First impressions on mp

First off whilst i may have been playing the series since STw, i have only been playing mp since Rome.

I hated RTW mp due to the uber units, and ultra-fast routing.

Now i just played my first M2TW mp game. 10000 each, me as England, them as France. We both choose balanced armies, mine a mix of billmen, longbowmen and some knights, his a mix of dimsounted knights, noble cavalry, pikemen and cannons. I loose narrowly, i suffer 96% casualties, my opponent 86%, the deciding point of the battle was a long melee in the middle between my infantry and his before his superior cavalry made the difference. Battles last a long time, movement speeds are very good as well.

From my first impression i would say that mp is MUCH better than RTWs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lusted

I loose narrowly, i suffer 96% casualties, my opponent 86%, the deciding point of the battle was a long melee in the middle between my infantry and his before his superior cavalry made the difference.

---

Such high casualties suggest the gameplay is now a battle of attrition. In the last Samurai Wars 3v3 MP battle for MTW/VI which was very closely fought the total losses for each player were:

Winners: 68%, 67%, 84%
Losers: 86%, 88%, 81%

They are indeed, his higher quality infantry gave him the edge in the battle, and because our armies were well balanced it was basically just grnd each other down. If my cavalry hadn't been killed by his so early on i could have sued them to flank. Instead thats what he did with his, cavalry may be less powerful than in RTw, but they are still battle deciders.

We played too MP. Our clan impressions:

- The battles are much better than in RTW (speed and unit behavior )

- Elefants are too strong. They destroyed 5 or 6 units. Very annoying.

- 3vs3 was impossible. Has had anyone other experience? At least 3vs3 lagfree is mandatory needed.

- We missed the exhaustions bars and the units exhaust too slowly. I had one unit, that marched over the half battlefield, was fighting until only 6men left and they was still fresh o_O

- In my opinion there are too less maps.

Something about the unit selection. If one team has already a faction the other cannot choose it or the game cannot be started. Why they don't remove these faction from the panel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lusted

They are indeed, his higher quality infantry gave him the edge in the battle, and because our armies were well balanced it was basically just grnd each other down.

---

This type of gameplay will not bring back the STW community. Also, it doesn't appear that those factions are balanced if he had the better infantry and the better cavalry. Since factions cannot be chosen by more than one player, it's important to have balanced factions. In STW all factions are the same, and in MTW factions can be chosen more than once.

He had the better infantry because he chose more high quality infatry than i did. The factionas are all pretty well balanced, i just went more for numbers in my selection instead of quality.

Just had my first match against somebody who picked the French vs my English. This is my first ever multiplayer game with the total war series, and I'm bloody impressed. Perfect sync, almost thought I was playing off-line.

And a nice victory to boot ; )

Quote:

---

We played too MP. Our clan impressions:

- The battles are much better than in RTW (speed and unit behavior )

- Elefants are too strong. They destroyed 5 or 6 units. Very annoying.

- 3vs3 was impossible. Has had anyone other experience? At least 3vs3 lagfree is mandatory needed.

- We missed the exhaustions bars and the units exhaust too slowly. I had one unit, that marched over the half battlefield, was fighting until only 6men left and they was still fresh o_O

- In my opinion there are too less maps.

Something about the unit selection. If one team has already a faction the other cannot choose it or the game cannot be started. Why they don't remove these faction from the panel?

---

Some disappointing issues here........
I suspected 3v3 would be hard or impossible. Sorry that is not good enough to bring back old players. Clan challenges at 2v2??

Still fresh after a long march and a long fight? Can't say that sounds promising either.

Back to the one player one faction nonsense? That was fixed in MTW and appeared again in RTW.....and it is STILL the same. So if we want a faction v faction team battle we are screwed. WOW, fantastic news :wall:

........Orda

Any news about Athlon XP compatibility issues?

Athlon XP's lag badly online... works fine single player, but at a total crawl online... Not sure if there's anything to try except replacing processor, motherboard etc.

I had a 2v2 and everyone got into game pretty quickly, and yet it still lagged like hell. :(

ati x1950xtx
amd 5000 dc
2gig ram..........and cant play 2v2 without lag..not to mention a 3v3 or 4v4..
When i see some guys host a 4v4 i just cant believe that they can play that..
I tried all settings but allwys lag,when its moore then 4000 units:help:

maybe a amd issue???anyone got the same prob ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

Still fresh after a long march and a long fight? Can't say that sounds promising either.

---

We played again this evening. Now the exhaustion was okay. Yesterday we played over Hamachi and LAN. Maybe there are other values. That makes hope.

how is the chat? can you easily highlight your friends/clan and have a nice private chat??? i don't expect the throwback to shoggy, but mtw:vi had a fully functional chat lobby. is it the same confusion that rome is/was????

MP might not be bad from what I hear from here and other places, though I will have to try it for myself when MTW2 comes out here in the US Monday or Tuesday then..

wow...sounds pretty good...ive never played multiplayer...beacause i do not know how...how do i play multiplayer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NihilisticCow

Athlon XP's lag badly online... works fine single player, but at a total crawl online... Not sure if there's anything to try except replacing processor, motherboard etc.

---

I can't see the reason of that.. If the game doesn't lag in SP, it has no reason to lag in MP, except of bandwidth problems, of which you're confiriming that they aren't the problem..

PLayed my first ever mp-battle in a total war game,a 3v3:2thumbsup:

It was a very close defeat,(enemy had 30 men left :s),but it lagged quite a bit.Wait a minute,you guys are saying there can't be two HRE's in one battle?
I did it yesterday:oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoetje

Wait a minute,you guys are saying there can't be two HRE's in one battle?
I did it yesterday:oops:

---

Can you expand on this please hoetje? It was one of the best fixes in MTW when more than one player could select the same faction. RTW MP would not allow this, yet it was possible to create an historical battle and field more than one army per faction. If CA have fixed this for MP it is great news.

How bad was the lag in the 3v3? Was it considerably worse than the lag people are reporting even in 2v2?

I am a bit concerned by the initial comments on battles, victory seems to be very marginal with losses very close on both sides. Could it be the case that battles have become too attritional? I would not want to see battles decided by only a few men standing at the end.

Has anyone tried XP Athlon v Intel to check how that runs?

......Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

I can't see the reason of that.. If the game doesn't lag in SP, it has no reason to lag in MP, except of bandwidth problems, of which you're confiriming that they aren't the problem..

---

Err, it does have more reason to lag. I don't lag at all in sp, but do mp. My internets a decent broadband setup, besides I would have lagged badly in rome if its internet related.

The game play is much improved. If you STW players don't want to come back due to niggles in the lobby your choice. ~;)

But it is a greater improvment to RTW. I never played STW online can't say. But instead of listening to other people get in the lobby and try it yourself m8's.

Tib

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

The game play is much improved. If you STW players don't want to come back due to niggles in the lobby your choice. ~;)

But it is a greater improvment to RTW. I never played STW online can't say. But instead of listening to other people get in the lobby and try it yourself m8's.

Tib

---

I wasted my money with RTW, and worse, I wasted quite a bit of time.
I can probably live with a bad lobby if the gameplay is good. Just better than RTW is not good enough, I want at least as good as MTW/VI 2.01.

Part of gameplay being good are:
- being able to play 3v3 or 4v4 without lag
- good balance
- good speed so that it's a tactical game, not a lump it all mass click fest

Unfortunately, there is no chance that the two latter can be assessed properly until a couple of months, minimum. Until then, I'll read what you write and have fun playing other games...

(and when January comes, EU3 will be out... so maybe I just pass alltogether anyway)

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Heerbann|_Di3Hard

We played too MP. Our clan impressions:

- The battles are much better than in RTW (speed and unit behavior )

- Elefants are too strong. They destroyed 5 or 6 units. Very annoying.

- 3vs3 was impossible. Has had anyone other experience? At least 3vs3 lagfree is mandatory needed.

- We missed the exhaustions bars and the units exhaust too slowly. I had one unit, that marched over the half battlefield, was fighting until only 6men left and they was still fresh o_O

- In my opinion there are too less maps.

Something about the unit selection. If one team has already a faction the other cannot choose it or the game cannot be started. Why they don't remove these faction from the panel?

---

It is early too say any unit is too strong. I am sure by the time i could play M2TW, my Elephant Corp will easily be destroyed. :)

Not only 3x3, 4x4 is a must.

Hmmmm deja vu? In RTW, it was the same until a patch, that once a faction is chosen, it cannot be chosen again. This must be fixed.

Anniep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monarch

Err, it does have more reason to lag. I don't lag at all in sp, but do mp. My internets a decent broadband setup, besides I would have lagged badly in rome if its internet related.

---

Yes, In SP, you have only 1 computer to worry about: your own. In MP, like in the real army, the march is of the slowest. Also, in MP, we have to syncrhonize between players.

Anniep

The lobby lag can be explained quite simply. Like most games when a lobby goes up there always laggy/annoyng for a few days. No doubt this will chnage soon ~:)

Tib

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

The game play is much improved. If you STW players don't want to come back due to niggles in the lobby your choice. ~;)

---

I expect CA to maintain the standard of play they set with the first game. It would be to the benefit of all the players if CA did that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

But it is a greater improvment to RTW. I never played STW online can't say. But instead of listening to other people get in the lobby and try it yourself m8's.

---

Better than RTW isn't good enough. It's already clear that M2TW MP is not up to the standard set by STW. I know a lot of vets that have left Total War MP, and I have too much respect for their intelligence to suggest that they play an inferior game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

Back to the one player one faction nonsense? ........Orda

---

BI works the same way (one player one faction) and it works well. Basically it is forcing the players to play with different faction and to find factions that work well together. Lot more factions are played this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

This type of gameplay will not bring back the STW community. Also, it doesn't appear that those factions are balanced if he had the better infantry and the better cavalry. Since factions cannot be chosen by more than one player, it's important to have balanced factions. In STW all factions are the same, and in MTW factions can be chosen more than once.

---

We dont know as yet whether MTW2 factions are balenced or not. It seems though that there are similar factions like: Milanese/Venicians, Hungary/Poland, perhaps even more.

Also, there were many battles in MTW which ended in a war of attrition dozens of tired men slugging out in a true last man standing situation. I even remember that once we had to chase out one, yes one man that was still fighting in a 4v4 to get victory!!!
IMO this kind of situation is expectable with infantry heavy armies led by equal generals. The problem starts when mistakes cannot be punished and the player who makes these mistakes cannot be chainrouted. However, we do not this as yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

I expect CA to maintain the standard of play they set with the first game. It would be to the benefit of all the players if CA did that.


Better than RTW isn't good enough. It's already clear that M2TW MP is not up to the standard set by STW. I know a lot of vets that have left Total War MP, and I have too much respect for their intelligence to suggest that they play an inferior game.

---

Well m8 some times you just got to live with things. I for one am not a particuarlar fan of CA. RTW was awful agreed but you might have to live with the fact we may never return to those days. It's their choice give it a wirl see if they like it or go by third hand opinions.


Tib

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

Better than RTW isn't good enough. It's already clear that M2TW MP is not up to the standard set by STW. I know a lot of vets that have left Total War MP, and I have too much respect for their intelligence to suggest that they play an inferior game.

---

Shogun had like 12 units in the whole game, M2TW has over 100, factions with all different units. I think one man and his dog could balance the amount of units shogun has. You shouldn't be comparing M2 to Shogun because Shogun isn't even 100th of the scale that Medieval 2 is.

I'm not saying Shoguns not good, I never played it however I'm just saying its very unfair comparing to two. Also, I am one of those people who likes variety in their games, different factions, different units, different strategies, Shogun seems to not have much variation. I wouldn't usually say that because I've not played the game but since you're judging M2 without playing it I guess fairs fair.

"I expect CA to maintain the standard of play they set with the first game. It would be to the benefit of all the players if CA did that."

Please clarify this point, I don't really understand it properly :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheetah

Also, there were many battles in MTW which ended in a war of attrition dozens of tired men slugging out in a true last man standing situation. I even remember that once we had to chase out one, yes one man that was still fighting in a 4v4 to get victory!!!

---

That was caused by battlefield upgrades, and using too many upgrades on high morale swords. We got LongJohn to remove the battlefield upgrades in MTW/VI v2.01, but swords still had too much upgrading and the discount on ranged unit upgrades allowed too much upgrading on those units as well. MTW is not the standard of comparision that I would use. In Samurai Wars for MTW/VI v2.01, we don't have units fighting to the last man except perhaps the hatamoto and ninja which are small high honor units. AMP and Swoosh helped identify a problem with small cav units being too effective at the end of a battle in Samurai Wars, and we corrected that problem.

Battlefield upgrades are back in M2TW. Their effect might not be as strong as in MTW, but if the overall morale level has been raised, then even weaker battlefield upgrades could easily be too much towards the end of the battle. The battle engine only operates well over a relatively small range of morale.

Just out of interest - how are MPers finding archers and missiles? In the SP game so far, they seem to fire rather slowly. They remind me of arbs - slow but lethal. I can't imagine they are very useful in MP as it seems you could close within a volley or two. But then again, I've never played MP and gather arbs were popular.

To the "vets". Why do you get the feeling that what you liked is what's perfect? I really don't care if a battle ends with 20 men left or 300 men left, I really don't care if upgrades are in or not, I really don't care if a unit can move 140 m/sec instead of 139 m/sec.. And I'm sure, most of the community doesn't.

As for the lag matter.. I'm saying that if you can have a SP game with 6000 men with no lag, you should be able to have it the same way in MP. Though, due to Athlon in-compatibilty issues, I thought that maybe Athlon users had to do some extra calcs or something, and by that lag the game?..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheetah

BI works the same way (one player one faction) and it works well. Basically it is forcing the players to play with different faction and to find factions that work well together. Lot more factions are played this way.

---

Exactly........it forces you to choose separate factions. Do you think that is good? Personally I would prefer a choice.
Back in MTW days I enjoyed many faction v faction battles and the replays of these battles looked like epic historical battles. What is the chance of this type of enjoyment when forced to select different factions? It means many factions will be used. Big deal, it means I can not host what I would like to host. I prefer something that looks realistic but now I do not have that choice

........Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

To the "vets". Why do you get the feeling that what you liked is what's perfect? I really don't care if a battle ends with 20 men left or 300 men left, I really don't care if upgrades are in or not, I really don't care if a unit can move 140 m/sec instead of 139 m/sec.. And I'm sure, most of the community doesn't.

---

I am sure that most of the vets would not not think what they liked was perfect but it was far better balanced than the gameplay that followed with each new release. The problem is x-dANGEr you are almost talking to yourself. The vast majority of MP vets left these forums ages ago. Those who remained gave up on MP when RTW appeared and Total War .Org became almost exclusively SP orientated. There are other sites of course where you could pose this question but it would be to little avail. With luck maybe M2TW will attract some MP interest again but to achieve this the gameplay and balance must at least match previous titles

.......Orda

STW, Monarch, was Balance. Me,myself, never playing STW MP, the the SamWars mod for VI, will say a piece for my fellow MTW Vets. RTW was a awful game. Bad MP gameplay,etc...
STW, Yes Monarch, only had X number of units, and a army could only hold 16 units total, but it was balance. Nothing wrong with the gameplay, exustaion bars,so on so forth. MTW/VI was better, Unit Wise. Same Great Gameplay and such.

To Clarify that, let me see if I can explain it good..
Alot of People Monarch, Are STW Vets, or MTW Vets (like myself,which I'm pround of) played TW for many months or years before RTW came out. You could say we pave the road for MP on RTW/BI and even MTW2 for you new people to MP, like you Monarch and others. When RTW/BI was a flop, Sure, Clans like Grey Wolves, BHC, and RTK and Cetiblero for example,stayed on RTW for a bit, but the rest left, ethier back to MTW, like Aggony or 7Bear7Bottom, or just leave for good, like Kenkicua (sorry for misspelling) or FF (not sure). That Leaves only a HandFul of Vets around, with alot of "newer" people,so to speak, on RTW. Nothing wrong with that, but when none of the old vets are willing to play any more TW MP anymore,then you got a ploblem m8..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

Can you expand on this please hoetje? It was one of the best fixes in MTW when more than one player could select the same faction.

---

A new player and/or rtw player joined our game. He was in an other team and took also the english faction. The game was not starting. He started a discussion. A very annoying feature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

How bad was the lag in the 3v3? Was it considerably worse than the lag people are reporting even in 2v2?

---

After the evening today I am sure, that I will sell MTW2. I cannot imagine, that they can fix the lag problems. The lag is this "beautiful" graphic engine I think. Or who can notify about positive things about the multiplayer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

Has anyone tried XP Athlon v Intel to check how that runs?

---

yesterday we tried a 1vs1 XP vs Intel. At the end the game got big network problems. We couldn't finish the battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monarch

Shogun had like 12 units in the whole game, M2TW has over 100, factions with all different units. I think one man and his dog could balance the amount of units shogun has. You shouldn't be comparing M2 to Shogun because Shogun isn't even 100th of the scale that Medieval 2 is.

---

MTW went to 100 unit types, but they weren't balanced as well as the STW's 12 units and many of them are redundant. In the final version of MTW/VI, the spears and ranged units are so weak that the gameplay degenerates to using only cav and swords. So, you are only using two components of the RPS. That's why the gameplay in STW is more interesting. In addition, fatigue rate and morale level were close to optimal in STW. The game wasn't perfect, and at the time we thought the gameplay would improve with each new version of the game, but that hasn't happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monarch

I'm not saying Shoguns not good, I never played it however I'm just saying its very unfair comparing to two. Also, I am one of those people who likes variety in their games, different factions, different units, different strategies, Shogun seems to not have much variation. I wouldn't usually say that because I've not played the game but since you're judging M2 without playing it I guess fairs fair.

---

We made the Samurai Wars mod for MTW/VI, and it has 14 unit types. I can say without any doubt that there is more to do tactically in a Samurai Wars battle than there is in an MTW/VI battle. MTW doesn't really have more variety than STW because players number crunch the unit stats and use only the best units which gives a greatly reduced set of usable units. In STW each unit has a clearly defined purpose within the RPS system which means every unit has an effective counterunit, and all of the unit types are useable. Each unit has to be used correctly or it will loose badly. Also, the dynamics of the gameplay are well adjusted, and the 16 unit armies of STW push the limit of what a very good player can handle.


"I expect CA to maintain the standard of play they set with the first game. It would be to the benefit of all the players if CA did that."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monarch

Please clarify this point, I don't really understand it properly :no:

---

Well, in MTW they went to larger maps, but forgot to optimize the fatigue rate for those larger maps. The fatigue rate was what was used in STW on its small maps. They also switched to purchasing units at valor 0 rather than the valor 2 of STW, but forgot to add in the +4 morale that valor 2 provides. Therefore the game turned into a routfest if you tried to play at the default florins. This lead to players using more florins, but that allowed the rather inexpensive swords to be upgraded to the point where they could defeat cavalry. In VI, +2 morale was added, but it should have been +4 morale. They added armor to most units, but didn't readjust archer effectiveness. Archers were exactly the same effectiveness as in STW which meant they were almost useless in MTW. They went to xbow firing rates that requires 15 minutes to use all the ammo which meant they get too tired and can't hit anything, and also makes for long boring shootouts. They reduced the density of trees which meant trees didn't provide as much cover as they did in STW. Initially, spears were too strong. They adjusted them but they were then too weak. They were left this way despite the opportunity to readjust them in the final v2.01 patch.

In RTW, fatigue rate for running was reduced so much it was no longer a consideration when playing. The running speeds were increased by 50%, and this was coupled with 25% more units and a delay in the response to orders turning the gameplay into "blobbing" attacks. Charge was too effective causing fast routing. The overlap penalty was removed so stacked units became very strong. Battlefield upgrades were brought back. The archers was more effective, but there was no penalty for using them in deep formations. I can't think of anything else right now, but there are other issues with RTW MP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

I am sure that most of the vets would not not think what they liked was perfect but it was far better balanced than the gameplay that followed with each new release. The problem is x-dANGEr you are almost talking to yourself. The vast majority of MP vets left these forums ages ago. Those who remained gave up on MP when RTW appeared and Total War .Org became almost exclusively SP orientated. There are other sites of course where you could pose this question but it would be to little avail. With luck maybe M2TW will attract some MP interest again but to achieve this the gameplay and balance must at least match previous titles

.......Orda

---

The vast majority of MP then left, but a new community is growing, at least a new MP player base is growing.. Sure, there might be a lot of immature kids through it, though, it was the same case with MTW, except you couldn't notice because of the lobby "features" I guess. (Maybe in STW there weren't at all.. Because at that time, I think internet and Computers weren't as popular).

Quote:

---

A new player and/or rtw player joined our game. He was in an other team and took also the english faction. The game was not starting. He started a discussion. A very annoying feature.

---

Sounds like RTW. I left many games due to someone refusing to take a faction that was not already selected. That is something I hoped would be fixed because the longer we stayed in this "Why should I change? You change!" limbo the more likely it seemed that the game would crash for whatever reason.

Request to CA :

Please fix this feature with a patch or MP will be a miserable experience

.......Orda

Well found somethign that annoys me. Cavalry. Despite what people say it IS overpowerd. Most good cav costs around 800 each and most good inf around 650 each. Head on head the cavalry is winning. This is still the case even with spears. Slightly disapoitns me as they got rid of it in BI but it's now similar to rtw 1.3 which was a mess..

Why some stay, and why some move on, there are many reasons.. its just part of life. But for sure, those names still appearing on .org since the day i joined .org.. must have a great passion for TW MP, maybe not for the different favour of TW MP, but for sure have or had great expectation for this genre of MP game.


Just a fish's experience..

STW MP was a great experience.. maybe it was because it was first of its kind? I was still learning the rope and getting to know the battle engine and game balance.. the few years was most exciting.. and its japanese :) The game was not free of problems, but the gaming experience was very enjoyable.

MTW.. somehow i missed the trees in STW. I missed yamato and ugly polar. Never knew the fear i always had facing AMP in STW was so enjoyable. I find the MTW MP fun despite issues (like STW but probably different). Spent equal time online as STW.. but generally couldnt recall any memorable battles now. Many clans to play with. More variety of team tactics i find, because factions were different (not like STW); the turk esp enjoyable playing with or vs.

RTW.. graphics was impressive. Didnt like the control interface. Didnt like the roman. Didnt like the cav. Missed the trees in STW. Game not as fun as before. Kinda feel like control and timing was not that important anymore.. hardly see someone with the dancing skill as Magyar on Totomi. Felt like its been a year+ since i stopped being active.

M2TW.. looking forward to it.


Enjoy STW most.. hopefully M2TW MP can let me play for another year with my buddies.

Hey goldfish, how are you mate? ~:) Nice to see you around. :bow:

Do you remember what you said to me after our first 3v3? ~;)

Well, news about MTW2 MP is that good to be honest, though I do not have the game as yet, so I cannot confirm or disprove anything.

Hey Guys, I hope MTW2 MP turns out to be a great experience. I miss the old clan days, great battles between all the powerhouse players. It seemed as though people conducted themselves in a more mature manner.

In my opinion the lag is a result of people's computers not being able to handle the game. In MP your only as fast as the slowest person. When RTW came out there were terrible lag issues. Once people upgrade, or a patch , some how optimizes the network code, we should be good. (I hope)

Really in this day and age, all game companies should be able to put together a good MP experience. Most if not all the RTS games out there, have a good MP interface and experience.

I'm looking forward to picking up this game, on Tuesday this week. I certainly didn't get my money's worth from RTW. So I hope this is better.

Cromwell

I agree with Tootee and Yuuki on this issue, but of course we should adapt a larger view.

Shogun was perhaps, a paradox. From the outside, it only had very few units and all the factions were the same. The graphics were not stellar, and during its period PCs had advanced in a way that made 3v3/4v4 hardly an issue. But this had its distinct advantages in multiplayer combat:

- Battles were largely lag-free (post 1.12) and there was even a way to recover most battles which seemed lost due to connection problems (TTTTTT ;))

- 3v3/4v4 were very popular, epic battles

- All the factions were the same, and there were few units. Easier to balance. Spears. Swords. Cavalry. Missiles. All had a role - sometimes they were not 100% balanced but overall the gameplay was very good, and it was ultimately perfected by 1.03 +. STW 1.12 and MI 1.03 were the best Total War I ever had.

So maybe Shogun's external simplicity contributed to having a more enjoyable and balanced multiplayer. Which in return created a very hardcore and serious community, and combat - although seemingly simpler by MTW/RTW standards - actually got very technical and complicated.

Lastly, the theme was special. Samurai..honour...clans. All that is gone, and the Medieval/Roman setting is different.

--------

MTW was overall good. Like most Shogun veterans, I did not enjoy the first versions of Medieval, but later patches - especially Viking Invasion - fixed many issues. I enjoyed Viking Invasion very much, although it had flaws - for example, Spears really lost their role. Swords, Cavalry and Missiles were the only relevant unit types. Also, the battles - especially on Steppes - tended to become tedious "hold-the-line" wars of attrition, rather than the fast-paced devastating offensive assaults of Shogun. But that is understandable - European Medieval combat was meant to feel different than Japanese one.

- The gameplay was different, but it felt still very enjoyable! You just had to accept the different style and adapt. Steppes on High with the standard European factions was admittedly tedious. But the combos you could make with different maps, eras, factions (Friendly, Late, Mongols, Muslim factions etc) was VERY fun !!! And I do have fond memories of some battles.

- The engine was basically the same as STW.

- Like STW, 3v3/4v4 were popular and enjoyable.

So that was it.

--------------

Rome killed all that. Different engine altogether, which I didn't like at all. Pitiful tactical overview of the battles, and awesome 3-d zooming action which serves no use to the multiplayer experience. The Roman theme filled the community with new people which just didn't match with the previous community. Unit balance, pace of battles, conduct of multiplayer...was all different. Big games impossible...

------------

And I'm waiting for feedback for M2TW. However...

The impossibility of having same factions and the impossibility to play 3v3/4v4 already killed much of the hope. :(

However, if the unit balance and gameplay is good and it is similar to the feel of MTW: VI, then there is hope. Maybe some patches to improve multiplayer code and performance - I don't know.

Keep us updated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

To the "vets". Why do you get the feeling that what you liked is what's perfect? I really don't care if a battle ends with 20 men left or 300 men left, I really don't care if upgrades are in or not, I really don't care if a unit can move 140 m/sec instead of 139 m/sec.. And I'm sure, most of the community doesn't.

---

Are you on the payroll of CA? :laugh4: If you are not interested in playing multiplayer, you shouldn't write in this (EDIT:)multiplayer forum.

Quote:

---

- Battles were largely lag-free (post 1.12)

---

So am I to assume even Shogun lagged before it was patched? Obviously theres hope for m2 then.

My wish list for a patch:

Ability to change weather (rain lags)
Ability to have England Vs English (for example)
Much less lag in general, I can live with no 4v4s, although I am dissapointed, but 3v3s are an abolute must, I mean you can hardly have clan tournaments with 2 people :dizzy2:
A bit of work on balancing, it is in general very good, I just want those musketeers nerfed :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tera

So maybe Shogun's external simplicity contributed to having a more enjoyable and balanced multiplayer. Which in return created a very hardcore and serious community, and combat - although seemingly simpler by MTW/RTW standards - actually got very technical and complicated.

---

Nice to see someone who can articulate the fundamental principle. We played five 3v3 multiplayer battles (5500 men total) in Samurai Wars for MTW/VI v2.01 yesterday in a 2 and 1/2 hour playing session with no lag and no drops. We have a gameplay that's reminiscent of original STW v1.12, but with superior playbalance (no monk rush, etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monarch

So am I to assume even Shogun lagged before it was patched? Obviously theres hope for m2 then.

---

Yes, but the problem wasn't as severe. A network coding problem was corrected in the STW MI add-on which improved performance by 15%. Ironically, this degraded the gameplay because it made controlling all 16 units more difficult. It was already difficult enough in STW to control all 16 units. Units could turn and change direction quite fast in STW. This turning speed was slowed down a lot in MTW.

The 1.12 patch for Shogun, released in Late 2000, mostly fixed the multiplayer code. Before the patch even small battles gave problems. The game itself was not very demanding on the system. An improvement in the networking improved performance by a lot.

I believe the problem with MTW2 is the steep system requirements, apart from maybe a weak networking code. So probably your best bet is to play at minimum detail levels and with smaller unit sizes. However, this is not controllable..many or rather most players will not have tweaked the options, thinking that since they played single-player just fine, multiplayer will not be a problem. And the game runs at the pace of the slowest player. :(

To some extent, RTW/M2TW are defeated by their own success in terms of graphical detail etc.

About Weather: Can't you turn it off in Options?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tera

The 1.12 patch for Shogun, released in Late 2000, mostly fixed the multiplayer code. Before the patch even small battles gave problems. The game itself was not very demanding on the system. An improvement in the networking improved performance by a lot.

---

Oh I see. I didn't go online until after the v1.12 patch was released.

I don't think CA will ever be able to make mp as balanced as it was in STW again, simply due to the much increased variety in units in every game since. STW with its identical factions, and small unit rosters was obviously much easier to balance than M2Tw with its 200 odd units.

Well, obviously the 3v3 and 4v4 lag will have to be fixed quickly to make this a viable MP game, but it certainly seems (based on the developer blog page) that CA is willing to work with the community to iron out MP gripes. After the Rome fiasco, I just hope It doesn't take too long to patch the major issues that come up.

I hope Clan Heerban will give them a little time before they dispose of their games. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArmaEtLorica_Mongoclint

Well, obviously the 3v3 and 4v4 lag will have to be fixed quickly to make this a viable MP game, but it certainly seems (based on the developer blog page) that CA is willing to work with the community to iron out MP gripes. After the Rome fiasco, I just hope It doesn't take too long to patch the major issues that come up.

I hope Clan Heerban will give them a little time before they dispose of their games. :)

---

Hi Mongo ~:) Nice to see you here. Well as you say after Rome we are not very confident, that they solve them multiplayer problems. That would be very sad, because the battle system itself, seems to be okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monarch

So am I to assume even Shogun lagged before it was patched? Obviously theres hope for m2 then.

---

Original STW lagged. That was six years ago. Surely that sort of problem should be a thing of the past

.......Orda

I played MTW for some months, joined a clan and had a lot of fun playing it. I also played STW and both were good games at their time. The thing is: they are gone! Come on, i loved to play them but who can play STW or MTW now? Look their graphics! its just ridiculous. I tried to play some MTW these days and got sick playing on both campaign/battle maps, and i feel the same way when someone start talking about "STW" golden days.
RTW was an ambitious project. They created a totally new engine. There is not a single RTS game that is good as RTW as it is. Guys, they work on new things, they step ahead. That is hard.
Yeah, they could do like blizzard with warcraft, or microsoft with age of empires... keeping the same engine for allmost a decade. Wold be a safe investment, of that i have no doubt. But they work on new things, like they did when they made STW and MTW. And you cant create a new product free of bugs and so on, its a experimental field.
If MP is sucking now im sure they will fix that as all other bugs. If not trough patchs they will do it in a new and "perfect" game. But, till this very day, im suporting them and their games cuz i know that someday they will make the kind of game that everybody (vets and rookies) want.
For those old vets wich left TW series, i just feel bad for them, cuz they left this brillhant comunity. Get back to Mario Bros!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eques

I played MTW for some months, joined a clan and had a lot of fun playing it. I also played STW and both were good games at their time. The thing is: they are gone! Come on, i loved to play them but who can play STW or MTW now? Look their graphics! its just ridiculous. I tried to play some MTW these days and got sick playing on both campaign/battle maps, and i feel the same way when someone start talking about "STW" golden days.
RTW was an ambitious project. They created a totally new engine. There is not a single RTS game that is good as RTW as it is. Guys, they work on new things, they step ahead. That is hard.
Yeah, they could do like blizzard with warcraft, or microsoft with age of empires... keeping the same engine for allmost a decade. Wold be a safe investment, of that i have no doubt. But they work on new things, like they did when they made STW and MTW. And you cant create a new product free of bugs and so on, its a experimental field.
If MP is sucking now im sure they will fix that as all other bugs. If not trough patchs they will do it in a new and "perfect" game. But, till this very day, im suporting them and their games cuz i know that someday they will make the kind of game that everybody (vets and rookies) want.
For those old vets wich left TW series, i just feel bad for them, cuz they left this brillhant comunity. Get back to Mario Bros!

---

Well just to answer some of your points.
If the Shogun server still existed I would play that rather than the others because at least there tactics won the battle. I don't really consider close up graphics when playing a 4v4 where battlefield overview is far more important. Graphic bliss is only any use when viewing a replay.
M2TW MP is bad and it will be fixed? What makes you think that? RTW MP was not fixed and it is still bad

.........Orda

Do you guys really think things are gonna change/improve ? I dont think so. I always wish for the best, but expect the worst.

Anyway, i know many vets, who like me, are waiting to have some feedback on mp. MTW2 is the first TW game i wont buy on release day. Of course, who am i kidding ? Sure i'll buy it. Sure i'll try mp. Many "old" face will come out in the incoming weeks. If its good enough they'll be back. If not, i'm sure it wont affect the usual RTW crowd.

Hope I'll see a couple of ya online. Its been awhile since i've been routed by a Cheetah and a Golfish :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eques

I played MTW for some months, joined a clan and had a lot of fun playing it. I also played STW and both were good games at their time. The thing is: they are gone! Come on, i loved to play them but who can play STW or MTW now? Look their graphics! its just ridiculous. I tried to play some MTW these days and got sick playing on both campaign/battle maps, and i feel the same way when someone start talking about "STW" golden days. RTW was an ambitious project. They created a totally new engine. There is not a single RTS game that is good as RTW as it is.

---

The fact is that STW/MTW graphics are better for playing the battles. STW/MTW sprites are sharper than either RTW of M2TW sprites, and sprites are what you see when playing at a normal perspective. In addition, the armies and units are clearly distinguishable from each other and from the ground textures. STW was best since each man had a sashimono which clearly displayed his clan's color.

The fact is that there are tons of custom maps available for MTW and those maps are bigger than either RTW or M2TW maps.

The fact is that the RTW/M2TW battle engine is inferior to the STW/MTW battle engine.

STW was not an RTS game. The new ambitious project that CA embarked on with RTW was to move the gameplay closer to standard RTS gameplay which is not an innovative move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UglyandHasty

Do you guys really think things are gonna change/improve ? I dont think so. I always wish for the best, but expect the worst.

---

I don't expect much change from now on; either the gameplay is good as it is, or not. There might be some marginal improvement in speed, in balancing, or in bug fixing (such as swipe, or the uber archer from RTW), however, it's only going to go so far: if 3v3 are not playable today, then it's unlikely 4v4 will be tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Anyway, i know many vets, who like me, are waiting to have some feedback on mp. MTW2 is the first TW game i wont buy on release day.

---

Same here... It's been out for a week, I still don't have it, and the more I read about it, the less I feel like buying it.

Quote:

---

Of course, who am i kidding ? Sure i'll buy it. Sure i'll try mp. Many "old" face will come out in the incoming weeks. If its good enough they'll be back. If not, i'm sure it wont affect the usual RTW crowd.

Hope I'll see a couple of ya online. Its been awhile since i've been routed by a Cheetah and a Golfish :laugh4:

---

Well, for SP, I think TW is outclassed by Paradox game, and EU3 is coming in January, so I'd rather get that one.

And for MP, well, if the current situation remains, it's not worth buying to play MP only.

So I might very well drop it alltogether. Too bad, there are many people I wish to play against or with, but if the game is not good, everybody will drop it sooner or later anyway...

Louis,

This is sad. Speaking as an old timer I just looked in to view the general feel of the new game and while you always expect the odd groan if it’s not playing 4v4 its lost all the fun. Kinda proves the fact that more and bigger is not always better: chess has only 6 different pieces yet its variations are infinite and the gameplay unsurpassed. Are you ever going to get a balance with 100 different types?

The problem is that after the fantastic MP experience of the earlier games the SP just gets boring. Perhaps like Civ2 you’re never going to be able to hit that mark with the ones after.

Quote:

---

Are you on the payroll of CA? If you are not interested in playing multiplayer, you shouldn't write in this (EDIT:)multiplayer forum.

---

I'd be grateful if you showed me where I stated that I am not interested in playing multiplayer.

Ok guys I played since MTW and this is my first impresion after about 20 games.

For those who still don't know, allies can choose same factions.

I play with Portugal

factions seem balanced to me, played against all though mostly against France, England, Spain, Biz, Egypt ppl like those more so the first 3.

Art -doesn't seem to be overpowered anymore, unless u just stand there all bunched up, can't expect nothing else, I usually loose about 30-60 men (mostly cheap units) to 1-2 units of art, but I also don't stand around for long I admit.
had about 6 games where foe had 2 or more art, fine by me I say.

Eles-I only had 3 games with eles lost the first and won the next 2.
Eles are tough, must play against more to have a better opinion, they arn't that easy to root or run amok. one game took me 4 units of archer fire arrows and 2 of jav to counter them.
If you dont counter them early you toast for they will tear up your ranks with an experienced player, a bit like a gamble if you counter them you win if not you lose.
they cost 2400-2800 each unit and much more after the first.




Cav- well to tell the truth I only played against 1 al cav army, The mongol and got wiped big time has I mention below, my fault though. they dont seem uber to me. My men seem to do ok against cav if not flanked. Pikes wipe them out.
HH armies are a pain, only played one game and got wiped, can't say more because I noobishly went chasing after the mongol army, (I had 4 crappy peasant crossbows) and lost big time.


Archers- again seem to be fine if ure not bunched up for a long time. they arn't pants either, if u let them fire against the flanks they get some good kills. My 4 peasant crossbows units usually kill around 45-40 men each, nice for a 220 florin unit.

You cant ignore Gunpoweder units, they dangerous but not uber. I lost lots of men because at first I didnt target them with my mobile units and later regretted it, you will get shredded if you ignore them, on the other hand they seem fine if paid the right attention.

Inf.-Pikes-- very good when formed and braced. my aventuros stand against anything up front they can stand most of the entire foe's army if deeply ranked (I choose 5-6 units) and don't root straight away if flanked. levies do though.
they will let u fight the entire battle, flank the rest of the army and still beat any enemy up front.

Inf-Heavyinf-- cant say much about them for Portugal doesnt have much choice. played with dismounted portuguese knight and they seem blah. with an 24 attack you would seem they were uber but no, in the 4-5 games I chose them they killed like 10-25 men each, to few for the price.
maybe Im biased for my pikes but I think they pants.

Inf-Light- Great, very good to me, I sometimes play an all Skirmisher army with Portugal and do great. My 330 gold lusitanos kill around 35-40 men each (mostly Heavy troops and cav) and my Almuhgarves 40-45 same thing.
they seem to skirmish well too.

Moral- seem fine, men root when reasonable outnumbered or outclassed, u will get much more flanking time then in rome, (not those 3 sec roots that didnt even give you enough time to click your units card.) Just dont try to use levy or militia has pinners and You will be fine.

Speed -seems ok, walking and running speed could be a bit reduced, but on the other hand I played a lot of games that in the end i was glad the speed was a bit faster.

killing speed is just fine by me.

weather- doesnt seem to do much or enough to me. Rain doesnt seem to cause gunpowder or archer units much disadvantage. Fog is awsome u cant see anything 100m in front of you. never played in desert.

Fatigue- ok again. depends alot on the units stamina. my almogarves can fight a whole battle and be half tired while others get exausted. hills and mountains are evil for your mens stamina, they get pooped after running up one of those.

Game connection- in about 20 games I played 15-16 went through ok, the rest hanged, 1-1 battles never hanged.

Lag- all my 1-1 and 2-2 battles played out with little lag.
Some 3-3 played out with only a little lag, and 2 were lag fests.

WORK U STUPID AI, MOVE.--ok this for me is very bad, when a player drops the AI just stands there, he does'nt move, its like your just lost all your allies help. PLz Fix this CA.

Game options- A bit Gah for my taste, very few maps, no desert option, only winter or summer, maps could be 20% bigger too at lest we could have normal maps and big maps.
normal is ok for me in an 1-1 battle, but for 2-2 and 3-3 its a bit small
so every player teams up and its one big center map fight, doesnt offer any tactical movement options.

Community- mostly nice ppl, havent played against very skilled opponents yet, except for that mongol guy, (he seemed very good) but some are good enough to give a tough challenge, on the other hand I havent got a total noob yet either, Rome had tones of those, maybe because i just play 10K games.
Most ppl still ban ART and ELES, and in 2 games limit gunpowder to 1-2 units.

there arn't much players yet but you dont have to wait long to get a game going, the 3-3 games can take a wee bit longer, but nothing very frustating

I will end by saying it's still too early for a final verdict, like on unit balance, but so far its good, just FIX THE BRAINDEAD AI PLZ.

RomoR out :) its very late, have to go to work in 3 hours must sleeep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

I'd be grateful if you showed me where I stated that I am not interested in playing multiplayer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

I really don't care if a battle ends with 20 men left or 300 men left, I really don't care if upgrades are in or not, I really don't care if a unit can move 140 m/sec instead of 139 m/sec.. And I'm sure, most of the community doesn't.

---

You criticized the discussion. But these points are important to have good multiplayer matches. There are many factors to make the battles interesting.

Very nice first impressions, RomoR. :bow: I'll link to it on the M2TW forum. It's good to hear pikemen are worth it. I'd be interested to hear more MPers go into details like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monarch

Shogun had like 12 units in the whole game, M2TW has over 100, factions with all different units. I think one man and his dog could balance the amount of units shogun has. You shouldn't be comparing M2 to Shogun because Shogun isn't even 100th of the scale that Medieval 2 is.

I'm not saying Shoguns not good, I never played it however I'm just saying its very unfair comparing to two. Also, I am one of those people who likes variety in their games, different factions, different units, different strategies, Shogun seems to not have much variation. I wouldn't usually say that because I've not played the game but since you're judging M2 without playing it I guess fairs fair.

"I expect CA to maintain the standard of play they set with the first game. It would be to the benefit of all the players if CA did that."

Please clarify this point, I don't really understand it properly :no:

---

May i say bullshit?

If not, a mod may del it plz.

This kind of posts are the major problem. U can have ur opinion ofc, but after reading it, i had to worry abotu the future of our whole world...

Honestly, u didnt play shogun, but try to tell us, that u cant compare shogun and mtw... U have no idea about how hard it was to balance shogun.
At least it was possible to balance it, to balance m2 isnt possible, we will end like in MTW, that u host games where u dont allow certain units or have restrictions.

So its nice that u got tons of units, but after all its pretty useless as u wont use em.
I can tell u, that the majority of the armysetups was almost 90% the same, always. IF u want to win a game there are a must of 80% of units to get a strong army. this wont change.

And to come along to tell us, that someone can balance 100+ different units, which are many times same units but different names and look, isnt possible.

Point is, that puzz is without a doubt a very smart guy, he know his shit and apart a handfull player hes one of those i mostly agree about the analyzes of the TW games.



Anyway, its came like many of us did fear, eyecandy shit, major hardware stuff uneed and still u cant play 3v3. Not to mention that AMD seems to have major problems. We didnt even start to exploit some stuff.

There is a blog from some guy who work for CA and as hes an "old" player, he stated there that we wont find any problems or any exploits!
Honestly, whats goin on there in the CA department?

They brainwash people?

Now come on and plz be honest to urself. CA surely got 8 standart computer, they test a 4v4 and to not realzie that u cant play it without heavy lag should be possible or not?

Nono, its obvious, once again they dont really care for MP.

I myself will read here, test in computershops and wait some time till the first and only patch arrive to even sort the major problems and make it playable.

Koc

just to drop a positive line here,

I have played since the first medieval. Rome was a drawback with respect to several issues, as other posters have remarked, there was the impression that CA wanted to replicate a standard RTS in many respects. It was a disappointment for me as well as for many vets.

Some things will never come back: the 10 units of Shogun, the idea of perfect balance, we all know that it will not come back.

But Medieval-II shows an inversion: it is MUCH closer to the first medieval than to Rome: marching/running velocity, killing velocity, even the starting 10k seems to offer (at first glance) a certain balance, massing troops is not working anymore and flanking gets its benefits.

In short, the CONCEPT of CA is, IMHO, changing back to the direction of the original TW games. The lag in the 3v3 and 4v4 might be solved by patching, yesterday there was Palamedes in the lobby asking around. There was Magy! and he did not look displeased of the game (well he did not say much honestly, this one is just an impression).

This game has potential. I say, lets look, lets wait, lets pinpoint the problems, lets be also harsh to CA, why not, I payed the price, 49 eur, because there is written MULTIPLAYER UP TO 8 PLAYERS, so I want that one too, I will SCREAM for that. But lets also recognize that there is a change.

And a tihng I would really love, is that they would find a way I can RECOGNIZE THE UNITS BETTER ON THE BATTLEFIELD. That would be sweet, sprites were much better, poligons could become some kind of sprites from far view, something I can see well, perhaps if I want to give up the "splendid eye candy" (eye candy is good, just, I don't care for it, I want to recognize the living from the death, mine from the enemies, arcers from heavy inf, and so on.

Sorry for the length,

Phoinix_Madmax

I forgot to mention that it can get quite hard to recognize your troops so I am constantly using the faction button. This allows you to easily recognize your own men from foe. Your men are green, enemy is red and ally is blue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RomoR

I forgot to mention that it can get quite hard to recognize your troops so I am constantly using the faction button. This allows you to easily recognize your own men from foe. Your men are green, enemy is red and ally is blue.

---

It doesn't work with the minimal_UI, and the colored circles don't stay illuminated. It's a good feature in view of the difficulty in distinguishing the units, but poorly implemented.

logged in last night and witnessed some of the usual suspects acting like halfwhit monkeys, but thats to be expected. :yes:

joined a game, it dysncyed, then the lobby froze. logged back in, played two games last night. one was a 3v3 with surprisingly little lag, especially since it rained the entire battle.

whilst it's obviously not the finished product, much like the rome mp was/is, the overall feel is better than rome and i see myself playing this game more than rome. more in tune with mtw imho, which is promising.

they need to give us control of the weather. summer/winter is not gonna cut it, fix the factions on opposite teams.

i like that my old gamespy accounts work!

Quote:

---

You criticized the discussion. But these points are important to have good multiplayer matches. There are many factors to make the battles interesting.

---

Well, through my experience in RTW, and it's mods (Variation in speed here), I never really care about speed. Just give me a game and I will get used to it. You don't modify the mechanics to your taste, instead, you adapt to them. 139 m/s is really no different than 140 m/s. And to clear one more point, I do play RTW MP, and I play loads of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

Well found somethign that annoys me. Cavalry. Despite what people say it IS overpowerd. Most good cav costs around 800 each and most good inf around 650 each. Head on head the cavalry is winning. This is still the case even with spears.

---

Spears should cost about 1/3 of the cavalry it beats. Certainly they shouldn't cost more than 1/2. This is because cavalry has higher mobility which is of great value. Apparently, spears have to be stationary to have a chance of beating cav which means it's dangerous for them to move at all when cav is in the vicinity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

And to clear one more point, I do play RTW MP, and I play loads of it.

---

You're satisfied with the worst TW multiplayer game; a game that many multiplayers say is awful. My whole clan won't play RTW multiplayer, and I know other clans that won't play it either.

Quote:

---

Honestly, u didnt play shogun, but try to tell us,

---

Me:

Quote:

---

I wouldn't usually say that because I've not played the game but since you're judging M2 without playing it I guess fairs fair.

---

Quote:

---

So its nice that u got tons of units, but after all its pretty useless as u wont use em.

---

I didn't so much mean units in a faction as factions themselves. In rome for instance you've got Greek, Egypt, Roman and Barbarian factions. Now Rome this was useless as they wern't balanced, but in m2 you've got easterns, christians, mongol type factions etc. Thats the variety I meant. :shame:

Quote:

---

Point is, that puzz is without a doubt a very smart guy,

---

I know, and he's also a very, very good player. At first I thought he made some good points, but a gazillion anti-ca, anti-m2 posts later I got knida sick of it, even more so when you know he doesn't even have the game which he hates so much.

Quote:

---

Anyway, its came like many of us did fear, eyecandy shit, major hardware stuff uneed and still u cant play 3v3

---

As someone on org has said before, Shogun when it was first released wasn't so great online either.

Quote:

---

Nono, its obvious, once again they dont really care for MP.

---

I have no doubt sp is hugely more important to CA, the campaign, TBS side of the game is its major feature and selling point. Personally I prefer mp as do many others but the are nowhere near as many people compared to sp supporters. However I think they do care, the recruited palamedes for a start, and just generalyl on the forums/blogs have given mp more of the spotlight than I expected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

Well, through my experience in RTW, and it's mods (Variation in speed here), I never really care about speed. Just give me a game and I will get used to it. You don't modify the mechanics to your taste, instead, you adapt to them. 139 m/s is really no different than 140 m/s. And to clear one more point, I do play RTW MP, and I play loads of it.

---

RTW MP is the worst game of the TW series regarding the multiplayer part. If you never played STW or MTW Vi - sorry - but then you don't know enough about TW to criticize game mechanic discussions. MTW isn't just a Command and Conquer or RTW. It has an own character and is much more tactical than these action games. Tactical games has to be balanced well.

Please, do we have to re-fight the RTW MP vs STW MP issue incessantly in this thread? Surely this thread should be devoted to new impressions of M2TW in MP? At present, I count only around half a dozen posts reporting on that, out of 75 posts in total. (I apologise in advance for not following my own advice - I've never tried MP.)

Quote:

---

You're satisfied with the worst TW multiplayer game; a game that many multiplayers say is awful.

---

In your and their opinions.

Quote:

---

My whole clan won't play RTW multiplayer, and I know other clans that won't play it either.

---

As I said, IMO, it is just that you (As in you and other clans, the so called "vets") are being too stiffed to actually try and adapt to RTW. Orda's complaints about RTW are mostly issues that only appear when facing newbies on it, so I guess he would've liked RTW a lot more if he had got to play with the right folks. Still, you guys keep talking about speed again and again, and I keep having this discussion. The buttom line always comes out at we both agreeing that the "delay" in responses is bad, and all other things samely disagreed upon.

Quote:

---

RTW MP is the worst game of the TW series regarding the multiplayer part. If you never played STW or MTW Vi - sorry - but then you don't know enough about TW to criticize game mechanic discussions. MTW isn't just a Command and Conquer or RTW. It has an own character and is much more tactical than these action games. Tactical games has to be balanced well.

---

I appreciate your opinion, I do strongly disagree with it, though. Oh and, I have played MTW, but I have to admit, never played it on MP.

One more thing. The only reason you see me replying in such a strong tone is that your repetitive complaints and CA bashing is just.. annoying. For a game that thousands of people enjoy, it sounds strange, no, raging that a handful find it so disgusting, and want it modified to their taste. I don't really find trouble with that, though, I'd appreciate it if you speak for your own. Yes, that might apply to me as well, but for all I know, all those playing RTW and M2TW now share my view, or at least, a very big margin of them does.

Edit:

Oh and Simon, my last off-topic input here ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

As I said, IMO, it is just that you (As in you and other clans, the so called "vets") are being too stiffed to actually try and adapt to RTW.

---

Don't tell me I didn't try to adapt to RTW. My whole clan tried, and 3 of us were on the RTW v1.2 beta team in hopes of getting the gamplay back up to at least the level of MTW. That was 3 months of hard work to end up with a game that we all quit playing online. All the time was spent tracking down bugs such as the multiplayer desync and disconnects, and a lot of SP problems.

After the first impressions posts on M2TW that I've seen so far, I wouldn't touch this game.

Most first impressions carry optimistic news, except the lag issue. Of course, there are people who just won't accept that it is good and will keep picking up issues.. Issues of such is the faction choosing scenario.. Wouldn't it be stupid if you wouldn't buy the game because of that?

Oh, and I respect your efforts in that, Puzz3D. You need to keep in mind that you always tried to fix RTW, or play it as if it was Shogun. Well, it isn't mate. It's a new game, with a new reference point of balance. With a new set of tactics, and a fascinating deep experience if you ask me. Except for the "blobbing" issue and the upgrades, RTW 1.5 was hell of a good game. Phalanx simply owned cavalry if used right, though, if a cavalry unit manages to get into a fight with an un-organised phalanx unit, it will decimate it. Wedge formation actually means something. Against a spear unit (Triarii), if you put wedge on, you can simply break the spear unit's formation head on with the right conditions, assuring you the kill. That is, your cavalry being fresh, the Triarii being exhausted, and of course, the Triarii unit not ready for the charge. The really beautiful feature in RTW (Which I'm not aware if it was in MTW/STW) is that what you see is what really matters. It is not about numbers. If you charge a unit of Cataphracts into like 3 units of Urban Cohorts, and in the process through them or "pin" them into a Levy Spearmen phalanx spear tips, those Urban Units will be toast, and so it goes..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

Oh, and I respect your efforts in that, Puzz3D. You need to keep in mind that you always tried to fix RTW, or play it as if it was Shogun.

---

No I didn't. I played MTW as it's own gamestyle, and RTW as its own gamestyle as well. My philosophy is to find out what works and use it. That doesn't mean these games were as good as STW. After I found out what worked in MTW and RTW it was clear that the gameplay wasn't as deep as STW. RTW and M2TW have an inferior battle engine, and there is no way to bring the level of the gameplay up to the previous games. That wasn't fully apparent to me during the RTW v1.2 beta.

Where do you draw the line that you won't go below. RTW is below that line for me, my whole clan and other clans as well. Right now in M2TW it might seem relatively balanced because players don't know what units are best. Once players start number crunching the stats that could change for the worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

Most first impressions carry optimistic news, except the lag issue.

---

Sweetzero posted that he's been playing 4v4 with no lag. There may be nothing CA can do about it.

STW and MTW are more tactical, and thus more fun, for me. They are different from each other, but more or less their 4v4 are very enjoyable.

RTW.. you guys can argue whatever you want, but I know most MPs who started in STW or MTW, mostly played RTW much less, and moved on to other games. It lacks the tactical depth of its predecessors.. just can't keep me glued to the keyboard like STW or MTW.

But imo it is not right for us to judge M2TW now. I am seeing CA is making effort to engage the MP more pro-actively? I will get the game once its available here.

I would greatly appreciate CA could quickly issue a patch to improve the lag esp for 4v4 (if that is an issue)...

:bow: