Printable View
well, thats just wrong...
a spear has to be on hold and need to stand.
i tested wedge vs the 1 lines and this dont work, it always depends if u taget the wrong unit....and if i can see in ur words, im sure this units just got between the target unit and deleted any charge or other bonusses....
the sky is blue
a few guns usually makes quick work of the Cav-String tactic; I have a few replays (against some well-known clan members) where they try the Cav-String trick and fail against me.
No need to ask, I have the replays... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif In both games, Paul used the same army:Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Egyptians
General: Khwarazmian Cavalry v3
2x Bedouin camels v4
2x Bedouin camels v3
2x Alan mercs v2
4x Pav Arbs v1
4x Saracen Inf v3
1x Muwahid Foot v3
I don't know if they had upgrades, as I don't have the logfile. (I know, should have saved 'em. But I'm lazy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif) All the games were at 15k.
I hope I'm not giving away any RTK military secrets here... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif
Yeah, we did. But, before I tried that myself, I believed that it would require some skill at least, as AMP and Polar were (reportedly) the only commanders who were consistently successful with the trick. After trying it out, I've come to the conclusion that it's a technique that requires far too little time and effort to learn and use, compared to its effectiveness.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
It's effective because of many reasons, the "lapping around" of enemy units' edges is only a (relatively) minor one. I'm not gonna post the theory here, however. First, I'm not sure if I've got it totally "right"; and second, I don't want to encourage people to use it. It can be defeated, of course, but as Mith said it's IMO a rather boring way to play.
Finally, the "neutral" steppe maps may be neutral in regard to terrain advantages, but they are far from neutral when considering army selection. Cavalry are at their best on the open steppes, so balanced armies will most likely fare better against all-cav on maps like the flat- or even plainsinland series.
That could be very interesting. Sure, I'm available. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
Hm, looks like I didn't pay much attention to CBR, as usual... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
But yeah, an army of 16 heavy cav is far from realistic. I've been toying with an idea of a tier-based army selection system for a possible TWA tournament that would allow the player to pick, say, 6 units from Tier 1, 4 units from Tier 2, 4 units from Tier 3 and 2 units (one of them gen) from Tier 4. Or something like that, ya get the idea.
Before the patch the thin line was very useful and needed at times for h2h units like cmaa and fmaa to take out spears. Now you don't need to do that with them to win spears easy, but it still helps greatly. Cavalry will crush them when they are in thin lines, but not if you put them in a box formation on hold formation. You can use spears in long thin lines to stop cavalry in thin lines, but you can't rout the cavalry or kill many on the charge. That's the problem, spears most of the time kill cavalry slowly, so the cav can just withdraw from the engagement with little losses.
The thin lines is to make all the men in the unit have the charge bouns and wrap around unit flanks. The thin line loose formantion workers better at wrapping around units and works better to rout units keeping the charge coming more when you close the formation at the right time. The loose formation isn't great when it's attacked head on and you don't close the formation.
One problem is if you order an attack on a unit in thin line and that unit is heading in a different direction and your unit engages sideways you're gonna suffer a lot of losses. That goes for any formation, but the thin line is worse to attack at a wrong angle. This is caused by the unit trying to aim for the center of the unit it's attacking and not the closest men in the unit. So you need to face the on coming cav or you'll get side swipped. That's why i turn my cav sideways and not always attack head on so i side swipe the units, which works on all, but spears.
What really makes the cavalry over powered is not only do they have strong charge, but they are the fastest units. In stw monks were over powered, but easier to win cause they weren't fast like cav and you could flank them easier, on fair terrain anyway. You could even defeat monks in stw with horsearchers, by attack from rear and front at the sametime. In mtw you have all different unit sizes, which offsets the balance of things too, i think.
So are heavy cavalry over powered? I think yes they are, cause they don't have counters which drop them easy and cav charges are powerful. I mean you have units that beat them easy, but aren't fast as them, that's the problem. Everything would be alright if spears defeated cav easier and swords stay being able to defeat spears.
Are cavalry armies in long thin lines a cheap tatic? I think no, but it can be an over powered army or easly defeated. In mtw its more of unit selection than skill i think.
I hope the viking expansion makes a good balance and that beta testers do a good job. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
Ok I stopped reading at page two cause I couldn't wait to comment any longer, so excuse me if my words have already been spoken.
I remember reading that the all cav army could be countered but not without each army taking the right units. This is quite right, as I have been in a 4v4 where one side (of all experienced gens) took all cav armies. I wasn't expecting it too much in the first game, but in the rematch, I purposely took an anti cav army. I was at the fourth position, up front, and when rushed, I lost about 8 men to the 80 or so I took. At that point, my opponent simply brought his cav to the other side to triple someone there. My teammate behind (who was more experienced than me) asked me to move in, which I reluctlantly did to avoid large gaps in between the two of us. Two of them were ran over, and then me, out in the middle of nowhere. The man on the other side camped, and was the only one left. He almost won singlehandedly with a mostly anti cav army. Had I stayed on my side, I doubt the attackers could have broken both of us, or even one of us. The point is, you must all be on the same page, and even if half of you are, when played correctly the outcome isn't already determined.
These are the only words I will say on this next subject....if you know what your opponent is going to do, why not set up to defeat them? The only reason would be because the both of you know that the army you took is unfair. Even that is under question. I think both arguments can be thrown into "strategy".
And, the only reason I don't take all cav armies more often is because:
1) I basically run over people, using no skill, if I beat them that is.
2) People b@#$% and moan to NO END until a "fair" army is fielded, saying that I'm an AMP wannabee, and I have no skill of my own. YOU WANNA KNOW WHAT??? When I replayed you with an inferior army, I STILL BEAT YOU If everyone who used someone elses tactics was a wannabee, then we all would be. So, say I used CMAA first, before anyone else, if you use them, does that make you a wannabee?? Of course not. Its a unit. Or a tactic. Its a game. The next person who says this kind of thing to me I'm seriously going to lose my cool over, and get my cd key revoked.
Opps....I kinda lost it there http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif
lol... i almost described that match myself in this topic... i was the genral who first attacked ... and yes this was predetermined before match that i would strike there... as you probably remember i didnt get far against your spear wall.. well.. we even made fun of the guy with the octagon when he didnt move to help when we flanked...and decided to properly remind him why you should always help your allies...we decided to surround him and all charge on the count of 3..would make a good picture http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif lol...foot in mouth...all of a sudden all are cav were gone and 2 of the 4 allies were routed off the field...me and amp were left with a handfull of the troops ...but octogon guy had about the same as before our ill-fated charge... well...i dont call this one custers last stand for nothing...its been in my favorite replay in my collection and ive watched it many times...enjoy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif
Here are a few more cav battles (CavBattles01.zip), including the one vs CBR, you can download it from here. Enjoy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif
Amps post makes good reading, and points out all the reasons why this tactic works, as he also states hopefully in the expansion CA will address this matter and perhaps make the spears cav swords fight balanced http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif beta testers please make sure you test this out
Crand, I have watched your battle. It is indeed a very simple technique, tough it is not just a head-on charge. Sure, it works well vs unexpecting opponents and vs sword heavy armies. Of course, CBR was not unexpecting but he did not do everytrhing he could. Watch how he deployed vs me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif he should have deployed in the same way and the result might have been different. Moreover, as you noted this charge needs flat terrain, and I doubt that you could use it in 3v3 or in 4v4 games. So this is surely a cheap technique vs unexpecting players in 1v1 games but IMHO it is not unbeatable.
Of course, this is not to say that cav armies are not strong in 4v4 games, because they are strong, but not because the thin lines. As AMP said it is all about the mobility. The cav player can pick his opponent, one weak player in your team and the battle is over.
Nobugana & NC, deploying in square/octogon formation and then "camping" is not a shame but IMHO your only chance to stay alive vs cav armies. Help your allies only if you do not risk your entire army in the process. Rushing to help your allies with an infantry heavy army vs all cav armies ( ) is a suicide.
Cheetah, I watched some of the battles ya posted, and noticed that the cav players actually used some tactics, unlike me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif In my book the only real "fault" in those games is that the all-knight armies are a bit cheesy, as was pointed out by CBR and some others.
Hmm interesting indeed IMHO it does not point out _all_ the reasons. Of course some of my theories may be the products of a deranged mind, and I'm not gonna post 'em here as I might just embarrass myself by my lack of understanding of game mechanics. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
(I gotta admit I didn't think of the "sideswipe", though. Perhaps I should do a couple of all-cav tests again... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif)
BTW, has anyone noticed the comment about tiers in my previous post? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif
Though MTW probebly could not take this direction , RTW might be able to manage it and it is {drumroll , dramatic pause , has a chicoroll a bucket of chips and a milkshake whilst the tension builds} : Multi Player Campains .
Basically you would play them with agreed upon time limits to make each turn {early on all players would likely make their turns fairly quickly , but later would likely try to use as much time as they could get to before pressing the "end year" button or letting a M.P. coded mechanism "end year" for them} and when armies clashed they would each be thus human controlled and often ballanced {try raising an all Lancer or all Swiss Armoured Pike or Canadian Hockey Player army in such M.P. Campains } . Battles would be fought after each season turn like normal , but fought as current M.P. battles only with armies raised within the possibilities of that factions production capacity .
Granted , there would still be strategies and tactics possible which some might question {no system is perfect , not even real life : I'll bet the Russians felt the Mongols were somehow "cheating" IRL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif} however it would be rather interesting and the Armies would have to be reasonably ballanced as your opponents would have lots of ways to note if your building up a huge rush-cavalry force or such and time to prepare the counters to it .
A neat possibility in this concept would be an option to play as rebels : several players could choose to play rebels/small "non-faction" states etc and the system would alot each such "wildcard" player territories so they were as spread out as possible {so it would be difficult if not practically impossible to play these various territories -who would each likely be struggling compared to the actual factions- as one territory , even without the next check against that} and the finances etc of these Rebels , small "non-faction" states would be completely separate from each other . Thus if I played as a Wildcard , I might get {using MTW as the example here} Ireland , Khazar , Navar , Milan {I play Paladins' 1092 mod where of the standard Italian territoies only Venice is playable , the rest are city states in "rebel" hands} and the hamivid lands of Tunisia and Cyrencia . Now I *could* try to be a cheesy arsehole and act like they are one faction ; build a navy in Ireland , Navar , Tunisa , Cyrencia and Khazar ; conquer Genoa then build armies in each and start trying to link them up but I could no use the income from goldmines in Tunisa to help finance docks in Ireland , nor maintain a garrison in Khazar nor Milan nor Genoa etc and I would have these quite powerful factions around my spreadout territories wanting what I had {not to mention other Wildcarders ; the Wildcarder playing Genoa would probebly object to my trying to take his citystate from him} who each have cohesive incomes {they can choose to spend all they have whereever they choose whereas I could only spend Hamavid income in Hamavid territories - sending tributes to foes who are not clearly more powerful should invoke increasinly negative penalties on a ruler to deter players from cheating this proposed system and would work to keep unscroupulous clans/groups from such possible method of cheating ... if a Wildcarder has a territory rebel from him , it would be assigned to another Wildcarder} and if I camped an Irish army in Tunisia fora few turns I would find increasing probelems within the army and far more so as the Hamavid leader with domestic unrest {there was no "multi-culturalism in those days ... in that example , the locals would see me as leader giving the country to outsiders and eventually overthrow me} .
If the HRE player lets Franconia rebel then I might be the Wildcarder who gets to play it {and if he has built it up and/or doesn't stop me he will have some rather nasty units with high quality weapons looking to cause him troubles} .
The technology is getting closer to all this . I would like to see it .
Many people here may not realize that the thin line tactic is described in the MTW Strategy Guide as a better way to use swords. If it's good for swords, it's going to be good for other units as well. Magyar even showed a thin line of Chiv Sgts. beating the same unit in a deeper formation, and that's a spear unit which gets rank bonuses. If you get flanked, you loose. I would think that most players would have a handle on that by now.
As AMP points out, spears and pikes don't kill cav very fast. That's because they are defensive units. Their base stat is primarily defensive. Their rank bonus is primarily defensive, and their anti-cav bonus is primarily defensive. They effectively stop the cav by cancelling the cav's charge and not loosing men in the melee. They have to face the cav in good order, and their flanks have to be protected. The spear unit is only good in the direction it's facing. You can effectively backstab a unit with spears in engage-at-will, but that's because there is a huge attack bonus given for charging into the back of a unit. I see players chasing cav with spear units exposing its flanks, and when a cav flanks and routs it, they say cav is overpowered. Don't forget that, if you get in the proximity of the enemy army, there is a -12 morale penalty for being outnumbered 4 to 1. That's "unit count" not men. It seems to me that spears and pikes are not intended to be cav killers in this game because that's the duty of polearm units. Also, if you take a spear unit and face off against a cav, you'll find that the cav does not have enough speed to flank the spear. The cav can't beat the spear, and the spear can't catch the cav.
If you set up one of these anti-cav infantry armies, you cannot allow yourself to be flanked. You have to adopt a defensive posture. After all, you can't catch the cav anyway. The cav player wants to draw out the inf army so that it's flanks are exposed, and then use the mobility of the cav to outflank you. Allies having primarily inf armies who face lots of cav must draw close together, so that the distance they have to travel to provide friendly support can be covered in time. Once of the things I like about MTW is that a doubleteamed player can hold long enough for support to arrive, but their ally has to get moving promptly and not sit on his butt.
While spears dominated the MP battles in v1.0 and can still beat cav, they took a big hit relative to cav with the v1.1 patch:
1) Mounted knight cost lowered by about 20%
2) Spear cost increased by about 20%
3) Cost of valor upgrade increased from 50% to 70% reducing the ability to improve morale on spears by upgrading.
4) Spear suffering pushbacks by cav (requested by SP players)
Returning spears to their original v1.0 cost would help spears in MP, and it wouldn't affect the SP game at all. While MP balance is very sensitive to unit cost, SP is not. An increase of overall morale level would also help spears relative to cav since they would hang in there and fight a while longer. Routing is a big problem with spear units.
v1 swiss Halbs in wedge/engage can beat v1 Lancers, for less florin cost.
Lets all just play long line games then what fun http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/shock.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/dizzy.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/smokin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/flirt.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/pissed.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/argue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/wacko.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
I dident know all units operated better in 1 line Whats the point of a rank bonus then?
Cran,
I like LadyAn's idea: max 1 of each unit. It's very simple, and gets around armies composed of only the "best" units.
Swoosh,
I think rank bonus is useful when you can deploy several spears in a line with the ends of the spear line protected. However, since the spears were increased in cost in v1.1 and the expensive valor upgrade which they desperately need drives the cost so far up, buying several good spears leaves you with weaker swords compared to an opponent who didn't take as many spears assuming you keep parity with him on the cav. If you keep parity on the swords, then you will have weaker cav than your opponent. So, you either loose in the center because you have weaker swords or you loose on the flanks because you have weaker cav. I've just about given up on using spears as a front line unit, although, I did have considerable success with it until most players homed in on the killer units. It will still work as a counter to an all cav army, but that's about it.
Uhh, Puzz3D, 1 max wouldn't work with Rush-on army. Limit to 1 boyar, 1 handgun and 1 pav arb, the rest of russian army is simply composed of peasants and semi-peasants.
One max with Byzantine wouldn't work either.
However, the German and the Italian having so many similar units, would inherite the game.
Annie
LadyAn,
Right. So there is the question of faction balance. How about max 1, all play the same faction to get around that. That should go over like a lead balloon.
Well yeah it could be done...would be great if it was in the game..now its 4 units max at normal cost, if that was like 3-4 for some elite units and perhaps 6+ for some of the cheaper ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
But again Im more interested in making florins the limit for your unit choice, ofc that again means we have to get a general increase in morale to all units. If we played with lower florins we would simply not see 16 heavy cav in an army.
As an experiment I have added 6 morale to all units in the crusader_unit_prod11.txt file which can be downloaded here:
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/cbr/CBR-stat.zip
For those who are interested we could try it out and see what it feels like to play with 5k florins.
CBR
I think this game ought to play balanced at all levels of florins. You should remember that no matter how realistic or well-tweaked the game is, people will still play with 99999 florins. I would like to see games in that range that are balanced as well as those on the low end.
I would just like to take this moment to get on my knees and thank the Dev's for denying the request for 999,999 florins.
There was one .org patron (who shall remain nameless even though he hasn't been around in forever) who lobbied HEAVILY for 999,999 florins.
THANK YOU DEVS
Kongamato,
It's not possible to balance the game for all levels of florins.
I also remmeber that guy who wanted 999,999 florins. He also dissed my idea of have florins set per player. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/frown.gif
I could just see it, if we had 999,999 florin option. I log on and most of the games show 999,999 florins. Heck why not have unlimited florins while were at it. I remmber asking online what's the deal with 99999 florin games and someone flipped out on me. Is it the low moral? Is it that they like upgrading as much as possible? I have no idea, so help me out here, what's the deal with them?
I remmeber play lot's of people in 99999 florin games in mtw before the patch and 99999 koku games in stw/mi. When people beat me they claimed they were better and bragged about it. When i got them to play me in a lower florin/koku game, which some wouldn't, but some did, they lost badly. They would say so what, i'm better at higher and you're better a lower. I tried to explain to them about moral and that matchups don't matter as much in higher games. Most didn't agree and would say you're just mad cause you suck at higher florin/koku. Most of my losses came from me trying to use a normal army or one of my unbalanced ones that work in lower games. Some of these people high florin/koku players would deploy backwards, send all units to attack one, win uphill not matter what matchup i tried, or wonder around the map saying they are flanking me.
I'm sorry, but i like this game, when it requires tatics to win, knowin about moral, the right matchups, flanking and rear attacks work most of the time, and tricks with units. Back in stw if you were good enough you could rout 2, 3, or maybe even 4 armies. It could go either way depending on the situation and your skill lvl. People ask me why should you be able to rout 2+ armies? I say why shouldn't you be able to? If you're gonna sit on your butt getting sucked in the chain rout or your ally messes up and routs through you, that's your problem and not a flaw in the game. Don't feed the rout, face your enemy properly, move if you have to, watch moral, protect flanks, and much more you can do.
I would prefer having games balanced at something like 5k and have different moral lvls for players when you logon. High moral for people who hate troops that rout. Medium moral for those who like some routs. Low moral for those who like have chances of routing 2+ armies givin the right tatics.
I think its nearly impossible to do. It would actually be better to hardcode a 5k florin/player limit or have 3 florin levels 4,5 and 6k or something like that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
CBR
AMP,
A 99,999 game in 4v4 (25K/player) isn't that bad. Since valor upgrades are so expensive, the extra 10K over and above a 15K game only buys you 1 additional valor point on average. That's +2 morale over a 15k game. It does allow more secret weapon/armor upgrading, and a player may or may not like facing enemy units of unknown capability. It depends on which side of that game you like to play on. A double edged sword so to speak. One thing it does allow is more tailoring of unit to an offensive or defensive role. It's a mistake to say that only poor players are playing at this level of florins. I know some good players that use 25k/player.
Sometimes a host who can't get 8 players goes ahead with a 3v3 which gives 33K/player. I find this a bit much because cav is unable to rout most units even when charging from behind at the addition +2 morale that 33K allows. I've found that matchups are more important in higher florin games just for the reason that you have to almost completly kill the units before they rout, but the proper matchups are also harder to determine because you don't know the weapon/armor upgrade of the enemy units. What happens at high florins is that you can use each unit more independently. Consequently, you can spread out more which leaves more room for maneuvering. Since units fight longer, there is plenty of time to bring in a helping unit. Use of reserve units to expliot these gaps becomes very important. At low florins, it's more important to keep the units close together and have the whole army fighting at once so that you don't suffer a localized morale disadvantage against a more concentrated force.
Knowing about moral is a problem since it's not explained well enough in the manual, and many players don't have the time to learn the entire moral system by playing 100's of battles. I know vets of 1000 games who don't understand the morale system. I'm not sure anyone really fully understands it other than LJ. Now, if a person wins games through greater understanding of this system, it's like playing chess against someone who doesn't know how all the pieces move. I don't think it's an easy thing to grasp conceptually as the battlefield interactions can become quite complex. At low florins, the whole game hinges on routing the first unit. Who want's to play a game where as soon as you loose 1 unit, you've lost the battle. I don't want to play that game.
CBR next time we are both online i will try some 1v1s with your stats if you like http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif .. just gimme a shout http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif
I have watched the custers_last_stand game, very nice battle. IMHO it shows that cav armies can be defeated with the proper tactics. Well, Weilan was defeated, but IMHO only because of his over-confidence. He should not have started to chase down cav units with CMAA and spears. Besides, had Davonz kept his original position the cav armies could have done nothing.
I don't know why it is so hard to put the florin per player instead of per side. There is an improvement I must say: the florin could be different for attackers or defenders. This helps in organizing PBEM campaign. But Amp's idea of florin/player would avoid many problems we have such as 4x4 becomes a 2x2 or 3x3.
Annie
I played a couple of 3k games. First game, I chose a balanced army. My allies decided to camp on the other side of the map and the oppositions used all cav armies, so they quickly converged to finish me off before I can make to my allies.
The second game, I knew better and chose better troops. Plus, I have perhaps better allies and was able to stand those all cav army.
Problem at 3k or 5k: lancers army would be even more devastating. So it is even more of "chose your faction/chose your unit/no need tactics" kind of game.
At 20k florin and 25k florin games, a Russian army can sometimes beat the Spanish army. Granted that the Russian player must know how to chose his units and make a few secret upgrades to make it work. And the Russian general must not make many major mistakes. But I could use most of the 12 factions available, depending on the mood of the moment. At 10k or 15k, I would always go for Spanish army or if I am bored, Italian/German or Byzantium. The Russian, the Muslims, the Poles and Danes are simply too weak at such florins level.
Annie