Some explanation on why speed matters to MPers.

[CBR]

I just see a big problem with just adding a slider to allow for 50% or whatever as marching speed is still the same as in MTW.

We have larger maps now and the slider will reduce the marching speed too. A MP game on such maps would mean a lot of time spent on marching alone.


CBR

[Voigtkampf]

Gentlemen, thank you for your explanation. I am not as familiar with the TW MP community and have thought it to be larger. Also, I thought its participants, because of the nature of the very game, are quite more active than an average FPS MP Community member. In CoD, its simple; ASE offers you a number of games, you chose whether you want to play vanilla ones or modded ones.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Gentlemen, thank you for your explanation. I am not as familiar with the TW MP community and have thought it to be larger. Also, I thought its participants, because of the nature of the very game, are quite more active than an average FPS MP Community member. In CoD, its simple; ASE offers you a number of games, you chose whether you want to play vanilla ones or modded ones.

At best you may see 200 players and, on any week day, it's more around 60, or less depending on your timezone.

In those conditions 4v4 are sometimes difficult to organize, let alone with a mod.

Now, I leave it to you to wonder why the MP MTW community is so small. As mentionned earlier, I think it's very difficult for beginners to control their army at the current MTW speed and that cause many to drop out.

Louis,

[Voigtkampf]

At best you may see 200 players and, on any week day, it's more around 60, or less depending on your timezone.

Well, let us hope that will change with Rome.

Now, I leave it to you to wonder why the MP MTW community is so small. As mentionned earlier, I think it's very difficult for beginners to control their army at the current MTW speed and that cause many to drop out.

Louis,

I believe that the TW MP community is so small because it takes truly dedicated players that are willing and, most important, able to grasp the overall depth and fascination of this game.

[Puzz3D]

Now, I leave it to you to wonder why the MP MTW community is so small. As mentionned earlier, I think it's very difficult for beginners to control their army at the current MTW speed and that cause many to drop out.

Louis,

Well, the number of players that drop out because they can't control their army will probably be less than the number that continue playing because of the improved graphics. This will allow Creative Assembly to take the position that the gameplay has improved. I wouldn't be surprised if 25, 000 danarii per player, which allows maxing out all the upgrades, became the standard of play.

[shingenmitch2]

Nice post Louis,
I'd add another aspect -- the rate of killing. If the rate of FRONTAL killing is too fast, this can kill tactics as well. No point trying to flank when your main line is gone in 10 seconds.


CBR -- I have absolutely no problem with long marches to set up a battle. That would invite a flow to the game where even defenders might have to march to join each other.
In MP I have as much, if not more fun, with the "pre-main-battle" skirmishing than the actual full clash. Whittling an enemy down and maneuvering his army into a corner can often be more satisfying than the final assault.

Yuuk -- sadly, I fear ur correct. And in that other post, ur observation that CA likes both ends of the arguement (pro-historical when it suits them, pro-game-play when that fits better) is something that I've not consciously noted, but has been a bad taste I hadn't been able to put my finger on.

[alioven]

The game .exe file includes strings that hint there will be available a speed control for multiplayer games: normal, double, 3 times (or total madness). From the strings read there, all players have to agree on speed setting, so they could accelerate the "marching" phase if they wish.

That would solve the problem with slow units after a mod.

In the other hand, the map size in RTW is free, from "battle in my little garden" where you have no room for 40 units (2 armies) up to "Siberia battle" where you don't see a pixel of your foe. Try it in a modded battle and you will see the difference.

This would help with the fatigue problem. We need fatigue, so it's better to adjust the speed and length to walk rather than eliminating one of those factors, imho.

[Doug-Thompson]

I'm single-player only, but am surprised at how little discussion there has been on this thread about time: Not rate or speed, but the actual amount of time needed to finish a battle.

My impression of the TW game-playing community is that they are a far more patient group of people than your average online player.

"Age of Kings," for instance, was very popular. My impression is that going from a Dark Age village to finishing the final battle in AoK took less time than a single battle in MTW.

A mad rush where everything is decided in a single collision between "perfect" army combos is, possibly, just fine with the vast majority of on-line game players.

It's not fine with me. Hopefully, there will be some options and adjustments to be made.

However, as long as the relative speeds of units are in line, I'm not overly worried about how quickly units cover ground. As long as my infantry is as fast as the other guy's, for instance, I might not like the "Speedy Gonzales" effect but can live with it.

[Puzz3D]

I'm single-player only, but am surprised at how little discussion there has been on this thread about time: Not rate or speed, but the actual amount of time needed to finish a battle.

That's why it hardly makes sense to me to go into overdrive speedwise during the melee. That phase represents a small fraction of the overall time of a battle even in online play. It's almost as though the running speed was increased just so routed units would leave the map faster. However, we already have a solution for that online. Players simply rout all their units when they no longer have a chance of winning. That ends the battle immediately before the units even leave the map.

[CBR]

CBR -- I have absolutely no problem with long marches to set up a battle. That would invite a flow to the game where even defenders might have to march to join each other.
In MP I have as much, if not more fun, with the "pre-main-battle" skirmishing than the actual full clash. Whittling an enemy down and maneuvering his army into a corner can often be more satisfying than the final assault.

And Im just saying that it will take around twice as long with the maps we have in RTW and that making a speedslider to go down to say 50% will make it even longer as inf/cav would walk at half the rate we have in MTW. So just adding that to "fix" the problem without doing anything to the run speeds is not that good IMO


CBR

[shingenmitch2]

Well Fatigue is another issue, but I've always thought that simple marching or standing shouldn't increase the fatigue. I know there is a level of reality to that incurring fatigue, but from a game/balance/play standpoint I think only fighting, running and severe weather should increase the fatigue.

----

CB. other than the fatigue incurred by walking, I have no prob with doubling the amount of marching/game-time for a battle... but I realize little Bobby who this game is designed for now does not have attention span for that.

I guess I wish CA had built in 2 settings, Fun and Ultra real (with real units, faction composition, unit names, and further push the old game-system for realistic AND SLOW play.)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I just see a big problem with just adding a slider to allow for 50% or whatever as marching speed is still the same as in MTW.

We have larger maps now and the slider will reduce the marching speed too. A MP game on such maps would mean a lot of time spent on marching alone.


CBR

The maps are bigger...but the deployment zones are the same size and just as close to eachother I thought?

[CBR]

Deployment zones are pretty big with a small no mans land between them. So fighting could start soon if both deploy forward.

If the defender deploys far back and towards the side or corner of the map there will be some marching. 1000 meters marching or more would be a fair estimate for scenarios like that.


CBR

[Admin]

I just see a big problem with just adding a slider to allow for 50% or whatever as marching speed is still the same as in MTW.

We have larger maps now and the slider will reduce the marching speed too. A MP game on such maps would mean a lot of time spent on marching alone.

CBR

You need another slider at least: for fatigue.

Marching/manoeuvring is a part of battle.

If that marching is a problem:
-deploy forward.
-play smaller maps.
-use the 80% gamespeed (this is more than just the marching) and increase marching speed in the stats.

[CBR]

You need another slider at least: for fatigue.

Marching/manoeuvring is a part of battle.

If that marching is a problem:
-deploy forward.
-play smaller maps.
-use the 80% gamespeed (this is more than just the marching) and increase marching speed in the stats.

Maps are still twice as big as default MTW maps so deploying forward (as we already do in MTW) still means longer time to march

All maps in RTW are most likely same size so you cant just pick a small map without a custom map. Same thing in MTW as only a few of the historical battle maps were small.

And now we are talking mods if you want to change marching speed.

I guess it would be nice to be able to pick from None/Half/Normal fatigue.


CBR

[Nigel]

In spite of CBR's valid comment, I think a speedslider for 25-200% of gamespeed would be our best un-modded bet (short of CA doing a run-speed reduction for the vanilla version, of course). Those who appreciate a well controlled battle may not mind the long marching so much (time to talk taktics) and those who want a fast battle can have that, too.


As for "a mod should get regularly tweaked/updated", this can actually be another reason why mods are so difficult to distribute. I found myself often thinking: "shall I download this mod? Well, they are still working on it, lets wait for the next version". It may be only me, but I do think that for a mod to easily distribute, you have to be confident that "this is what everyone is gonna use".

[CBR]

Nigel: and for that Im gonna unsticky your Bandits and Mercenaries!

Yes a mod basically has to be made public (after beta testing) in one final version, cant have new versions coming out all the time. Of course there is always room for a 1.1 but thats it. CA's policy of one patch only is great


CBR