What was that bug? Was it fixed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jambo
Printable View
What was that bug? Was it fixed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jambo
21 seconds for an Anquebusier? :laugh4: The guys who made Samurai Wars mod are on crack. That's way to fast. 45 seconds might be too slow but 21 is way to fast for a matchlock. An 18th century musketeer using a flintlock and paper catriges with pre-measured amounts of primer and charge, and an ignition system that was 80% reliable could with experience and training get 21 second reload times. But not a 16th century arquebusier using a powder horn and a burning wick for ignition.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
The mod is trying to replicate the gameplay of STW, guns had similar reload in STW and MI. So yeah I guess we are on crack just as much as CA was back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Of course its faster than real life but then again so is the movement rates (Archers had a 4 second reload in STW/MTW which is also faster than the historical average rate of fire) Personally I dont care about details like that since so many other elements are not historical either.
What Im interested in is the gameplay and what numbers to use to get a certain effect. The guns in M2TW might be closer to real life rate of fire but they are facing troops that move faster than real life, cant use more than 2 ranks for revolving ranks fire and have awkward movement.
edit: in MTW handgun/arquebus had 30 second reload.
CBR
RTW 1.0/1.1 had the primary and secondary weapon attack values mixed up so units with a missile weapons also used its missile attack value as its melee value. It was only discovered by modders several months after the game had been released and IIRC the 1.2 patch was nearly done by then but was delayed to include the fix.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
CBR
RTW never exited the beta stage until version 1.5.
It does require a lot of ignorance to enjoy the recent releases of Total War.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jambo
We tested various reload times for guns, and the playbalance suffered. The 21 seconds is optimal given the range of the guns and speed of the units, the balance with archers and the casualties inflicted per volley. If you lengthen the reload, you have to increase the casualties per volley and that depresses morale in the target unit. So, if you change the reload time of guns, you have to rebalance every unit in the game. Our objective was to restore the gameplay of original STW not make a new gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Are you joking? You think its really that hard to take a powder horn and pour powder into a barrel while walking? Hell I bet a parapalegic could do it. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
I don't think loading gun while walking is recommended.
- try to pour powder into the muzzle while walking: practice this: pour liquid into glass without spilling while walking.
- you need to pack the powder too. And to do so, it requires you to stop.
- safety issue: you may not want to trip with a semi-loaded gun!
Anniep
Aside from wasting valuable gunpowder, you'd also get some smoke and sparking if any powder spilled on the burning hemp match cord. Probably not a good idea, especially if you're trying to conceal the unit's movement. As it is, I read somewhere that early gunners were easy to spot, due to the smell of the match cord.Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyAnn
I do think it's a little silly that the reload timer restarts from scratch at the end of a move. It's going to encourage using these units more as static defense, and not so much for flanking or other tactical movement after the battle starts. Reloading on the run doesn't make much sense, but if enough time for reloading has passed since last shot, and the unit is commanded to move, the guns should be ready to fire as soon as they stop. That reload timer variable is being tracked by the game anyway, so why reset it with a move command? Maybe it's just a bug that won't be in the final game.
Even the static defence option doesn't seem that viable from the demo, they just won't bloody stay in one place even on gaurd mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
Perfectly serious. It's not the pouring that's the problem. It's the tramping down powder and ball and not getting powder on the match cord. Early fire arms had a tendency to miss fire. Usually when the powder went of pre maturely. You might be able to reload a arquibus prone however.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownOfSwords
Which is much better for early firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Why would you want to do that? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Because the gameplay of the original STW was the most well-balanced out of the entire TW series. None of the other games--not even my beloved Medieval--has come close to matching it.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
That's a joke. RTW was the first time they got it half right.
Better in what way? For gameplay reasons or for realism?Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
CBR
It's the best split. It's ludicrously too fast for handguns though. The earliest firearms shoulded fire faster than 30 seconds.
So would you say 30 secs is better than the 45 secs we see in M2TW? And couldnt they just fire every 15 secs but with half the effect?
CBR
Wow... :dizzy2:Quote:
That's a joke. RTW was the first time they got it half right.
I thought it was pretty much universally agreed upon that, in terms of gameplay, RTW was the absolute worst of the series by far. :inquisitive:
Oh come on, it wasn't that bad. ~;) MTW was superior when it came to the campaign map gameplay; RTW was superior in the battefield gameplay. Now hopefully, M2TW will combine both of those!Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles
Let's not derail this thread with another MTW vs RTW debate. That's been done to death. This thread is for demo impressions only and is long enough without unnecessary padding. There's an Entrance Hall thread on which TW game was the best, so off-topic debate can go there.
Because the less than reliable matchlock could under perfect conditions and good luck get 2 rounds a minute (barring missfires, which until flintlocks happen with an amusing requency). But 1 round a minute would be more likely. Since most things in TW combat are accelerated in some way a 30 second reload time for aquebusiers is the best split realism and gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
In what alterante universe is that true?Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles
Is this the story with guns in M2TW?
1. Reload = 45 seconds.
2. Cannot reload while moving.
3. Any progress towards reloading is lost if the unit moves.
4. Only the first rank can fire.
5. Units cannot be put in less than 2 ranks.
6. If the second rank is fully loaded and moves to the front rank, it can't fire for 22.5 seconds.
From videos I've watched it appears that infantry can traverse noman's land in less than 22.5 seconds. If so, that means an infantry unit could time its advance so that it takes one volley at maximum range and then takes no more volleys before closing with the gun unit for melee.
That's exactly why 21 seconds works best in STW. Since movement speeds have been increased in M2TW, the rate of fire should be even faster than 21 seconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Welcome to 16th century pike/shot tactics. Fire 1 volley run behind the pikes/halbreds and reload.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
If this game would be anything near 16th century warfare the guns would be using more than 2 ranks for revolving fire. 6 to 10 ranks were used to make a continuous stream of fire. Multiple ranks could form up close to fire one massive volley which was a feature of the STW/MTW engine but we dont know if that is included in M2TW.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
CBR
The other school of though there. Which you use would really depend on what you have more of, pikes, or guns.
lol it runs good on meduem on my 754 sempron @1.4ghz with 1gb ddr400 and a vanilla 6600! :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Quickening
i just got a am2 3500+ 64bit tho with an asus M2V-TVM AM2 All-In-One Motherboard :D Too bad i need to get new ram and everything :no:
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI....MEWN%3AIT&rd=1
TBH guns are pretty frustrating to test in the demo. They fire off one salvo, then stand still a bit for reloading and then suddenly starts marching to face another target. At least it appears that after a unit moves it manages to remember that second rank had partially reloaded so you only have to wait those 22 secs or whatever it is. Or the game engine simply assumes second rank has half reload time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Im pretty sure they have a reload of 45 seconds although sometimes it is difficult to get a gun unit to stand still and just fire and reload for more than one cycle. Effectively I had reload rates much slower than 45 secs in a few tests I just did, as they kept on turning and delayed their fire.
If the guns works this way in the final release I really cant see why anyone would even bother with guns. Just buy some more melee units, ctrl+a and charge the enemy, faster and less frustrating.
CBR
Could you clarify please?Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
CBR
First impression of demo: it's teh s3x0r :2thumbsup:
I'll play some more now.
You can't use that tactic in the game because the guns will go into a reload cycle when you move them out in front. You also can't move a single rank which is the only rank that can shoot.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Wonders if they would fix that?
I remember we asked for having guns pre-loaded: the first volley would not need to wait for loading cycle (soldiers can carry loaded gun even when walking). You only need to stop long enough to reload the guns subsequently.
Anniep
I heard 16th/17th century warfare described once like this. Catholic infantry was mostly pikes, with the guns supporting them. Either with a volley in front of the pikemen before the other line closed or on the wings shooting into the pikemen. But the main point of decision would be a pike shoving match. Also you'd have sword/buckler men as anti-musket infantry. Protestant infantry was the inverse, used mostly guns with pikes or halbreds as anti cav support on the flanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I'm now a very happy man.
Great news Puzz.
Cheers,
I got the Special Edition demo from Amazon, and I've played it. The battlemap parts look very exciting, but I am keeping my doubts about the AI and it's diplomacy.
yes thy reload twice which is a horrid bug and makes them almost useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
You did? The new one? That's out on Tuesday? Screenies? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
I found it very enjoyable but I cant comment on the graphics because of my awful specs. there are allot of different tactics in each battle an the sound is absolutely spot on! I have nothing but high hopes for the full game and will defiantly be buying it :2thumbsup: I just wish i coudl ahve seen the enhanced demo instead..
I should say a bit more. One of the things I liked best was the sprawling battle fields they are just so hugely varied and even the dark sky and much better looking clouds add to the darker grittier feel of the demo, compared to the somewhat brightly coloured Rome. Its also nice to see rolling realistic hills back they really make using longbows fun! The combat animations aren’t really what I was expecting. they are too subtle and hard to see and a lot of them don’t seem to have a feel of force and impact as I was expecting. Still im sure it will be far more polished in the final release.
sorry about another post. I hope ican edit them when im a member. As well as post in hard and software..tech is my life.
16th century was a century full of tactical development and for that matter it continued throughout the 17th century too. AFAIK The Dutch, Swedes and English used more guns than the Spanish at one point(late 16th to early 17th century) but the actual use of guns were not that different: revolving ranks, skirmishers, guns operating as independent units or nearby the pikes, all that was more or less the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
My main complaint is how the guns are implemented and how to use them in M2TW. They seem to require more micromanagment and even then they seem to not work very well with all that moving around and constantly reloading.
That the formation apparently only uses 2 ranks has some serious implications for gameplay too. If we look at STW/MTW then such units were 60 men units on normal and 120 on huge, compared to 200 men max for the large melee units in MTW. So in MTW on huge you had guns of 120 men in 3 ranks and the men using about 1.2 meters each (normal heavy infantry is 1 meter only)
In M2TW we have 240 men max on huge setting (I assume huge is same as RTW) and guns are 192 men and I think guns now use 1.5 meters per men. That means on huge setting guns will be 96 men wide instead of 40 in MTW and the actual width would be around 144 meters wide instead of 48 meters in MTW, so thats 3 times as wide gun units whereas the melee units havent changed much (240 instead of 200 men)
But instead of looking at my dry numbers just try Pavia again and imagine your guns are twice the size and compare them to your pike units.
It will not change much to play with smaller unitsizes either. Its preferable to use melee units in 4+ ranks so gun units will always be wide and awkward to use. At least for archers you can use much deeper formations but as it looks right now the guns have been utterly screwed. And with longbow reload of 15 seconds, missile units in general are pretty bad IMO.
CBR
Huh? I downloaded the demo from Amazon, and it says Special Edition on it...Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro
What should be new?
The 2nd demo isn't out yet, its out on the 24th.
It all depends on the cost. If missiles are cheaper than melee units then they will be widely used even if they are "not as good" as some of us might expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Also, why do you want to play on huge size? ~;p Everyone will be playing on normal. ~;)
Last but not least I would contest the statement that they are pretty bad. Kills from Pavia:
GB 152
pikes 77
pikes 42
Arq 21
Arq 39
Halbs 36
Halbs 28
ZweiH 166
ZweiH 45
Basicaly the arquebus units got as much kills as the halberds (of course one should credit the halberds with fighting better opposition: gendarmes and dismounted knights, though arqs were fighting some melee too). Also one should consider the morale effect. Whether this should be considered as efficient or not crucially depends on the price of the units. So, as long as we dont know the price it is really hard to say anything whether they are "good" or "bad".
Kills from Agincourt:
King: 60
DM Knights: 108
DM Knights: 107
DM Knights: 95
DM Knights: 143
Billmen: 32
Billmen: 54
Y.Archers: 107
Y.Archers: 48
Y.Archers: 33
Y.Archers: 40
Y.Archers: 73
Y.Archers: 71
Y.Archers: 39
Archers got an average of 58, not bad IMO, comparable to elite archers in MTW. Add the fact that they were shooting heavily armoured troops most of the time. Again, cost will be crucial but their kills seem to be fine.
I guess "everyone" missed this poll then or this threadQuote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
Just remember that you are looking at kills for scripted battles. At Agincourt the French are attacking in silly waves that cant even cover the whole front, which gives your archers more time to deliver shots into the flanks of enemy units. And the archers who happens to get into melee have a high valor compared to the French.Quote:
Last but not least I would contest the statement that they are pretty bad.
Unit cost and upkeep might be one reason to include some units in armies, but lower cost and upkeep never made me buy crap units in MTW or RTW. M2TW now has limited recruitment for different units, and if you discover that you can get just as many archers as some basic militia unit then yes maybe the archers will be the best, if you cant fill your army with knights or other elite units that is.
CBR
I know that the AI is heavily scripted but on Pavia and Agincourt the French cavalry seem intent on charging straight into either my pikes, stakes or billmen, the never seem to deviate a tiny bit.
Without wanting to get to detailed on Agincourt towards the end of the battle you get attacked from behind by three French cavalry units. Everytime I see them coming a move two melee units to face the road the arrive on. Every time they charge these units. They don't try and avoid them and hit my archers in the back, they just charge the dismounted knights/billmen, why is this? It is suicidal. I get that the frontal attacks are scripted and to be fair the French don't have much choice, but in almost any circumstance French knights auto-home on pikes or units that can beat them and avoid nice juicy musketmen and archers.
Edit:Also I always use huge and mod my graphics settings to allow that. I play the Total War series so I can send vast armies into battle, whats the poin of having a full stack army if on the battlefield its abou 400 men?
Errr you answered your questions about the Agincourt demo yourself in your opening sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles
That's my opinion. I bought Barbarian Invasion a few months ago. That sucked even more. Hated it.
I'm playing MTW1 right now. And I still love that game.
I also like more MTW1 than RTW but tahts i think because i love the era of the game.i think its not that in grafics,ingameplay,inbattle,in strategy and other is better that RTW.maybe all like it more becvause of the medieval ages and not that RTW is really awfull and the worst of the series.In the end i believe that in judging conditions RTW is better in everything against MTW1 but MTW1 is coolest and more fun playing...
About guns...
As im a "happy" SSE user....
how the targeting works?
As far i understand it, u select a unit, the gun start to reload, than after 45 sec, they shoot.
They restart reloading, if u change the target?
If yes, the whole system is more than a joke...move one unit in....let guns go autoreaload, than after 35-40 sec u move out.
I assume, that the missles also dont walk behind units anymore and try to "catch" them?!?
I also did read some of this "blog" from pala, it really makes me worry, if i read about the routingsystem.
1. no chainrouts, or almost no chains anymore
2. if 1 unit rout, the nearby units are not effected
3. to recover a units need 150m !!!! unless u can chase a single unit :P
Well, the best in the old days was, that u could win 1v2 or 1v3. Now when i read this, it clearly tell me, that u end with big losses all the time, it also tells me, that much movement...outmaneuver is quite useless.
Does we face a frontal attack -Game?
When i look at the cav, down to charge and than no big point anymore, than flanking is kinda useless as well, especially when u read about the routing...
How usefull it is to move a cav in the back of ur enemy, if u hardly can rout something?
I already see some heavy static playstyle incoming, low movement, frontal attacks, boring fights....exlpoits out of the missles and down to mucho melee.
This fatique problem also didnt hit my expectations, basically we are back to the old system, if u play on "hard". Especially this settings i dont get, its only for SP or also for MP?
And can u see what settings u join or are u surprised once the game started?
The recover of fatique seems to work like STW, at a certain stage u wont get higher than "2bars". Im quite interested how far u can move till u lose 1 bar.
All in all, it looks dissapointing till now, i nearly lost the lust to even test it and i couldnt play it at all yet :/
MArs
Although I haven't played the demo, I think that's correct except it may only take 22.5 sec to shoot if the guns are in 2 ranks. In anycase, 22.5 sec is still too long if the open fire range is about 100 meters because an infantry unit in M2TW can cover that distance in 22.5 sec since the run speed in M2TW is still somewhat higher than STW/MTW and charge speeds are much higher. In STW, you had 21 sec reload, and 3 rank fire gave a 7 sec rate of fire. Infantry units ran and charged at 135 meters/minute (NI), 168 meters/minute (YS and SA) or 210 meters/minute (YA, ND and WM) which gives 44 sec, 36 sec and 29 sec respectively to cover 100 meters. That means all of the men in the gun unit get to shoot at incoming infantry either in 3 ranks or 2 ranks (full volley) even if you retarget at max range as long as the gun is not in skirmish mode. Even in skirmish mode you'll get off a couple of volleys when in 3 ranks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars
That is an issue in the old engine. Since RTW, running seems to work well and, in fact, it's best to run all the time since the fatigue rate for running was very low.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars
I don't know, but, if the overall morale is too low, the game becomes a rout fest and there is no possiblity of hammer and anvil tactics in team games because a 2 on 1 instantly routs the anvil. This means the armies have to stay close together which actually reduces the tactical possibilities. I would say the anvil should be able to hold for 2 or 3 minutes. If the ally arrives within a couple of minutes, the hammer and anvil tactic works, and if he doesn't it fails. The player who is the anvil has to be a good defensive player. He can't just stand there and do nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars
I think a balance is needed between maneuver and attrition. In Samurai Wars we have carefully adjusted this balance so that, for example, 2 YS (cost 400 each) beat 1 WM (cost 1000) if the 2 YS use maneuver and one hits the WM from behind while the other fights frontally. Also, a spear will be routed by cavalry if the cavalry hits the spear from behind. However, it's quite difficult for 1 player to beat 2 players because the 1 player doesn't have enough units to chase off 2 player's scattered units. Also, since the maps are large, a player's units get tired chasing routers. So, even if a player beats 1 player by a lot, his units will be tired after chasing, and it will be very difficult for him to beat a 2nd player who has a fresh army.
We don't have any beginners playing Samurai Wars so there isn't a big difference in skill between the players. At most we have one player who is very used to playing high morale games in MTW, and is still adjusting to the lower morale of Samurai Wars. I've seen loosing players gets less than 300 kills, but I haven't seen a loosing player get only 50 kills. The armies start with 960 men.
I don't really see the point of making the gameplay so that 1 player can beat 2 or 3. The 1 player has allies, and he should be working together with those allies. If you're concerned about coming back from a situation where your allies were wiped out and did practically no damage to the enemy, that won't happen if the gameplay has attrition and doesn't have instant routs. It means it's less likely that 1 player can sit back, let his allies die and then come back to win it, but, as far as I'm concerned, that strategy isn't in the spirt of the game which should be to work with your allies.
The demo I think was amazing :beam: and its good to see the medeval setting again. The graphics looks brillant and the new animations really add a new dimension of relism, well to some degree :yes:
I cant really comment on the AI etc since it was apparently scripted :dizzy2: but i found both the battles fun and immersive....as i did with all the other games in the series.
I positive this edition in the series will be just as good or better than any of the others, in terms of gameplay. And for me its a definite purchase. :smash:
Its not just on Agincourt that the French knight auto home on pikes, On Pavia having beaten the forces from the camp the guys next to the manor come and attack you.
Having beaten the first attack in my starting formation I put my pikes across the small hill next to the forest facing the manor, to their left I put my arquebusers with nothing in front of them, because this was an experiement the rest of my army was either killing the scots guard, chasing the routing cavalry or 200 meters behind my line. The Cavalry went straight for my pikes, charging uphill, ignoring a units of unguarded arquebusers.
The French charge at Agincourt is scripted, and unless the have scripted all AI cavalry to charge pikes (which imho is unlikely) and they couldn't have predicted that the French cavalry would be faced between a choice of arquebusers and pikemen, this means they wouldn't have scipted anything, so the AI (which I assume will be the same in the real game as in the demo) choses suicide over ripe targets.
Well, first of all I was joking as I know that you prefered huge in RTW. ~;) Second, you are talking about SP and I was talking about MP (as usual). The two things are completely different as we know. In SP you can play on whatever setting your comp can handle, on MP there are norms, rules and tourneys so it is much more difficult to depart from the "norms". Third, your poll and thread is about RTW not medieval, and just shows my previous point, i.e. even though SP-ers voted for large and huge, MP-ers used normal size more frequently (either because of fear of lag or because of tourney rules, etc.). Fourth, MTW2 normal size will be larger than that of RTW so in a comparable poll I would expect more people to vote for normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
All I want to say that without knowing certain key factors, such as the price of units, it might be a bit premature to conclude that "missile units are pretty bad".Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Puzz, how come you haven't played the demo yet?
Well, dont worry be happy. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars
1, What Pala said that there will be no instant chainrouts in the first 5 secs of the battle (like in RTW). No one likes a game where you deploy for a 10 mins and then routed off the field in 5 secs.
2, This holds for fresh units, see above reason. I assume that tired units will be more prone to chainrouts.
3, Well, in both MTW and RTW (and in BI) units recover if you dont chase them. It does not sound to be a big change.
I assume it was in STW, right? If so it was due to the musketeers. It was not possible in MTW, and it is not possible in BI. Also I dont see why manouvering would be useless, it is definitely not useless in the demo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars
I see that you could not play the demo. Well, Agincourt is definitely a frontal attack game but Pavia is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars
I am a bit more optimistic than you. ~;)
He has a AMD 2400+Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
I did send him a 80 MB vid of me playing Agincourt though :beam:
CBR
its hard to belive this is a tw forurm all you do is spam about how much you hate TW and how much you will hate the future games. RTW was an insane amount of fun. It crapped all over mtw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Knight of the Living
In my few MP battles I had I found large to be the best for gameplay. When I got a new PC I went from large to huge in SP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
Yes of course there is a difference but that doesnt change the fact that most players are SP and a majority prefers to play on large or huge. AFAIK huge units of 240 men are still in M2TW so I fail to see why some people suddenly would lower their size setting except for lag.Quote:
Second, you are talking about SP and I was talking about MP (as usual).
No matter what cost the guns have they are still very awkward and has an outright bugged feel about them. Archers and crossbows are most likely better (at least in the tests I have done) so there is more use for them if their cost is ok.
CBR
Did anyone know what was up with the militia halberdiers in the battle of pavia?? They seemed to have been reluctant to attack. Could this be a bug in the game? or the fact that they are "militia" halberdiers
And i didn't get why they had a "spear wall formation", it made them vulnerable instead!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProudNerd
I'm sorry, I was posting from America and not Iran. I thought free speech and the offering of opinions was a legitimate practice in this country. I'll be sure an run my posts through the Ministry of Information next time so I don't accidentally post an opinion you don't like.
And if you read the title of this thread it is your impressions of the demo. I gave my impression of it and my impression is that the AI sucks. THe comment you quoted me saying was in response to an opinion given by another member. Responding to what another member already posted is not spamming.
But, just so you don't turn me into the Ministry of Information to have my head cut off I'll change my opinion just for you..... OH I LOVE THE AI IN THE DEMO. IT WAS GREAT. OH, AND RTW WAS EONS BETTER THAN MTW1.
THere, is that better.
AthlonXP, but CBR sent me several videos illustrating the gameplay of the demo.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
I don't think that mars is talking about beating 2 or 3 armies at the same time, but one at a time. Even the most experienced vet will easily loose when rushedQuote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I don't really see the point of making the gameplay so that 1 player can beat 2 or 3. The 1 player has allies, and he should be working together with those allies. If you're concerned about coming back from a situation where your allies were wiped out and did practically no damage to the enemy, that won't happen if the gameplay has attrition and doesn't have instant routs. It means it's less likely that 1 player can sit back, let his allies die and then come back to win it, but, as far as I'm concerned, that strategy isn't in the spirt of the game which should be to work with your allies.
by three noobs at the same time.
Oh, that's bad luck Puzz, but I think the newer demo is playable on an XP, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I'll probably be DL'ing it myself sometime this week. Couldn't see the point of getting the first one anyway since it's apparently based on an earlier build.
even in MTW u could win 1v2. I did in many times, some battles was in CWB.
My ally did stand still and watched it...
In STW/MI u couldt constantly rout ur opponent in less than 20 sec, mostly caused my musks and the fire at once "bug".
I dont say u need to win vs 1 army with just 50 losses, but i remember tests we did with "turtel" armys and an completly inactiv player.
The outcome was amazing, the player who did nothing won aroudn 40% of the battles, ofc we didnt shoot him down.
Anyway, even if u didnt loss, ur army was almost dead after u routed ur enemy.
Ofc i want to win 1v2, thats my goal, to win 1v1 isnt worth to play that game.
Anyway, to rout in liek 5 sec is silly, ofc, i speak abotu smart movement and causing a chainrout when ur opponent does a mistake.
Chanirouts are needed, eles u always end with a almost dead army, even u play a crap player. Still it seems, that inactivity beats activity.
I worry about movement, in MTW (i call that the last real TW game) activity never could beat a sitting player. I remember when u (puzz) was closing ur border and put ur ma´s on hold....
there is no other way than running frontal on this wall!
Same goes for the turtel tests, the moralsupprot effect of standing close together is too huge in MTW.
Anyway, lets see the real deal once its out, but right now i fear we face another eyecandy game which looks great but dumps down the tactic once again.
Koc
He's talking about beating them one at a time. However, to to that you have to be able to beat the first two and take very few casualties doing it. That means chain routing is required and the routers have to all move in the same direction so that you can chase off a whole routed army with 2 or 3 units. One of the big proponents of this idea felt that a good player should be able to beat a 960 man army and only take 50 losses doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobunaga
Starting with MTW, routed units scatter in all directions which means you have to chase nearly every one of them individually. If you do that, your army is going to be too tired to beat a second, fresh army let alone a third one on top of that. You're better off only chasing the most dangerous units off the field, and the maps are bigger so it's going to take a long time before you can retrieve your chasers. Also, the outnumbered morale penalty was simply based on the number of large banners in STW (one for each unit). So, a partial unit counted as a ful unit for outnumbering purposes. In MTW, it's the number and quality of the men that's used for outnumbering. So, partial units or units of lower quality don't count as full units anymore for outnumbering purposes. In Samurai Wars which uses the MTW engine, beating a 960 man army while taking 300 losses is a big win, and that's with a gameplay that allows the best full strength units to be routed quickly when they are hit in the back.
I think this was caused by the rock, paper, scissors not working well enough, and players using too much money. With a lot of money you could buy only the best units, and that army was mosly cav/sword with the swords pumped up so much that they beat cav. There was no opportunity for favorable matchups along the front because everyone had the same kind of sword units. A player could stand there, do nothing and be relatively safe. Shooters were also very weak in MTW/VI. If you ran to flank, fatigue weakened the attacker because fatigue wasn't optimized for the larger maps. LongJohn said fatigue was the same as STW, and I verified that with measurements. We tried to get CA to improve the RPS by lowering the cost of spears and to also lessen the fatigue rate, but all we got was a 10% reduction in running fatigue for cav.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars
In Samurai Wars for MTW/VI, if a player doesn't move, he'll loose badly getting maybe 150 kills because the attacker will be able to make very effective matchups in a frontal assault. All you have to do is spend about 5 minutes neutralizing the shooters before you charge. You still have to chase scattered units off the field, but you can choose to chase only the most dangerous which I think is a smarter thing to do. If a few weakened enemy units return to the battle, they aren't going to be much of a threat.
Well I have no interest in playing someone who is going to stand there and do nothing. It isn't worth playing against someone like that, and I certainly don't want an ally who does nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars
It is more difficult to attack. If players are of equal skill, the defender will win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars
I didn't make the game so that pumped maa could beat cav. CA did that. I told CA this was a problem. I also told CA that the fatigue rate should be lessened because the maps were bigger. They said higher fatigue rate for movement made the battlefield seem larger, and they wouldn't change it. However, they did reduce the running fatigue rate of cav by 10% so that cav could better chase routers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars
MTW/VI engine is good, but the units were not well balanced and the shooters were too weak and took too long to use their ammo. Xbows take 15 minutes to use all their ammo. That's too long. It drags out the battles and units get tired just by standing for so long.
That's a problem. You have to have diversified armies and a working rock, paper, scissors system to have anything other than a slugfest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars
Morale support bonuses didn't change between STW and MTW. Morale penalties for being outnumbered and seeing friendly units rout did change, but so did the rout point. It was -24 in STW, -16 in MTW and -18 in MTW/VI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars
CBR and I spend a lot of time trying to get people to play MTW/VI at 5000 florins, but very few players were interested. I also was one of the last players to give up on using 4 spears in an MTW/VI army at 10,000 florins.
Well it's going to be better than RTW, but I don't know if it will rise to the level of STW. M2TW is going to have to be pretty good to get my clan to play it online. We have Samurai Wars for MTW/VI, and the gameplay is very good. I think we'll have the desync problem in the newest beta_7 fixed soon, and the current 11b unit stat for MP may be the final stat. Only the battlefield ninja remains to be optimized, but it could stay as it is. We are going to have an MP era where each clan has it's own mon. We can handle up to 26 clans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars
i knew it i really really really knew itQuote:
Originaly posted by Mars
Koc
:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:
no one has interest in playing against an inactive player, but if an inactive player can (some times) beat an active player than their definetly is a problem in the game.Quote:
originally posted by Puzz3D
Well I have no interest in playing someone who is going to stand there and do nothing. It isn't worth playing against someone like that
if we have two games that are very similar in principle/structure (like stw and mtw for example). In the first game the experienced player can beat 2 or 3 opponents together but in the second he can't then obviously the first game requires more skill.
Now in stw/mi when two players of similir skills fight the battle will be very close and no easy victory will be acheived. However as the skill level varies more between the two player the more the victory will be easier and that will be shown in the battle results and in the number of casualties.
Now that doesn't exist in mtw to the extent that it existed in stw, and that is because stw requires more skill / in stw mistakes are punished more and inactivity is punished more.
Graphics are awesome!
However, I never had to use proper tactics once.
And yes it does feel a lot like RTW.
EDIT: Although the kill speed and rout point is definatly better than in RTW, no near instant routing/unit destroyed in 5 seconds.
Well, i truly hope its any good, i really miss the game.
One problem i have myself is, im a feeling player, i know some stats, but surely my knowledge is less than some of the other player, like puzz.
But when there is something wrong, i feel it.
One example for the moralsupport.
In STW u could move with a h0 units( or was it h1?) close to the enemy army, and shoot it. In MTW there was something different, if u were quite close, ur unit did rout, more with lower fatique.
The problem is, u already raised the honour mostly.
There was a huge difference. we had tons of dicussions about the routingsystem, there where exploits, but in the end, the alldirection routing is a bad system. It causes lots of chaos, sometimes units routed trought u and rallyed in ur back and than u did rout urself. MAny times this happend and turned a already won battle in a loss.
My concerns are easy, once u meet a very weak player, u should steamroll him with ur skill and ofc not loose many units/mens. In MTw this was different, u always lost many mens even the enemy was a bad player.
This is what i mean with i "wanna win 1v2", imo its important that u have an outcome which relfect ur skill in a good degree. If 2 good player meet, than it should be a close one.
Anyway, chainrouts are important, no silly chanis, but chains with some logic behind. The routing must have a major effect to friendly units, as it is the only way to win vs a defender. Chainrouts also make it possible that u can use a weak army to defeat a strong one.
I hope u can follow my logic...
Mars
if you play some unscripted custom battles with the new gold demo you get an good impression of the AI behaviour on the battlefield (even if the demo is not designed to work unscripted 100% correctly): a little bit too defensiv as the CA Developpers already mentioned and will be fixed in the first patch
repman
I have faith in CA, and its good to know they are already addressing issues.
The inactive player would not win a 1v1 in MTW. All you have to do is flank his units and you'll get more kills and win. What didn't happen in MTW was for the inactive player's army to rout as soon as one or two of his units routed. You had to beat more of the inactive players units individually than you did in STW because people played with too much money, and the unit matchups available were not as advantageous because the players basically used homogeneous cav/sword armies. The only place the RPS in MTW/VI is even close to working is at 5000 florins, and even then it's not as strong as it was in STW. Once you go over 6000 florins in MTW/VI, the RPS is clearly broken by the upgrading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobunaga
Well both games require that you chase all the enemy units off the map. In STW, the maps were small and all units routed towards a single point on the map's edge. In MTW, the maps are large and units rout away from the threat which means you have to do a lot more chasing over a much greater distance in order to win. After you do all that chasing, your army will be scattered and tired, and in no shape to beat a second fresh army. Deciding which enemy units to chase and how far to chase them requires skill. If enemy units are rallying and coming back to beat you, then you did something wrong because a routed enemy army will not be able to come back and win if you play correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobunaga
This requirement to chase routed units off the map could be eliminated by changing the battle engine so that units went in to an unrecoverable rout instead of a recoverable rout. If that was done, you wouldn't have to chase at all, and could immediately turn your attention on the second enemy after initially routing the first enemy.
Well it's not due to the battle engine. In Samurai Wars for MTW/VI there is plenty of skill needed, and the ability to successfully attack hills as you could in STW is back in the gameplay because the RPS is strong enough, and there is a balance between attritional and positional factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobunaga
I don't think you're never going to see a return in Total War of a strong RPS, units routing toward a single point or small maps. These things are gone, and it limits the ability of a player to steamroll multiple enemy armies.
Howdy.
I dunno if everyone has read this post, but it's bloody good. I hope Palamedes doesnt mind me crossposting, I havent seen it over here at the .org.
post deleted because i found it already. ho ho ho.
well samuri wars is considered by many TW experts to provide the best mp experience, and without your hard work and great stat knowledge that would have been not possibleQuote:
Originally posted by Puzz 3D
Well it's not due to the battle engine. In Samurai Wars for MTW/VI there is plenty of skill needed, and the ability to successfully attack hills as you could in STW is back in the gameplay because the RPS is strong enough, and there is a balance between attritional and positional factors.
:bow: :bow: :bow:
Lots of people made valuable contributions to Samurai Wars, and of course it uses the wonderful battle engine that LongJohn and CA developed. Since CA revealed a lot of info about how that battle engine worked, you can develop a pretty good idea of what effect a certain stat change will have on the gameplay. This helps a lot in getting the gameplay to where you want it to be. In anycase, we used the original STW stat as the basis of Samurai Wars and the original STW gameplay as the goal since that's the gameplay that most of the longtime vets thought was best. We kept making adjustments based on battle experience feedback from those veteran players, and I'm happy with the gameplay that's been achieved. The beauty of it to me is that you don't have to know any stats to play the game. Both the army purchase and the gameplay is intuitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobunaga
Ever since MTW, Total War puts more emphasis on the army purchase phase in the sense that smart purchasing can give you a significant advantage on the battlefield. That happens due to the large number of unit types and upgrade possibilities. I think Samurai Wars offers an alternative to that approach, and we've had the advantage of being able to refine the gameplay over a long period of time which CA can't because they have to move on to develop the next game. Also, the move to more realistic looking terrain and men actually makes it harder to see your units, and therefore harder to play the game. In Samurai Wars, the men are very clearly defined especially with the sashimo on each man's back, and they are clearly visible against the ground textures from a great distance. It's unfortunate that the engine used doesn't have the left/right click for select/attack that showed up in RTW and cav archers shooting on the move, but the older engine does have important features that didn't make it into the new engine used in RTW.
I finally checked and having sort of a hate-love relationship with it.
First of all, it is much, much, much better than Rome. Movement speed is reduced down. CBR reported it to be almost exact Shogun speed and I would agree that. Killing speed is also reduced down so that the battles do not get resolved almost immediatly like in rtw. Overall battle pace makes sense. They have sort of nailed the original mtw feel in that sense.
Yet...
I do not like the morale system. Some units hold vs 3-4 enemy units where there are routing friends around and that is weird. May be it is because of their odd upgrades which CA decided. If that is the case, (we cannot know atm) then no big deal, however I still sense that the loosy feel of rtw is still there a bit. It does not feel solid enough to me. Strange things happen and I am not sure if it is just because of the upgrades.
On the positive side, infantry units totally obey. They do what you order them to and that totally disturbing cavalry movement animation of rtw is not there anymore. Yes they do move in an animated way still but now it makes sense. However you can still find them charging to a close enemy unit whereas they were supposed to follow your order and move to an other place but it is not as bad as rtw and since the speed is not insane anymore you can control them and get back to the order you gave.
Overall feel is weird. Something between mtw and rome. More of mtw actually but still romeish a bit.
Worst of all, it is hard to distinguish units from each other and there is a sense messiness at almost every bit. The reason for that is the graphics. Everything is sort of blur. It does not have the sharpness of rtw (in terms of graphics). Rather dark, pastel and blur and that causes difficulty in distinguishing things. Really annoying tbh.
Above is all I can tell from the demo. The release will tell if there is any tactical depth into it like the original had. Atm noone can tell with the custom battles and their units we are given. However I must add that I did not observe any affect of fatigue for example. It is like exactly same as rtw in that sense which is rather sad. BTW, You can disengage almost any unit without getting it to route like in rome (even a 10 men inf unit from 40 men unit...i was able to). Sad again.
Well to sum it up, m2tw is not a modded rtw like many of us expected. It is a whole new, different game and as far as I can tell, it is much better than rtw. Battles make sense now (sort of) and the speed is not insane. Units obey, no more noob cav animation and etc. However it seems there are some obvious shortcomings as I described above yet they can be fixed later with some patches (that is a whole different story which I will not mention here). But, the messiness caused from graphics will be there till the end so one has to either get used to it or just forget about the game.
Three things that annoyed me most were: Fatigue, morale and disengagement. May be it is early to moan about morale system since we do not know about the upgrades units are given yet lack of fatigue affect and presence of disengagement is still there obviously.
Ok that's all for now.
I've finally played the gold demo. Overall it's a good impression. Nice graphics and animations. Movement speed feels okay now and I can even imagine to play MP with this engine, although it's still a bit fast with 20 units to manage. I could get used to that, though, it's better than Rome.
What really is a problem for me is to distinguish the unit types from the raised point of view. If I raise the camera so far as to get a good overview of my battle line, I cannot tell (only by the unit's speed of advance) what kind of unit the enemy throws at me, nor do I see how I can distinguish my own units. Part of this maybe that I'm not that familiar yet with their appearance and maybe you can distinguish them by their banner shape but not being able to tell if it's a Cavalry unit that attacks you was an odd experience. I had to zoom in to make out the horses.
Also, missile range seemed to be much higher than in MTW1 and higher than in Rome. I wonder if the effectiveness of missiles and especially firearms is connected to distance? It would be logical to have the muskets and arquebuses to be more effective at low range.
Cavalry seems to be just right. Of course one needs to see them fight without upgrades, because in the Otumba battle I had expected them to be stronger. Some of those Aztecs seem to be high valour, otherwise I don't get why my conquistadores didn't crash them faster.
R'as
nah, thats not the point.Quote:
Well both games require that you chase all the enemy units off the map. In STW, the maps were small and all units routed towards a single point on the map's edge. In MTW, the maps are large and units rout away from the threat which means you have to do a lot more chasing over a much greater distance in order to win. After you do all that chasing, your army will be scattered and tired, and in no shape to beat a second fresh army. Deciding which enemy units to chase and how far to chase them requires skill. If enemy units are rallying and coming back to beat you, then you did something wrong because a routed enemy army will not be able to come back and win if you play correctly.
If u look on it as 1v1, ofc u can controll it and stop chasing units.
The real problem we had in MTW, was units which routed trought ur army and did rally in ur back, just in range to give u a penalty, coz an enemy unit was in ur rear...
Also, let me mention the routingsymbol, i did ask for it many times. It is almost impossible to know which of units/cav is really chasing and whixh fighting.
Let me also mention the problems with units which u did ordered back, but got stuck in a routing enemy unit, than start to attack this unit again....
Ofc, this are problems with the basic mecanic, but it clearly shows the lack of controll.
We need badly a solution, where u can ensure that ur units are doin what u did order them.
Now lets look on a teambattle. In most cases u split ur army to overwight somewhere, i always had at least 3 splits, this needs some fast camera and some good controlling. Now i can say, that i can move my mainarmy on left (example) and also can keep controll on the right side, where the battle started, once on left the enemy goes for me, i have to pay more attention on my left. Now ofc, im almost lost to keep controll about my right units.
note: sorry, that i leave topic
All in all, its sad that i cant play it myself.
I still maintain that only a general opinion can be formed by playing the demo. The upgraded units will not present a true feeling of battles other than those of a SP campaign where we would expect to see mis-matched units.
Most members have been praising the unit graphics, in particular the variation within a unit; no more clones. I remember posting in a thread about identifying your army and saying that faction colours, though they may look absurd, do at least allow you quick recognition. That being said, I could also see the benefit of less recognisable units and identifying them by their standards and heraldry was authentic. I have not played the demo, though I have seen it and I noticed that perhaps these standards are not as instantly recognisable as they could be. This is something I accept for the sake of realism and I am sure that after playing the game for a while the problem will become less noticeable
.......Orda