Japanese era it is still far from reality.
How many times in human history battles were won by such types of armies you would not thought that something like that would be possible. Different eras different tactics. Only strategy remain becaus it has no form.
If 2nd patch would address all mentioned bugs and other balance issue cosidered to be present in MTW2 this would be by far one of best TW series. imho
Quite easily, i mean i did tons of custom battle testing for v1 of my LTC mod, and all i thought was that unit stats were a bit off, not that the shield is bugged. Thanks to the testing of Foz/Carl and others, the actual cause of the spear v cav balance and other imbalances was found, and CA now know and are fixing it in the 2nd post.Quote:
I mean how can you miss the fact that this is not working?
Surprisingly Palamedes(the guy who made the suggestion for the threads) has been quite busy on work, and on several personal things(believe me, if you had been through what he's been through recently you wouldn't be up for much work either. And no im not going to say, he told me in private as an explanation for his lack of activity for a while, we've had less convos but i understand given whats happened). CA do try and read these forums, butt hey also have to do work, most of the CA devs are all completely busy working on the patch/expansion.Quote:
There's not a single CA post in the "Can you explain..Cav vs. Spearmen" thread. I've tried a similar thread in the Citadel because I thought they might be offended by the MP section style of discussion/ ranting. Alas, to no avail.
A surprise factor is fine if it's the opponents army that surprises you. If it's completely random/unclear/unpredictable which unit wins a melee, then it's unacceptable and you hardly will find a game where that is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aonar
You're implying that this is all personal and we're only posting to shoot down the new title. That's a serious misconception. I would play such a game as you describe. In fact we're posting with the intention to get M2 somewhere near of what you describe. If you refer to Gawain's all archer army, Imo it shouldn't be possible to beat all kinds of armies with that setup and I don't think it's possible. An all Cav army should easily take care of the archers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aonar
We know it's far from reality better than anybody else. We neither claim that Samurai wars is a simulation nor that it's properly reflecting the era. We'd need HA that can shoot while running and the possibility to have mixed troops, etc. What we do claim is that Samurai Wars is making the best out of the possibilities that the MTW/VI engine allows and that it's fun to play, has an intuitive system and proper RPS mechanics. While some elements in STW have resemblances to Chess we hardly play with mirror armies like in Chess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aonar
We've uploaded enough replays for everyone to check out what SamWars is about.
You're not a programmer, you're a player. It's not your project and you're not getting paid for it so I don't see your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
If you develop a combat system you have to check that combat system in play, not in a spreadsheet or on a piece of paper.
I know that they have jobs. If it was important to them they could give one of the guys some spare time to deal with the community or they could hire someone from the community or they could pay you a salary. I bet there're also a lot of students looking for jobs in the Sydney area. There're so many ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted