How to always win a 4v4 using ALL or LATE era.

I have recently noticed something interesting of late while playing online: In several 4v4 games, I have seen my opponent's team (who's teammate just so happens to be hosting) taking certain factions each time they play. This has been done by several different teams, but I thought it odd that they would all pick the following teams in when playing in the ALL and LATE era:

Spain
Portugal
Milan
Venice

I did a bit of research and noticed these are the only 4 factions with musketeers (which have a long range and cost 540, or is it 570?, florins.) There are other factions which have musketeers, but they are much more expensive. The other curious thing about the above factions is they all have some very nice spear units to help stop mostly-cav armies, plus they all have the most powerful cav knight units available.

The above combination wouldn't be so bad, but when each team member takes one of the above in a 4v4, the opposing team, will not have access to the long-range musket units, nor the good spear with great cav units.

I never worry about if I will win or not, since I enjoy playing unusual, experimental armies, but I am a bit dissappointed in what I am seeing repeatedly. It makes for boring gameplay.

I think, to be honorable, a 4-man team should at least leave one of the above factions open for the opposing team to use if they like in LATE and ALL era games. The long-range of the muskets and their killing rate, forces opponents (without such units) to rush or be shot to death. Rushing in a 4v4 game is almost always suicidal (Unless you have an experienced team familiar with the correct techniques), given the charge power and maneuverability of the knight units, and the good holding ability of the best spear units in the game.

Your typical army for the above factions normally consist of:

4 to 6 knight units
4 to 6 musket units
4 spear or pikemen units
4 dismounted knight units
with sometimes a cheaper cav unit or two included

I don't have a problem with the army mix. My problem is with the fact that a few teams are denying the same mix to their opponents by each taking one of the above factions. In 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 games it isn't a problem, since there is one of the above factions left open for the other team to all use. It is only a problem in LATE or ALL era 4v4 games.

I just thought I would bring this to everyone's attention to see what they think and to give them something to watch for. Ever since MTW, unit selection has become more significant in deciding the winner of an online battle and denying your opponents the same type of army as yours is an unfair advantage (at least to me it seems to be).

So what do you guys think? Pay attention next time you play online and see which and how many teams are using the above factions. Let me know if you see it happening more than once. :)

***ELMO ROUTS OUT OF THE FORUM***

isnt it possible to play using the same faction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shogun888

isnt it possible to play using the same faction?

---

Opponents cannot choose the same faction which is one more reason why the old engine is better for multiplayer than the new engine.

Doh.. This is like "pointless". I mean, in tourneys and so, you won't just pick all your factions then the other team. ~;)

Tourney games are less than 1% of all games. I don't play for tournaments, I play for nice, fun and balanced games all the time.

Louis,

Imagine then what is the percent of 4 on 4's with those setups nowadays.. No, imagine what's the percent of 4 on 4's, then the percent of 4 on 4's with this "dilemma" of 4 on 4's. You'll probably have fun at least 90% of the time then, not bad.

It's also a pretty good sign of balance overall, meaning that if you want to be competitive in 2v2, and your opponent takes Portugal and Spain, then you really have little choice but to take Milan and Venice.

Good balanced games would not have such an issue. Personnaly, I'd like High better... But then there is no pikes :wall:

Louis,

I can't really argue with you since I don't have the game :oops:

Yes, you are correct thats a big problem Elmo. It affects tourney and non-tourney games alike. That being said, this is more an issue of sportsmanship and/or ignorance to me. We are stuck with the game as patched, so we must work within that framework.

The easy way to "fix" this problem is for people on the same team who want these types of armies (which I agree are "the best", [which is actually nice because its a balanced army with teeth]) to take the same factions. For example, on team 1, have 2 spain and 2 portugal. On team 2, have 2 milan and 2 venice.

My guess is that if you asked the teams taking the "big 4 factions" to accomodate you by taking a double-faction (rather than hogging all 4 of the best factions) then they would do the "right" thing and even things out.

This may be unintentional on their part, because I tend to avoid duplicating a faction taken by anyone (even a team member) yet I also tend to pick a good faction if possible. In the future I will consider duplicating a faction already selected by my team so that the other team can have some good units too, if its an issue. I also guess that most new players dont have a clue what factions (letr alone units) are/arent good and so don't complain-- compounding the problem.

BTW, you are right, Janny Musks and cossak Musks are EXPENSIVE and die just like everyone else when they are shot by a musket bullet.

oh yes, and its bugging me that in the CCS (tourney) duplicating factions is outlawed. So that some people are guaranteed to get stuck with sub-par factions. Brilliant!

:idea2: Russia also has very good spearmen, knights, and the best muskets in the game. Just have one team be all russia if the other picks "the big 4"

As I stated earlier, it only happens when you have a big 4v4 game in LATE or ALL era. So as a percentage of overall games, it will occur rarely, but I have noticed a few teams already using this to gain an advantage. I mentioned it here because I wanted everyone to be aware.

I believe Dionysus is right: If you ask such teams to allow your team to have one of those factions, I am sure they will do so. However, if you were not aware of such, you wouldn't know to ask. :)

One thing I have noticed since the old STW/MTW days is a lot of MP players appear to think it is "ok" to use any advantage the game gives you. They will take those advantages each game unless they are specifically asked not to. I guess their reasoning is, if they don't take these advantages their opponents will. Though by worrying about winning in the present, they are actually contributing to the reduction of the fun and variety of play in the future.

I would wager, if you took a close look at what factions are played the most online, you would find that the 4 above are at the top of the list. Also, if you could check, you would probably find there is a reason for this: In late or ALL era games you more than likely will find those factions win more than any other.

I would guess the way around this is for hosts to make the following rules when playing in Late and ALL era games: No gunpowder units and a limit of 4 cav units.

One other thing: I know how much most MP players dislike artillery, but having artillery in the game might lessen the impact of the above musket armies. You could limit the gunpowder units per player to 4, then those factions which don't have muskets, could buy artillery gunpowder units instead. I think it would even the playing field when playing against those factions.

The biggest thing CA could do to get around all of this is to allow hosts to manually take out/or limit the number of whatever units they don't want in their games. This would allow the community to balance games without having to wait on a patch. A lot of shooter games such as Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon etc . have this, so it IS possible. It's a matter of CA just not wanting to do it.

Andejar: Russian muskets cost a lot more than those 4 factions' muskets and I am not sure about the range of their muskets either. It isn't a real good solution, given the cost difference. I will check out this faction more closely to see what the exact cost differences would be though. Thanks for mentioning them. :) BTW: I like your "Big 4" label and will use it from now on when referring to those 4 factions. hehe

*****Just looked again: Russian Cossack Muskets cost 950 florins (those other factions muskets cost 540) If you took 4 Russian Cossack Muskets and your opponent took 4 regular musket units, you would be at a 1,640 florin cost disadvantage when buying the rest of your army. In a 10,000 florin game you are talking about an approx. 16% cost disadvantage. Now spread this out over a 4-man team and your "team" is at a whopping 6,560 florin disadvantage in a 10k per player game. That would almost be like having an extra army on the field.

So my statement still stands: Taking all 4 of those factions in a 4v4 LATE OR ALL era game gives a big advantage to that team.*****

Before anyone mentions Egypt and the Moors as possible counters: These units cost slightly more than the "Big 4" muskets, but have much less range than the big 4. So not only do you have a slight cost disadvantage, you also have a much shorter range, so you will be shot and killed before getting close enough to take your first volley.

Lastly: The Turkish Janissary Muskets cost 830 florins. This is a lower cost disadvantage than the Russian Cossack muskets, but it still amounts to a big difference. Plus, anyone who has played the Turks knows how much more expensive their units are, so this musket cost disadvantage multiplies when you purchase the rest of your Turk army. Plus, there are no real good cost-effective spear units like you find in the "Big 4".

simple fix

have ca allow both teams to choose any faction they want. whether they are the same faction or not. problem solved.

We have suggested what you stated Cat, every time CA has placed those restrictions on MP gameplay, but unfortunately, that is another thing CA refuses to change. Not sure why they continue with this on every new release, but they do. Probably one of the bosses, who knows nothing about the game, thought it would be a "neat" idea and would make it more like a console/RTS game. Kind of like the ignorant unlockable-factions "feature" which forces you to play the regular campaign before you can play any other factions. Its an ego thing with CA and they probably paid some marketing exec. lots of money to research and come up with the idea (though it is stolen directly from some console and RTS games. :)

PS: CA has always been stubborn for no reason other than to show they can be. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear

Andejar: Russian muskets cost a lot more than those 4 factions' muskets and I am not sure about the range of their muskets either. It isn't a real good solution, given the cost difference. I will check out this faction more closely to see what the exact cost differences would be though. Thanks for mentioning them. :) BTW: I like your "Big 4" label and will use it from now on when referring to those 4 factions. hehe

*****Just looked again: Russian Cossack Muskets cost 950 florins (those other factions muskets cost 540) If you took 4 Russian Cossack Muskets and your opponent took 4 regular musket units, you would be at a 1,640 florin cost disadvantage when buying the rest of your army. In a 10,000 florin game you are talking about an approx. 16% cost disadvantage. Now spread this out over a 4-man team and your "team" is at a whopping 6,560 florin disadvantage in a 10k per player game. That would almost be like having an extra army on the field.

So my statement still stands: Taking all 4 of those factions in a 4v4 LATE OR ALL era game gives a big advantage to that team.*****

Before anyone mentions Egypt and the Moors as possible counters: These units cost slightly more than the "Big 4" muskets, but have much less range than the big 4. So not only do you have a slight cost disadvantage, you also have a much shorter range, so you will be shot and killed before getting close enough to take your first volley.

Lastly: The Turkish Janissary Muskets cost 830 florins. This is a lower cost disadvantage than the Russian Cossack muskets, but it still amounts to a big difference. Plus, anyone who has played the Turks knows how much more expensive their units are, so this musket cost disadvantage multiplies when you purchase the rest of your Turk army. Plus, there are no real good cost-effective spear units like you find in the "Big 4".

---

It seems like Price Balance thing honestly.. As in: My musks shouldn't be more expensive and have a shorter range! Pricing oy yaeh!

Anyway, is it only the musks? (I believe, there is a thing with knights as well. I mean, you can simply spam knights, take France and deprive your opponets of Pikes, with Pikes being the only effective anti-cavalry unit.

Well, this sounds a bit unfair (if it is intentional, also it assumes that all the first team is already in game when the 2nd enters) but on the other hand arquebuus is not that bad. And musketeers just die of bullets regardless whether it came from an other musketeer or arguqebus. ~;)
Both France and HRE are highly capable late/all era factions. IIRC both Sicily and Papal states have cheap pikes. Also you should be able to use the range advantage of the jan./cossak musketeers in your favour. I would be happy with a Sicilian/HRE/France/Russia line up vs the above mentioned 4 factions.
All in all, if it is intentional it is unfair but the situation is not that bad IMO.

Also I am happy that there are people who can play 4v4. ~D

LOL Cheetah. :yes: UglyStrike hosted a couple 4v4s and the lag was very manageable.

The situation IS bad, for the reasons I gave previously concerning the cost disadvantage you are under when playing against these 4 factions in a 4v4 late or all era game. If you were to take the France, Russian, Turk etc . . army vs a team consisting of the big 4, you would find yourself on the losing end most often (unless of course, you were playing very new players or myself! hehe)


The biggest problem with muskets vs. Arqu's is the range. The musketeer unit has a longer range than any other missile unit in the game. By the time you get your arque's within range of the muskets, you will have lost a great deal of men and thus start from your first volley with a major deficit. :) Try it in custom battle to find out. The musket range has a factor of 180. The LongBow has a factor of 160. Other units are around 120 or so. Not sure if this is yards, meters, etc . . I know the arque range is lower but not by how much (it is 160 or less).

The second factor which makes muskets overpowered given their cost, is their firing rate which is the same as all the rest of the missile units in the game: 25 in 10ths of a second. I imagine the reloading rate of gunpowder units would be much longer than that of an arrow. You would have to break out the gunpowder, tamp it, load the ball and then aim and fire, whereas with an arrow you just reach back, grab one, notch it, aim and fire. If the musket rate of fire was increased to 50 (in 10ths of a second) this might help balance that unit and could also solve the faction problem.

Hope this clears some things up for the musket unit.

***ELMO SHOOTS SELF IN FOOT***

As for the Sicily and Papal states pike units: They are not very effective vs. cav units unless you have cav yourself and stop them with your own cav and then hit them with the pikes. If you take a pike unit in a 1v1 open-field battle, you will lose your pike unit quickly to almost any unit out there, except possibly an archer unit. PS: France DOES have a very good pike unit vs. cost, but it isn't the best in the game. :)


X-Danger: The other faction musket units are unique units and have greater hand-to-hand attack/defense stats, which is why they are more expensive, but their cost is way too much more, given the fact they would not use their melee ability until late in the game after all the shooting is over. :) If they made them just a little more costly than the Big 4 muskets (between 25 to 75 florins more) it might solve the problem as well.

I have noticed the cost structure of units in this game puts a greater weight on hand-to-hand stats than missile and charge factors. Price increases much more with an increase in attack or defense factors than it does with an equal increase in charge and range/fire-rate/accuracy factors.

Plus, the cost factors for all units were obviously priced to balance the single player campaign and not MP.

BTW: I believe I have found a rush army, which will destroy both musket and cav armies, however it is vulnerable to a few other units. Once I test it in custom some more, I will begin using it online and if I find it to be worthy, I will be more than happy to share it with you all.

Some people must find ways to have the edge on others, it's both sad and amusing at the same time

......Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dionysus9

oh yes, and its bugging me that in the CCS (tourney) duplicating factions is outlawed. So that some people are guaranteed to get stuck with sub-par factions. Brilliant!

---

You cant get stuck with sub par factions as faction picking is alternating. Attacking team picks one then defender picks one then attacker, dfender and so on. You only get stuck with crappy factions if you pick crappy factions. Also the reason for not duplicating is so that you cant have ridiculous spam build. I dont know about you but i dont want to play against 3 timurd cav spams+eles+rockets or a line of stakes from 3 englands that stretches the entier field. The community voted on it so...

Anyway back on topic i think the easiest solution is confront them. Say you stole all the musket factions Most players when confronted will be willing to switch. If some dont then simply say well then we will play a 4v4 with someone else and leave. Or pray for rain :laugh4:

Very true Orda. And with the current MP community, there is a perceptible unwillingness to address these issues. When the clan community was strong during STW and MTW, we policed oursleves and everyone wanted fair play and proper game ettiquette. It appears that is no longer the case, since there aren't many who are willing to set a good example for others to follow. Winning seems to be the thing most important now, rather than just playing and socializing with friends and playing fairly (or even handicapping yourself) to make the games more interesting.

What I try to explain to everyone it is really easy to win by using the best units, the best exploits and the best situations for your team. It is much harder, and thus more rewarding to me, to play using weaker armies/units and using them in a manner which makes them powerful, to where others are hard-pressed to do as well using your same units. Like my all-missile army from the MTW days. Many people complained about it being too powerful, but nobody could copy my success with it. It was all in knowing each unit's strengths/weaknesses and how to use them properly and in what combinations.

I also had an all Yari Samurai army in STW. In a 1v1 game it would lose most often, but when I used it in 4v4 games it became a force which others couldn't copy. It all had to do with what I termed graduated upgrading. Each level of upgraded Samurai served a certain purpose and you had to play it almost perfectly each time to be effective. :)

Unfortunately, I am not seeing this capability in M2TW thus far. I am hoping my anti-cav/anti-musket army I am working on will be successful enough so others will begin using it and forcing those who rely on those few units and factions will re-think their strategies and begin bringing more variety onto the battlefield.

Belvedere: I believe muskets actually can fire in light rain now can't they? :)

I mentioned this problem for the sole purpose of bringing to light how some teams appeared to be taking advantage of these factions and the games limitations. Then the discussion moved on into muskets and what it is that makes them so powerful and then onto cav. I have enjoyed the discussion thus far and also the little bit of research I have done into the mechanics and internal workings of the new game engine.

As I said before, most are probably not even aware some 4v4 teams are taking advantage, and if they aren't aware it could be done, then they wouldn't know to ask. Now everyone here knows to ask when they see a team taking those 4 factions.

As for the CCS tournament rules: I don't do competitive play so I have no idea or comment on what would be right or fair. That is up to the players and the hosts to decide (which it appears the majority already has).

Have fun all

ELMO GETS TRAMPLED BY A KNIGHT UNIT

Yeah they can still fire and can still deal quite a bit of damage but there are rain penalties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear

Very true Orda. And with the current MP community, there is a perceptible unwillingness to address these issues. When the clan community was strong during STW and MTW, we policed oursleves and everyone wanted fair play and proper game ettiquette. It appears that is no longer the case, since there aren't many who are willing to set a good example for others to follow. Winning seems to be the thing most important now, rather than just playing and socializing with friends and playing fairly (or even handicapping yourself) to make the games more interesting.

---

Precisely

......Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RtkBedivere

You cant get stuck with sub par factions as faction picking is alternating. Attacking team picks one then defender picks one then attacker, dfender and so on. You only get stuck with crappy factions if you pick crappy factions. Also the reason for not duplicating is so that you cant have ridiculous spam build. I dont know about you but i dont want to play against 3 timurd cav spams+eles+rockets or a line of stakes from 3 englands that stretches the entier field. The community voted on it so...

---

Urm ye soxy right. But also Bachus please remember this conversation is about late era...where muskets rule so ye spain/portugal etc do own. But high era, in a 3v3 at least (where aztecs lack of cav isnt as easily exploited if you have good team work) IMO every faction can hold its ground.

I didn't read all these posts but my advice is just to play high, its the most balanced :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear

Very true Orda. And with the current MP community, there is a perceptible unwillingness to address these issues. When the clan community was strong during STW and MTW, we policed oursleves and everyone wanted fair play and proper game ettiquette. It appears that is no longer the case, since there aren't many who are willing to set a good example for others to follow. Winning seems to be the thing most important now, rather than just playing and socializing with friends and playing fairly (or even handicapping yourself) to make the games more interesting.

---

It would be nice to think that members reading the above quote would see what is really missing from the present Total War game.

pigs? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear
Very true Orda. And with the current MP community, there is a perceptible unwillingness to address these issues. When the clan community was strong during STW and MTW, we policed oursleves and everyone wanted fair play and proper game ettiquette. It appears that is no longer the case, since there aren't many who are willing to set a good example for others to follow. Winning seems to be the thing most important now, rather than just playing and socializing with friends and playing fairly (or even handicapping yourself) to make the games more interesting.

It would be nice to think that members reading the above quote would see what is really missing from the present Total War game.

---

Agreed.

While I haven't played multi, from singleplayer, bows/xbows are better than muskets when pitted against each other, so why not spam longbowmen, crossbowmen against that "big4" army? add to that a lot of knight units with the formed charge ability and you are good to go.
You can also go heavy on horse archers which are mobile and with cantabrian circle will not fear muskets much.

Another thing with muskets is that they need to reform majorly to always be perpendicular to their target. Have a mobile target run around and take them out while they keep reforming ;)

I'd suggest one teammate being England with trebuchets (very long range and good accuracy + devastating agaisnt troops) and longbows (stakes, long range, blocks knights), one as moors with their Über-peasant crossbowmen and camel gunners (huge range) as well as fast javelin cav (really devastating if used correctly), scots (for great pikes which can hold their ground in melee too), and poland (some of the best knights and decent horse archers)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear

Very true Orda. And with the current MP community, there is a perceptible unwillingness to address these issues. When the clan community was strong during STW and MTW, we policed oursleves and everyone wanted fair play and proper game ettiquette. It appears that is no longer the case, since there aren't many who are willing to set a good example for others to follow. Winning seems to be the thing most important now, rather than just playing and socializing with friends and playing fairly (or even handicapping yourself) to make the games more interesting.

---

That original community was a result of the original gameplay. All factions were the same, and the unit to unit balance was good. That attracted players who liked balanced gameplay. On top of that, you could play friendly or competitive (rated) games, so there was a clear demarcation present at all times between playing for blood and playing for fun. In the present Total War environment, all of that is gone. In fact, my observation is that now most multiplayers want imbalanced gameplay and exploitable features, and this trend actually started back in MTW. In this sense, you could say that CA is providing the multiplayer community with the appropriate gameplay by not balancing it or removing exploitable features, but at the same time CA created that type of community. The majority of the players around who want balanced, non-exploitable gameplay are remnants of that original community. It's unfortunate that there are more people attracted to an enviroment of exploitable gameplay than one of fair gameplay. Since Total War is a commercial venture, CA will no doubt continue to pursure this larger community.

Eh, community isn't much better than it was when I started, even then when you joined a decent 4v4 you had all clan members (not from same clan) gathered in one team with newbies being left for themself. And most was bitching if they were left with at least one new player. Of course there were some good players willing to help newcomers but there were rare, it was better than now, but not much.

one as moors with their Über-peasant crossbowmen and camel gunners (huge range) as well as fast javelin cav (really devastating if used correctly), scots (for great pikes which can hold their ground in melee too), and poland (some of the best knights and decent horse archers)[/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

While I haven't played multi, from singleplayer, bows/xbows are better than muskets when pitted against each other

---

Nope they're not. Guess again :juggle2:

Quote:

---

You can also go heavy on horse archers which are mobile and with cantabrian circle will not fear muskets much.

---

HAs in canta do extremely little damage. Its not quite normal for people to not even use it.

Quote:

---

Another thing with muskets is that they need to reform majorly to always be perpendicular to their target. Have a mobile target run around and take them out while they keep reforming ;)

---

Erm ye...well you do realise we're not talknig about all musket armies lol. A half decent player will protect his muskets with some cavalry. So the muskets can concentrate on firing dead ahead.

Quote:

---

I'd suggest one teammate being England with trebuchets (very long range and good accuracy + devastating agaisnt troops)

---

Another interesting feature of trebuchets is they're banned in almost every battle :beam: I don't want to go into it because it'll just open up a art debate topic. But they're banned for a reason.

Quote:

---

one as moors with their Über-peasant crossbowmen

---

Do this in high era by all means. But the peasants wouldnt get 5 volleys off in a shoot out vs muskets before being dead.

Sorry for maybe coming off a little too harsh there. But I think this just highlights how different mp and sp are. I would encourage you to get into multiplayer, its great fun.

All and late era aren't played for a reason. Just use high and you have no worrys.

You can always just play in high era, but that limits the amount of units you can play with, by 1/3. :) I like the spear/pike units of the late era, since they can actually stand up to cav, unlike most units in the early and high eras.

Lavos: MTW became unfriendly to new players later on in its life-cycle. At the beginning there were many clans and many ronin players who would take the time to train new players who were interested in getting better. It is a shame you missed those people and clans who used to take the time to help out.

Quote:

---

I like the spear/pike units of the late era, since they can actually stand up to cav, unlike most units in the early and high eras.

---

I agree with Elmo here. I remember Paolai mentioned this in one topic as well. I see many pepople playing high era where cavalry is dominating. Give a try to late era with no muskeets no art and no ele rule. Now someone will claim that in late era you have less factions to chose. If high era offers more faction you can pick to offer comeptitive resistance to your opponent then I don't know why in high era matches people are constantly chosing between 6 or 7 factions which are repeating themselves from match to match.

People always say High is the most balanced era, and if you ask them why, they always cite the musketeers as the problem...

I have yet to hear anyone say that Late or All with a 'No Muskets' rule is a problem... maybe it has imbalances, but at least there are more interesting units and more variety....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear

One thing I have noticed since the old STW/MTW days is a lot of MP players appear to think it is "ok" to use any advantage the game gives you. They will take those advantages each game unless they are specifically asked not to. I guess their reasoning is, if they don't take these advantages their opponents will. Though by worrying about winning in the present, they are actually contributing to the reduction of the fun and variety of play in the future.

---

This made me think of something that I used to try with Marco. ~:wave: Well many people have, but anyways...we could combine armies to rather good effect, allowing one of us to take the Mongols (as an example) in MTW, and not be worried about facing pavs, as the other teammate had enough for the two. Granted I know its a hard thing to coordinate in a 4v4 pickup game, but you could at least incorporate the same type of tactic if you got someone on your side willing to take a few extra missle units. See if you could gang up on someone, and in that way the imbalance could possibly be worked out. True its not a straightforward balancing of the stats, but could be a workaround.

GL with your anti army Elmo. Might I suggest the old Longbow-bait tactic? Wouldn't work to the same effect in this incantation of Medieval...but could be fun.

I'd join you, but I don't own the game.

What about Cossack Musketeers? Russia gets great Late and All rosters.

btw if i remember correctly, the colours thing couldn't be done because of the unit animations or something to that effect, so people on opposite sides couldn't choose the same faction.

At least that's what I thought. So the Papacy couldn't wear the Purple of the Byzantines. Or Gawain couldn't refuse to play until he got the French blue, etc.

Yes it has to do with the animations Ael. They should find a better way to differentiate these units instead of how it is currently done.

You need to get M2TW Ael. You are missing out on some fun. Different, but still fun. :)

We tried in the past (MTW) as playing to where each player picked 4 units and you combined them into one game of 16 units. One would get cav, one would get muskets/archers, one swords and one spears. Or mix them up and coordinate that way. It was very challenging to coordinate your attacks hehe :)

~:wave: Ael

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=75632

Quote:

---

No pikeman is to carry anything even remotely resembling a sword, upon pain of prolonged and agonizing death. Despite much wailing and gnashing of teeth, the results are incontestable. Chained to their pikes, my men have no choice but to vent their frustration and shame by poking at the enemy, killing anything that approaches them from the front. Kept at bay by the constantly-stabbing pikes, the enemy has no choice but to try and outflank, as swordsmen working their way past the first few rows of pikes will only claim a few victims before being impaled by those deeper within the formation. Even outflanking is ineffective unless the pikemen are already engaged to the front as the entire formation just turns on the spot to poke in the appropriate direction.

This tweak just replaced the pikemen's secondary weapon entry in the export_descr_unit file with the line from other units that don't have secondary weapons (ironically, I copied and pasted it from the Swordsmen Militia entry). This tricks the pikemen into not using their swords, even though they have the mesh and animations for it.

I am fully convinced that taking this firm and uncompromising stand is the right course of action and encourage all commanders to at least consider doing the same. In conclusion, "No swords for you wannabes! Get back to poking!"

Disclaimer: I am not bashing CA. M2TW is a great game. This quickfix is for those few hardy "ahistorical" souls who feel that M2TW pikemen need some tweaking so they can enjoy using them ingame. I think there are a few such people out there (waves), if I'm wrong then sorry for wasting everyone's time.

Further Disclaimer: If you have mastered the art of pikemen deployment already and think that I just need to learn2playnoob, then good for you. If you have always hated pikemen and want them all dead, then ignore this fix as you would ignore them ingame. If you feel that pikemen are balanced or "historical" already then you can skip this fix too. Please do not assail me with your SCA pike experiences, I just wanted to see my pikemen actually poke something, someplace, sometime.

---

Could this effect MP games too? and won't be there any desync problems becaus of this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aonar

Could this effect MP games too? and won't be there any desync problems becaus of this?

---

What would cause desyncs? The fix to the unit file? that would make the game uncompatible for player who dont have same file, so no.


CBR

Quote:

---

What would cause desyncs?

---

Ineed I had word ''uncompatible'' on my mind.

Quote:

---

that would make the game uncompatible for player who dont have same file

---

:shame:

I understand what Elmo is talking about, muskets are great and Elmo is simply suggesting a change to people's behavior, which I think is reasonable.

However, some are suggesting changes to the game from CA (believe me I have plenty of change suggestions too) when we are not even playing the game as intended. We play with our standard "rules" which rule out art and eles etc, when, as someone suggested earlier, arty might be an appropriate counter balance to muskets. (I have to admit I'm prejudiced against eles myself.)

When my clannie HotTubRepairman hosts games (I can't), he generally makes it "no rules" which often puts off other clan and experienced players. But the games are usually pretty balanced and incredibly heavy arty armies do not seem to have the same "make the whole enemy rout" effect that it had in MTW. (Don't know what it was like in Rome as I gave up on that one.) So I think CA would be on good footing to tell us, "We did not balance the game to suit your rules, we balanced it to what we made available to you."

Maybe the game does not balance out with arty included, I don't know as so few skilled players allow it. I suggest to all though, to give it a try for awhile. How about "no rules except no eles" games? or just "No eles" games? (I told you I don't like eles, but I sure do love camels.) Just a thought.

Mongo

Elephants are absolutely beatable.. Jiinetes and other skimishers will kill them with 2, 3 volleys, ballista units with one shot, i dont see a reason to bann elephants, not at all.

But you want to allow art instead? Taking, lets say, a trebuchet or bombard unit would destroy the competitive game. You can shoot 5 times without hitting your target while your opponent hits you 4 times. It depends on "luck" and thats not what Total War games are about....

About the community not beeing the same anymore... well i wasn't there when stw and even mtw/vi came out, im kinda a so called "newcomer" from rome. I played mtw and vi, but not online at least not when the majority played it. But from what ive seen and heard the "friendly ambience" and the "socializing" among each other is still existing, maybe not as obvious as it once was but still...
I know there are lots of imature kids and spammers playing m2 but don't tell me each and everyone in stw and mtw was best behaved.

Playing m2tw online is a great pleasure if you have your clanmates and other people to play with and i can only recommend to play online again. After all its the community who helps a game to stay alive and its also the community that forges its own destiny... :yes:

I would have given up with this game a long time ago if it werent for the peeps i started to get to know from it... simple really. :P

I agree with you about eles. As I mentioned we prefer to play "no rules." I merely jest about eles and many are familiar with my love of camels from MTW/VI.

When I play "no rules" games I rarely take any arty. That at least reduces the luck factor from my side. If my enemy chooses lots of arty well, he may get lucky and he may not. However, in warfare, as in football and any other type of competition, luck plays a part. I don't mind giving newer players a chance at a couple of lucky shots.

Mongo

*puts on long white beard*

back in the old days.... you could look at the season and the map and calculate your chances of getting rain, if you knew your opponent was in love with gun powder.... *looks daydreamily* the day of the battle and its pouring with rain, you opponent has like 4 units nullified, you could almost smell the rain on the wet grass... smells like.... victory :laugh4:

As Puzz said, as soon as you changed from having identical units (STW), then fair gameplay was going to almost impossible, and people were going to start exploiting like mad .. hello MTW and the purple dinosaur. Someone came on the forum and was telling me I was talking BS if I thought a battle between two identical armies was more tactical.... :laugh4: :laugh4:

seriously I wouldnt have a clue or care which nations field the best bang for the buck these days, I mean you could say the same thing about the Danes and Scotts in early.

even in the days of stw dudes were exploiting the monk rush... but the sweetness when you handed them their amature tactics back with their gens head

as far as 4v4 Im still having trouble getting a 1v1 that doesnt become like flicking the corners of a book to make the stick man move :beam:

edit: my exploit is to bring such horrible lag to a game, my oppositions gameplay becomes impossible, but being the LAG king I know exactly when to tell my units to engage, and 3 hours later.... victory or theirve quit in disgust

LOL Yunus.

What people do not realize is that with the STW honor upgrade system, you could actually create MORE variation within your army using those few units than with the 100's of units from MTW/RTW/M2TW. It is hard to get others to believe this to be the case.

You had 9 honor upgrades possible for each unit (11 if you counted the ability to remove the default 2 honor to 0). And then later on you had added to that the Arm and Wep upgrades (3 levels each). You could create ANY unit available today without all the extra baggage accompanying it like lag, having to balance 100s of separate units, and exploits with the upgrade system.

Plus, the game eventually was so well-balanced there was an army to counteract any other army out there. It became a game of skill, tactics and knowing your enemy rather than just choosing the most powerful units and using exploits. The monk rush army, was easily beaten. The musket armies were also easily beaten. The No-Dachi rush army was easily beaten. I cannot think of one extreme army which could not be beaten in STW. You just had to know how to use the units you purchased to their fullest abilities. It was difficult to learn and this is why I think we will never see such an MP experience again.