MP Losing Appeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Gawain said he was winning with archer heavy armies, but that does not imply there is no counter army.

---

He's winning with a 70% archer army. He shouldn't be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

In SP, archers seem nicely balanced.

---

That doesn't mean they are nicely balanced in MP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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.

---

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 Gawain is just a good player.

---

Or maybe he's just beating up on newbies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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.

---

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 t1master

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?

---

I post for the people who are considering purchasing the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t1master

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.

---

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

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.

---

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 Puzz3D

He's winning with a 70% archer army. He shouldn't be.

---

We're going round in circles. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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?

---

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:

---

I'm looking from a gameplay point of view which according to CA is also how they look at it.

---

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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

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.

---

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

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).

---

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

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).

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Scores of players reporting winning with cavalry heavy armies seems the more likely problem with M2TW until the shield bug is fixed.

---

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 Puzz3D

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.

---

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 Paolai

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.

---

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 |Heerbann|_Di3Hard

It isn't fair to compare the game balance of mtw2 with mtw1.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paolai

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.

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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.

---

It will imply a shift of 2 in favour of the infantry using these figures?

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.

---

It should influence it yes.

Quote:

---

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).

---

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=2
*=( 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.

Quote:

---

BTW: does any one know what the spear bonus is for spearmen against cav?

---

That bonus may have to be increased to fix it further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TosaInu

It will imply a shift of 2 in favour of the infantry using these figures?

---

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 econ21

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.

---

Then it's 4 yes.


Still, mounted knights will be harder to kill, while pikes and halberds remain the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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.

---

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.
The shield value is definitely not ignored, otherwise all would be fine.

R'as

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

Maybe we are saying the same, but my understanding is that the shield value counts negatively atm.

---

Not sure how it's done, but the effect is the same.

Quote:

---

When it should be "+6" it's "-6". This makes 12 points difference for the overall defense value when fixed.

---

Correct.

Quote:

---

If a Knights shield's value is now -4 then it will be +4 and the difference to the infantry is 2.

---

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:

---

The shield value is definitely not ignored, otherwise all would be fine.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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.

---

Not sure if this helps. Mostly based on STW and MTW experience.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dionysus9

Personally I did my grieving a long time ago, and went through the classic stages of denial, rage, grief, and finally acceptance.

---

Sounds like what happens when you don't get the prettiest girl and you have to settle for something less.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Thanks, Carl. That's going in the FAQ.

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

He's winning with a 70% archer army. He shouldn't be.

---

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:

---

Or maybe he's just beating up on newbies.

---

Yeah like the Hunters :laugh4:

we let you win gaw so you keep joining the games... ~;)

Quote:

---

You're going to put unsubstantiated stuff in a FAQ?

---

Yup, sue me.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

How do you know what he says is right about all these reflected charge bonuses.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.