Printable View
Well, after all, can you say that Kingdoms are well balanced? In my opinion they are not and here is why:
https://img260.imageshack.us/img260/2673/0038wj6.jpg
https://img260.imageshack.us/img260/1389/0039mu5.jpg
I can understand about horse lowering defence of rider, but why mounted unit of same kind got lower charge bonus and attack is a mystery for me. This is only one example of what i find unacceptable. Yeah, cavalry still can all, but who need it?
Calvary has mass. Mass matters more in charge than anything else pretty much.
And? Is that something new?Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Yes, mass has gained more importance in Kingdoms because it's been tweaked upwards for cavalry, adding to their charge.
You're on a bit of a mission here, mate, aren't you?
Do we know the exact proportion mass takes in charges now?
This kind of balance discussion should never be based on stats only. How would you like a Tartar cavalry unit with 12 attack? With the charge bonus this cheap, medium cavalry unit could take down pretty much everything. How about good spearmen with an attack of 7? Who would take them seriously? Stats never tell the whole truth. Ever heard of "animation"? (Sorry, I just had to say that...) To me their stats seem pretty balanced. If you find it "unacceptable" just mod the game.
- Guru
May be someone from ascended, those, who know the "real" balance and stats, will tell me truth about units, so i will be able adjust it to my actual gameplay? So, you say:" dont beleve in what you see in game". Lol. Mod it? Lol. The secret mass of horse riders?Lol. Bye, bye, TW.
My belief is that the current "new balance" is making cavalry quite a bit worse than it should be.
From running a test, late general's bodyguards (i.e. plate horses and high attack + charge) couldn't even kill more than 2 spearmen head-on.
While I understand speamen are anti cavalry, they are supposed to kill a few horses on impact more than other units rather than not lose a single man basically against very-heavy cavalry. Afterall, that mass of plated horse crashing into a mass of men (in addition to a late era lance) will definitely take a lot more with them than it does now.
A better balance would be a middle ground between inbalanced post-shieldfix 1.2 units and the new balance, but tilted more towards the old balance.
Bye, bye Zaher!
Seriously, stats are nice but in-game performance is a different issue. Always has been with TW games. Lower-stat units will sometimes outperform others in an actual battle, due to all kinds of factors that can't easily or reasonably be put on a unit's info card. You can't just look at the numbers and then scream about the injustice of it all.
Oh, wait. I guess you can.
What is your point? You post a thread claiming that Kingdoms is unbalanced because of the different stats of mounted and dismounted units. It's ok, an opinion like any other. People reply and present opinions why the stats might be the way they are. Yet you reply to those replies with unnecessary irony, or even mockery, one might say.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaher
How does this statistic unbalance affect gameplay after all? Are spearmen overpowered? Is cavalry underpowered? So far you have only presented screenshots of unit cards. That proves little about balance on battlefield because there are so many factors. Due to this I can't really see what is the problem. If you'd be so kind and explain how this unbalance is apparent on the battlemap, and without irony this time if I may ask.
- Guru
I think what zaher means is that cavalry is underpowered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
And are absolutely right.
"What is your point? You post a thread claiming that Kingdoms is unbalanced because of the different stats of mounted and dismounted units. It's ok, an opinion like any other. People reply and present opinions why the stats might be the way they are. Yet you reply to those replies with unnecessary irony, or even mockery, one might say.
How does this statistic unbalance affect gameplay after all? Are spearmen overpowered? Is cavalry underpowered? So far you have only presented screenshots of unit cards. That proves little about balance on battlefield because there are so many factors. Due to this I can't really see what is the problem. If you'd be so kind and explain how this unbalance is apparent on the battlemap, and without irony this time if I may ask."
- Guru
I dont really see what was a problem in original MTW2 after patch 1.2 ...
You can read my whinings in another thread below. I am not concurent company espionage expert to have a facts of game hidden or codded from me. And everyday i find something new, and ppl telling me: "its ok", "its a mass", "theese are not actual statistics", "your cavalry will die because of missile fire, but if it reach it can charge". I think that cavalry in MTW2 just wasnt acted honestly, it killed peasants, some was charging without orders, and some was able to keep their line until charge, so, now, they kinda getting therapy like a hero of "Clockwork Orange" had.
After all, some changes overall in game are good ( i am talking about money balance, i like, that i never have useless stacks of armies and other strategic changes ).
In game experience for me has not really proved or disproved unit balance. Certain tactics still apply. I've had calvery charge into the rear of an enemy stack and take out 2/3 of the units in the initial charge. I can't recall that happening in vanilla.
Just an opinion.
Zaher i can send you the money you paid for kingdoms if you're so unhappy mate
Yeah, with M2TW in general there is more to a unit then their stats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guru
Overall Kingdoms is balanced, a few tweaks here and there would be nice of course but compared to the M2TW 1.0 it's alot more balanced.
In M2TW i could send a single generals bodyguard against 2 units archers and 2 units of cheap spears defending a town square and win 9 times out of 10. In kingdoms i would get eaten 9 times out of 10 so something has changed bad or good to early to tell new animations changed stuff.
I wouldn't say cavalry is underpowered. I played some custom battles (VH, medium unit sizes). 21 general's bodyguards (late, teutonic) against 76 Novgorodian spearmen (Armour upgraded to heavy mail) - heavy cavalry charging braced spearmen in schiltron (sp?) formation. The bodyguards had no problems wasting those spearmen and lost only 4-7 men. I admit having charged a few times but that's what you do in most battles anyway? Swordsmen still seem to beat spearmen; 60 armoured swordsmen (english) beat 75 order spearmen (teutonic). Both have partial plate, spearmen have a bit better stats and 15 soldiers more. It was almost a draw though.
In my campaign as New Spain one unit of conquistadores ended up with over 350 kills plus loads of prisoners. Most of the kills came from frontal charges against braced native formations. The conquistadores lost only 3-4 men in the process. The Americas campaign clearly favours cavalry; the natives lack proper spearmen and conquitadores have 2 hp. Bodyguards 3hp!
I haven't been playing Kingdoms very much yet but I think like current balance. (or unbalance :bow: )
- Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Terentius Varro
Thanks, mate, better send me normal units. I like TW, but even unpatched RTW is more balanced for me ( taken from legend of RTW times ).
Pretty much bullshit. With 2 units of MILITIA spearmen and 2 of peasent archers you can kill any general unit. Why i say it? Because i had already did it, with 3 units of militia spearmen and 1 of peasent archers i beat 1 bodyguard unit and 1 unit of mailed knights. How? Schiltron formation. Peasents and militias against heavy cavalry and they won. I did this myself in VH so no excuses.Quote:
In M2TW i could send a single generals bodyguard against 2 units archers and 2 units of cheap spears defending a town square and win 9 times out of 10. In kingdoms i would get eaten 9 times out of 10 so something has changed bad or good to early to tell new animations changed stuff.
I seriously think cavalry is higher underpower here in Kingdoms. It seems some people believe that heavy cavalry was only for rear charges. No, no, no, VERY wrong, the point is, rear charges with heavy cavalry was the ultimate weapon in a battlefield. See how 6k heavy cavalry from hannibal destroyed 88k infantry from the romans in cannae. That's what, 2 units attacking the rear of a 20 unit's army (using total war numbers)? And still see the monumental damage it did. Heavy cavalry was made to take the opponents HEAD ON. Rear and flank charges was simply a genius way to maximize their effect to a degree of mass destruction and mass decrease on moral. But they were made for charges head on. See how alexander won the battle of Chaeronea for example. He made a breach with, guess what, a front charge and with only 2k heavy cavalry (against 35k...). If he tried that in kingdoms he would probably killed :lol:. Or see Carrhae's example, in which 1k heavy cavalry and 9k hourse archers beat the hell of 35k elite legionairs... AND archers alone were especially good demoralizing the foe since just some volleys were never enough to make much extendable damage, only prolongaded fire made significal damage. Or do you think that archers were LOTR elves, that kill a man with every single arrow?
Cavalry is only underpowered when it gets stuck in an infantry unit. Its overpowering on impact and average in Horse vs Horse. They produce less MAD vs spears in head on in Kingdoms though as my experience in the Jerusalem Campaign. They tend to survive charges even head on fairly well against spears and usually come off better than the spears. The mistake that people run into is letting them stay in melee after the initial charge. That's where they get shredded.
My technique for frontal charges is to walk my infantry and cavalry into arrow range and then ctrl+r everyone and then pull my horses bakc after the initial impact. This leaves the enemy disordered for my infantry to mop up. Its better when the enemy infantry try and chase after my cavalry and get steamrolled by dismounted Knights.
Though, I think the effect of arrows on knights is a little exaggerated. Partially armoured horses and knights should take more arrow damage than they do IMHO.
Well what can i say: easy to test start a venice campaign VH/VH take zagreb with just the genaral then pop antonio selvo out of ragusa, hire mercenary cog sail to durazzo and take it with just the general I do it a lot since i want the fair in battle trait for both of them so i keep re-fighting those battles at 6x the speed till i get it. But then again you could be an old woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by ixidor
Edited to select more politically correct epitaph for poster
...and then you wake up .Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Terentius Varro
Perhaps you could regale us with the time you conquered the entire map with only one unit of peasants .
will it mess up the thread if i prove it?
Zaher, stat numbers shown in unit information window don't mean very much in unit's performance when we talk about M2TW. Even they aren't the real numbers.
Also, animations and such other stuff are more important than that.
Believe me.
Here goes:
(bit fuzzy towards the end tried to slow it down to 0.1 speed to take shots)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
So, this proves what? That AI doesn't know how to fight you off. I had already killed 2 units of spearmen and 1 unit from mercenary crossbowmen with 1 single unit of jinetes with only 20 losses. Do you want to see the print screen? But normally would i win? Or at least against someone how actually knows how to use his troops properly? No. Fight against a human player, be trapped between 2 schiltron formations in a entrance of the town and under arrow fire, and see yourself losing your general.
Since when was this thread about multiplayer, wake up and pay attention,
Quote:
Originally Posted by CeltiberoMordred
Beleve me, i am in mood to recieve good things. I like TW, and i WANT to play it. Those picture are only a small example of my total disorientation. But even if i will try hard to beleve your words, the actual perfomance of units prove opposite. Put Giltine chosen or Sarmagatian axemen vs Polish guards and you will see how 32/48 footmen unit with 1 hp killing armoured "tanks" in 2 seconds with minimal loses. And they are not special anti-cav units. Just to make those who dont know Giltine chosen unit laughing - its a foot polearm unit with attack 19 charge 9 and defence 23, without shield in animations and on picture, but +8 shield at stats.
P.S. I just want to add , that on VH difficulty, any cavalry cannot make sucsessfull charge even when not under missile fire, they just acting like untrained drunk stupid peasant childs which riding horse first time.
That's funny, I routinely flatten Egyptian stacks with the patented right click ctrl+R. The only good way of getting a grasp of M2TW is trial and error. There's just too many things that effect a battle. It jsut comes down to if you're willing to adapt to the system, you'll do well. Forget everything you think you know and start from the ground up. If you can't then you'll just hate the game and should just go and buy an FPS.
Hah! Owned!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Terentius Varro
I honestly don't know what the problem is. I keep winning Heroic Victory after Heroic Victory due to cavalry. A direct charge will still inflict 60%-80% losses on a unit, often causing them to rout right off the bat. A charge that's actually worthwhile, with several units of knights into an opposing force's open flank, will throw an entire army into disarray.
Heavy cavalry exists to control the battle by altering the enemy's morale, not to slaughter everything by charging head-on into a hail of bullets.
You are half-right. Yes, half of problem is me, but another half is AI. AI making his decisions too. Thats why when i had only 2-3 units of peasant archer AI started shotout with his better archers ( 6-8 units in stack usually), but when i started to train long range crossbowmen with high missile attack, all AI doing is rushing with all his army without any outshot. You think it is more interesting now? For me - not. So, i dont train long range crossbowmen AND cavalry now. So, half of my army is shaving peasant archers ( prussian ones ), and another - heavy infantry. You think it can be interesting? From my experience I tell you - not. If it was - i'd prefere to play the game now, instead of writing here.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkut
Lol, Varro demonstrating exactly the thing, which caused some personnel to "balance" the game. If blitz is Varro's style of play, i feel sorry for him. But it make me feel more sure in what i do now, because i hope, that more players playing normal games, not just uber ones, and minority really wanted those changes in balance. Here comes the Real World. Hello !
Yeah, poor guy. How terrible it must be to enjoy the game his way. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by zaher
I pace myself, and I didn't even notice the changes until I read about them here.Quote:
But it make me feel more sure in what i do now, because i hope, that more players playing normal games, not just uber ones, and minority really wanted those changes in balance.
This isn't the real world. This is a game. It's for enjoyment. If you aren't enjoying it, then why are you still playing it? Go get your money back and use it to take a girl outQuote:
Here comes the Real World. Hello!
:dancing:
^ That's what you should be doing, instead of reading this post.
You're looking at the info scroll, those stats are almost useless, the important question is how do they actually perform in battle. The answer is simple, the cav will make many many more kills on impact than the dismounted. That is why the cav have lower stats, to prevent them from being terrifically overpowered. That IS balance, not a lack of it.
Stats don't mean anything, look at the Aztecs Eagle Warriors and Jaguar Warriors. Defense, morale, stamina basically the same, but the Eagles have a much greater attack. Even though they have lower attack, the Jaguars cost are a better unit, they cost more per man and need an upgraded building (same type but 1 higher), and most important, one Jaguars (75) will crush 2 Eagles (2x60).
That does suck. You know what also sucks? You can't hammer and anvil in this game. By the time your knights get behind the enemy, half their army's already routed. I don't like not having missile duels either. The game IMHO is too fast and the AI not strategic enough. Maybe thsi is just playing too much EB talking but...Quote:
Originally Posted by zaher
However, it may just be the campaign you're playing. The Crusader Campaign has decent missile fights. Its usually archer vs HA though so its probably still not what you're looking for.
If you wuvz your missile units, then you might try and make an archer + cavalry army. If you have knights and decent archers then you pretty much have a wannabe army of HA. It works out fairly well against infantry heavy armies in my crusader campaign especially because they get to shoot flaming with a low trajectory meaning they get ridiculous accuracy with flaming death.
I've heard that shields work properly in Kingdoms regardless of the numbers in unit cards. That means Giltine's Chosen have ("only") 15 defence points. I'll test this battle later when Kingdoms decides to start properly... Something wrong with the refresh rate of my screen I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaher
Prefect charges are not too hard to pull off. I wonder if we are playing the same game at all? There was a short guide to successful charges somewhere on these forums if I remember correctly...
EDIT: I did a test battle, on VH, medium unit sizes. Polish guard (me) vs Giltine's Chosen (AI). That's 30 riders vs 40 heavy infantrymen. Polish guard won although they fared pretty poorly, losing most of their men. Both units charged so Giltine's Chosen had an attack of 26 (attack 19 + charge bonus of 7), which could explain the high number of dead Polish guards. I expected the Polish Guard to suffer less casualties. I dont know if Giltine's men get +4 bonus against cavalry. The unit card says they are good against cavalry. They are effective against armour too. I ran another battle, with Giltine's men under my command this time. 1 Unit of Giltine's men against 2 units of Ritterbruder. Giltine's men slaughtered those poor knights. Elite heavy cavalry should not be cut down like that... Under human control 2 units of Ritterbruder slaughter 1 unit of Giltine's Chosen though.
These are the words I've been looking for! Thank you! From my experiences light cavalry is still able to harass archers and charge vulnerable flanks and heavy cavalry is still able to wipe out whole units in seconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReiseReise
What! And now you are telling me! I've been using hammer and anvil (or even 2-4 hammers alone) since I got the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
About those missing missile duels: "Arrows cost. The dead cost nothing. Send in the infantry." Most of the time I see the AI doing things that even human could do on a real battlefield. Not all actions of men are rational. Most of them are not rational. ~D
- Guru
heavy cavalry or just about any cavalry unit with a lance can still destroy units in secs.now spearmen can kill CAVALRY!besides now we have two units that can kill heavy cavalry spearmen and pikemen.i got to say from playing kingdoms the ai is much better then in was in m2tw.now its more likely to end a war and less likely fight to the death.besides ending wars gives you time to rebuild your armys and get ready once agian for war or the same thing for the enemy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
I started to understand something. Kingdoms have 4 campaigns, 90% of factions are based on missile units. It was bad choice to start Kingdoms as Teutonic order. I started American campaign as Apache and enjoy it so far without knights. I guess, archer based Britain campaign can be played without cavalry too. Duno about Crusaders, but again, there are Mongols, Egypt and Turks there. Also, in Teutonic campaign , Mongols,Lithuania and Novgorod can benefit from current balance. But if you want to play factions like Poland, Danes, HRE, Spain, Byz or Crusader kingdoms you will suffer.
now i dont understand you mate. im with you when it comes to cavalry role in battlefield but talking about weak cavalry of new spain, poland and crusaders is :daisy:
Quote:
Originally Posted by icek
I only guess mate, only guess. Because only campaigns i tryed are Teutonic as Teutons ( turn 85 ) and Americas as Apache ( turn 15 ). All my impressions was from playing Teutonic campaign with non-misile oriented faction. And i can tell - yes, Christ knights, Halbrudder and Rittenbruder are weak, they cannot correctly play role of heavy cavalry on battlefield and i dont use them, i take more Prussian archers instead.
May I request that you calm down and refrain from transforming this thread into a hostile environment. If you feel the need to, use the "report post button" (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/image...ons/report.gif) to forward any problematic messenges to staff. Thanks!
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites
Done! Thanks, I didnt knew about it.
Plz delete this post and others, which reffering to deleted subject post too.
I'd like to see how, the only time where I can actually managed to do that was in a battle against the Salah Al Din ands his uber high chivalry. Most battles for me end up in:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guru
Enemy Charge
I run by cavalry behind or attack the enemy cavalry
Enemy Infantry runs for the hill
I r sad kitten.
You must be playing on easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Playing on VH I always find my lines overstretching and on the verge of collapsing because my cavalry needs to route the enemy cavalry and skirmishers away before they get a good shot at smashing the enemy from the rear. But then again in the crusades campaign the saracens usually deploy skirmishers and heavy cavalry with light infantry which basically get routed ANYWAYS by heavy infantry. The dismounted Harahsium however stands well against the knights.
Seriously, Zaher, if you learned anything from MTW2 stats is like one of dozen of factors that needs to be taken in for a unit's performance. Spearmen have higher charge ratings than swordsmen do but regardless swordsmen still beat spearmen.
I hated RTW because you basically win by just spamming cavalry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless
I know what you mean - animations. Yes swordsmen can swing sword twice before spearmen swing spear once. In situation infantry vs infantry all is ok. Or cavalry vs cavalry. When it mixed - it get problems.
I usually playing on VH difficulty, and can say, that heavy knights performance ( ability to charge, speed Etc ) in Kingdoms isnt so good as in MTW2 v1.2. They acting like in MTW2 before any patches ( cannot charge until unit is not moving, cannot catch routers Etc ). Dont know how is it on medium difficulty terrain, but still...
Nah, VH/VH. Maybe the general's chiv made a difference, I used a 0 chiv/dread general and a 10 chiv general and got the same result either way with and without fire arrows. I would expect insta routs from uber dread guys but I don't have any. They don't use anything too bad except peasants - mostly spear militia, Ghulum dismounts, ghazis. Maybe I just fight too well :skull: or you fight lots of chivalrous guys.:knight:.Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless
Edit: Maybe its the fatigue penalties?
Spearmen - be they militia or pikemen DO have an advantage over horsemen. Its well known that even well trained warhorses baulk at charging spears - which would negate much of the charge bonus. Why is it that upon the arrival of the Swiss Pike formation on the battle, that this suddenly became the dominant unit on the field? Also, horses, and therefore their rider are vulnerable to the spear, even to archers with knives hamstringing the horses. Perhaps this is represented in the rebalancing in Kingdoms of HC vs spears.
If Zaher is only up to turn 15 in the America's campaign as the apache, then its highly likely he won't have obtained cavalry or muskets yet. Apaches play very differently to other armies - as I've said elsewhere - expect many casualties and defeats before you get any units that can go toe to toe with Mesoamerican heavy infantry. If Zaher has only effectively played one out of four campaigns - I think its a bit early to be complaining about balance.
One comment I might make is about the use of stakes. Vs cavalry heavy armies (like mongols) one unit of lithuanian archers, with stakes in front of the gates did for virtually 4 stacks of cavalry. Same goes when defending bridges. I went from having a serious mongol problem to mopping up 3-5 turns later.
Zaher is making a lot of noise for someone who's played so little of kingdoms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadwallon
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Terentius Varro
I dont know how you charge in those archers with the most powerfull teunonic cavalry because if you would do it correctly there would be 200% of chances that archers would flee due to charge/frighten effect of cavalry. If you play as teutons you need to aim not for armies but for settlements. in close area horse archers will eventually meet your pancer-spearmen and pikemen in main plaza and will be slaughtered.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaher
Pevergreen, Varro and Cadwallon ! Yes i played only Teuton campaign in Kingdoms. I also played every faction in MTW2. Hey, i wanna play Kingdoms after all! So, you acussing me that i played too little? I played Teutons, thats enought for me to find difference in balance of knights, archers and infantry between same factions in game and its expansion.
Or you wanted me to call this topic " Balance in Teutonic campaign"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by icek
I winning easy as Teuton in open field now, having 8-10 Prussian archers in every army.
I am accusing you of accusing me of being the reason for the rebalance and quite thankfull as for it. :inquisitive: Muahahahaha . Have fun with your game and remember it was probably real hard to make so give kudos when deserved (if deserved) because the ppl who made this read this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaher
There are always those, who developing something, and those, who think, that it need rebalance and rebuild like they like. After all, make your own games with balance YOU prefere. I was happy with CA products and their patches until customers became "developers". Thats why i dont play mods. I like original things, inspired by idea and enthusiasm of those , who developing it. Some customers have more IQ or time to do what they want reassembling ready for use product in a way like they like. But they are stil not a developers.
So, good luck, CA with new titles, but dont break your line in a middle. Dont let diletants to make games for us, normal customers, 99% of which even dont read this forum.
So in other words your beef is actually with Lusted not Kingdoms.
The completely ill informed and constant complaints from Zaher are getting more and more amusing by the second.
I find it particularly droll that his idea of balance depends on a dismounted soldier and a mounted soldier functioning the exact same way.
There. Fixed. That's your *real* beef, Zaher. CA has made balance changes with every patch and expansion. Don't pretend that the out of the box version achieved some sort zen-like holy balance whose sanctity must be upheld in perpetuity. Each change has followed a logical path of making the game more and more balanced.Quote:
I was happy with CA products and their patches until they changed it so that you couldn't spam all cavalry armies anymore and archers could actually kill people
You apparently preferred an earlier broken, imblanced version. Sucks for you. I'm sure you can find a mod somewhere though, to play the game 'your' way, instead of the more balanced 'CA' way.
I've said this before but i'll repeat it: it's not my balance. 99% of the work was done by Jason Turnbull aka Palamedes, a developer with our Oz studio. Myself and other modders provided input and testing on the balance nothing more. I wrote the blog on the balancing once i became a CA employee as i knew it better than anyone else in the UK office.Quote:
There are always those, who developing something, and those, who think, that it need rebalance and rebuild like they like. After all, make your own games with balance YOU prefere. I was happy with CA products and their patches until customers became "developers". Thats why i dont play mods. I like original things, inspired by idea and enthusiasm of those , who developing it. Some customers have more IQ or time to do what they want reassembling ready for use product in a way like they like. But they are stil not a developers.
So, good luck, CA with new titles, but dont break your line in a middle. Dont let diletants to make games for us, normal customers, 99% of which even dont read this forum.
So it's a developer, not modder, made balance, and what the Oz studio wanted for balance. The customers/modders are not the developers, but they do have good ideas. And some of us might even become part of the company at some point.
I never met Lusted, dont know him privately , never participated in any forum discussion he participated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Terentius Varro
I am against those, who wanted to dictate their will right now, in the middle of game called MTW2 and its expansion called Kingdoms, i consider it ONE game scince Kingdoms isnt stand-alone game. Why "balance" wasnt implemented in 1.2 patch for MTW2 then?
" I've said this before but i'll repeat it: it's not my balance. 99% of the work was done by Jason Turnbull aka Palamedes, a developer with our Oz studio. Myself and other modders provided input and testing on the balance nothing more. I wrote the blog on the balancing once i became a CA employee as i knew it better than anyone else in the UK office." - Lusted.
So why Palamedes didnt balanced MTW2 from start? Why no balance with 1.2 patch? Enthusiasm is a good thing, but it is good for new ideas and projects. "Balancing" mean only developing subjective point of view of one men or minor group of enthusiasts, which dont like existing ways. Its like the wake of Communism in Russia. Yeah, the Tzar goverment wasnt so good, but was communism better? But the mass was fooled in eather way. There is a company " New Balance" making sport footware. Adepts of Balance (any, who is ) must work there or make their own games or mods.
I tried LTC mod, i even cannot say i dont liked it. I maked some turns and returned to play original game, just because i liked it more. LTC mod is just a first thing, which come to comprassion with existing Kingdoms balance. All i wish to Lusted is luck and success in his further work/job.
"I was happy with CA products and their patches until customers became "developers". "- Zaher
"Quote:
"I was happy with CA products and their patches until they changed it so that you couldn't spam all cavalry armies anymore and archers could actually kill people " - Ulstan.
This is a perfect example of how Ulstan "balanced" me, and how "balancing" working basically everywhere. Yes, he "quoted" me, but this is not what i said.
I give up. I thought that i was the forum loonie. Untill now that is
Zaher, calm down. Perhaps its your broken english, but you're getting hard to understand. We understand that you prefer certain ways of playing the as everyone does. As I understand, your gripe isn't with the actual balance perse` but with the AI's passive/agressive behavior. Well, welcome to the club. The AI is idiotic because its the hardest part to program for the game.
No one WANTED TO make the AI do that because no one wants an AI that bad. They did that because they wanted to spend time BALANCING the game(too busy in some respects - Shield Bug + Animation Bugs) and polishing it to be as visually awesome as it is. Just wait for Patch 1.4 and hope for the best or Empires.
Well empires is a sailing game and I am not interested in sailing.
I am sorry Zaher if i offended you but I am hot headed and often I say things and think later hence all the edits on my posts. We'll never get a real good AI cos 95% of buyers will want graphics and that's what they'll get. This time we got lot luckier than RTW so I am happy if lusted can help to make the game more like the community here wants which he is a part of, then it is great he joined the team. As he said he didn't rebalance the game just had it in his mod to testit so let him live ... for now.Now get your butt online so i can make you my BIATCH.
Varro and Antisocialmunky, you got me! At least i have somebody who understand me despite my broken English ! I can have my point of view anyway, but at least now i can see, that may be it was too hard for me to get what i dont expected. Nevermind then.
I duno about Empires, but after i played Corsairs: Return of legend ( Russian version only! ), i cannot expect serious naval battles in other games ( not including simulation ). What mashine we will need to run it? How much free disc space? lol. Different ammunition for ships? Using wind? Uhhh.... But we will see.
I think cavalry is currently a little underpowered in many situations. They also have some very annoying habits/bugs.
1) Charging speramen - Yes the cav should lose but it would be nice to kill maybe a few of the spearmen. This crap where the cav comes to a complete stop and doest cause a single casualty is nonsense, especially when it is a full cav unit against a heavily damaged spear unit.
2) The Magnetic spear effect - Your heavy cav is charging the flank of the enemy line... the battle is at a impasse... your glorious charge approaches the knights... its impact will crush them and then the enemy line will crumble! Unfortunately, Bob the the spearman has managed to poke Sir Fatnslow as your knights pass by. YOUR ENTIRE CAVALRY UNIT STOPS and attacks Bobs spearmen. This is the most irratating thging I have ever come across in TW. One spear attack draws all a cavalry unit to attack like moths to the pointy flame.
3) Charges in Cities - I cant seem to get my cavalry to charge in a town. They always attack with melee ragardless of how long they run in a straight line.
4) The Rear Attack stall - Everyone keeps saying "attack from the rear" ... OH! how many times have I done this and the enemy infantry has foiuled me by walking forward 16 feet. My cavalry stops it's charge and basically comes into contact with the enemy at a walk.
Ivarr, cavalry in Kingdoms cannot correctly charge moving unit at all, even without lances, they still everytime stopping on impact with first men in unit they hit. They just remind me unpatched MTW2. With 1.2 patch they did much better. On other side AI knows this and use it, so, be sure, it will move unit before charge. I duno how is on easy or medium difficulties, but on VH it exactly what i get. May be they reduced speed too?
I agree that the balance is rather poorly done in Kingdoms. I remember having the exactly opposite ideas on how to balance some things from those most vocally advocated on the forums, but they made sense for me and eventually after a lot of modding work I was able to enjoy my game. However, now with the structure of the expansion I would have to do four times as much work (actually five times if I count grand campaign), and I really wonder whether I have the will to do it...
For the cavalry charge issue - try reducing the charge distance for all units. This should help with the horrible anti-blobbing effect where the unit cohesion falls apart during the charge. I have some screenshots where I ran an entire unit of knights through the gap that formed between the charging front row of a unit and the rest of the men in that charging unit. In addition to unit cohesion, this should also help with other charge issues as less random things will be able to affect it.