MTW or VI - Which Is Really The Best Medieval Multiplayer Game?

[Tomisama]

Weve been playing it for two days and its pretty much unanimous that its better and easier to understand. Its not a hard sell at all.

Guess what I’m talking about here is not just a few games, or even a whole contest, but “rejuvenating” the MTW/VI community with a “new standard”. Getting the attention back of those who have left, and rebuilding that community is my dream.

Folks have been playing without valor limits for over two “years”! Trying to bring them all under this new tent is surely an up hill fight.

Look, as much as it is against my better judgment to change the Contest Rules once they are posted. If all concerned here will agree to the following, I think we will satisfy everyone’s concerns and goals, and I will make the change.

Valor two max with valor one cavalry max.

Straight up, no more changes. We all support it, and try to win people to it.

What do you say?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Valor two max with valor one cavalry max.

Straight up, no more changes. We all support it, and try to win people to it.

What do you say?

No good v2 swords will rule just like before. V1 max on swords is needed. This destroys the balance we were seeking and throws a monkey wrench into the whole works. Ive been playing 10 games a day working this out. I dont just pop in for a game like you do no offense. Now you are going to go with something that no one has even tried and say thats the rules?

[Puzz3D]

Valor two max with valor one cavalry max.

That rule simply weakens cavalry relative to all other unit types. The goal of v1 max with v2 max on anti-cav units is to establish as much as possible a rock, paper, scissors (RPS) gameplay.

infantry --> cavalry --> ranged --> infantry

Since some units get a specific anti-cav bonus (Longjohn said it's non-historical in MTW but is there to enhance the gameplay), you can break this down further.

spears --> cav --> ranged --> spears
spears --> cav --> swords --> spears

If you make rules which allow v2 on ranged and other non-anti-cav units, the RPS will be weakened and could flip the wrong way for some unit matchups. At the very least, it will mean that cavalry will take longer to beat the units it's supposed to beat. That will be the trade off in making axes, poleaxes, clubs and ranged units more effective in melee. Besides, you can already pump inexpensive units with weapon and armor upgrades, and ranged units still get their discount on these upgrades.

If you are seeing too much elite cav at 8k v1 max, the thing to do is force all cav to be v1.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If you are seeing too much elite cav at 8k v1 max, the thing to do is force all cav to be v1.

So then you are saying no one will take knights or boyars as they would be too expensive? Do we really want to eliminate these units ?

If you make rules which allow v2 on ranged and other non-anti-cav units, the RPS will be weakened and could flip the wrong way for some unit matchups. At the very least, it will mean that cavalry will take longer to beat the units it's supposed to beat. That will be the trade off in making axes, poleaxes, clubs and ranged units more effective in melee

Yes its a bit of a trade off but not significant IMO.

Besides, you can already pump inexpensive units with weapon and armor upgrades, and ranged units still get their discount on these upgrades.

Not enough. For one thing their morale remains too low. The other is for instance with my english army I could take them all v1 a3 w3 and still have plenty of money left. Making other units v2 increases the number of units that you can use and increases varitey of armies which is the main goal for me at least. Its been great fun lately seeing so many different approaches to these rules.

The way I see it either the orginal v1 max v2 anti cav or v1 max sword and cav v2 others is the way to go. However if you go with the first a 7 cav limit might be a good thing.

[AggonyDuck]

Are Camels considered to be cav or anti-cav when it comes to upgrades?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Cav

[Puzz3D]

So then you are saying no one will take knights or boyars as they would be too expensive? Do we really want to eliminate these units ?

Well, I'm wasn't sure why non anti-cav infantry was being made stronger.

For one thing their morale remains too low. The other is for instance with my english army I could take them all v1 a3 w3 and still have plenty of money left. Making other units v2 increases the number of units that you can use and increases varitey of armies which is the main goal for me at least.

The low morale, non anti-cav, melee infantry are: byzantine inf, highland clandsmen, militia sergeants, peasants, slav warriors, urban malitia and the woodsman. I don't know about byz inf, but the others could go to v2 without any problems. A faction like Russians would definitely benefit by allowing v2.

Some factions will be weakened by keeping all ranged units at v1 max. You'd have to look at those factions and decide which specific ranged units are meant to be used in melee and could be allowed to go to v2 keeping in mind that their weapon and armor upgrades are going to be less expensive. Mongol Warriors might be a candidate for v2, but at v2w3 and a cost of 879 they are going to be stronger in melee than a v1 varangian guard costing 850 against low armored units. So, that's the type of thing you'd want to consider.

Some factions are meant to be mostly cavalry factions, and that is going to put them in a more difficult position since anti-cav infantry is going to be a bit better. Certain factions might become non-competitive, and have to be viewed that way. Due to the weakness of archers ranged fire, Mongols never were quite competitive anyway IMO, and to some degree this problem extended to some other factions as well.

[ichi]

There's a balance between simplicity of rules and maximizing balance. IMO the V1 max (2V for anti-cav) with a 7 cav max, no arty, is the best balance. Simple rules, but does a great job of balancing and making more units desirable.

ichi

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Some factions will be weakened by keeping all ranged units at v1 max.

In the v1 max sword and cav v2 all others they can be 2.

[AggonyDuck]

I just want to raise the question: Do these rules actually make the game anymore enjoyable and does it actually help the balance at all?

Also I am extremily unhappy with the max cav rules that were added. I've always been a cavalry focused player and simply 7 cav and 3 of them cav archers doesn't cut it. (especially the limit on cavalry archers)

Btw has anyone considered that these rules are actually quite a turn-off for some of the remaining VI-clans?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

They do both.

[AggonyDuck]

According to you yes, but how about the rest?

To me the answer is no, the balance is different and so are the cost-efficient units, but at the core it's still the same game.

[Tomisama]

You win.

We'll make it a no-rules default.

Clan Emissaries can negotiate for each Match, as they always have in all CWC Competitions.



Salute!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You win Gawain.

We'll make it a no-rules default.

What is that supposed to mean? We go back to regular play. In that case we are all losers.

Clan Emissaries can negotiate for each Match, as they always have in all CWC Competitions.

Thats why I stopped participating in CWC the rules sucked (no offense)and I had no recourse. If we go back to the regualr rules I guess Ill sit this one out as well.

[AggonyDuck]

This is the reason why I should keep my mouth shut. This wasn't exactly the result that I was hoping for, atleast directly. I'd advise you to actually have a default rule setting that can be modified during negotiations as the two clans want it to be. Also the thing about valour limits ain't all that bad as long as it can be removed with a mutual agreement.

[ichi]

Gah!

The V1 max (V2 anticav) make the game a lot more like Shogun, melee is much quicker and flanking is crucial. There is a wider spectrum of units that can function satisfactorily.

A couple of factions don't appear to work real well in a few eras, but it may be that I just haven't seen someone solve the puzzle of the Byz or the Russians. I know that I've seen a lot more spears, poles, and cav archers in these games than usual.

I'd hate to see this wonderful attempt to reinvigorate VI lost do to a simple disagreement or misunderstanding.

My understanding is that the original plan was to go with V1 max (anticav V2, no arty). We should try that as the basis. If teams want to negotiate V2 allowances for missile troops or MiliSargs, I say let 'em, but lets have V1 Max (anticav V2, no arty) as the starting point.

ichi

[AggonyDuck]

But actually none of this matters if the tourney doesn't get enough participants. Currently there are two clans signed in and I believe there are perhaps 2-3 other potential clans who might join the tourney in VI. So unless some of the older clans decide to actually join this tournament, it will then be quite a small tournament.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Thats why I love you Ichi ever the voice of reason.

[Tomisama]

You can make your own rules anyway you want.

Isn't that what you want?

You want v1 swords and cav, and v2 everything else?

Make it so.

I'll run the contest, you make the rules.

[AggonyDuck]

Sounds good, although a suggestion on what kind of rules you would wish us to use would be good too.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You can make your own rules anyway you want.

Isn't that what you want?

You want v1 swords and cav, and v2 everything else?

Make it so.

I'll run the contest, you make the rules.

Now were talking

Much better we work together to make this happen. I dont want to "make" the rules but I would like a consensus. Ive worked hard to try an even things out and make them interesting. It seems we have 4 choices. V1 max all except anti cav. V1 max all swords and cav v2 max all others. Or either one with a 7 cav limit. It would be nice if the emissaries could vote on those. I however prefer the v1 max v2 rest. From playing it so much I think this is what most of the others who helped develope these rules like.At least thats what theve all told me.The 7 cav is ok with me cause thats all I use

[Puzz3D]

In the v1 max sword and cav v2 all others they can be 2.

I just tried a v2a1 militia sergeant (598 florins) vs v0 chiv knight (675 florins) in custom battle, and the mil sergeant won easily killing the knights at a rate of 4 to 1. The only chance the chiv knight has against this unit is to rout it on contact which it can do with a good charge since a v2 mil sergeant has morale 4.

v2 vikings (505 florins) have morale 8 and only one combat point weaker than v2a1 mil sergeant. I found a few other units like this as well. If units like this can stop cav, then the need for spears is going to drop away. All the spears and sowrds will be operating between morale 2 and 6, so why do we need non-sword infantry operating at morale 8? The v2 idea for non-swords might work, but I think it's borderline. I wonder what's going to happen to all the middle cost cav like Byz Lancers.

[Tomisama]

I dont want to "make" the rules but I would like a consensus.

“We” had a consensus, and you agreed.

No thats not right. Pole arms do not get 2v. Only units with an anti cav rating can have 2v.
It cant be much simpler. All units v1 or less unless they have an anti cav rating then their max is V2. Thats it and no arty of course. Theres a list here of what may have 2V anything else gets 1 or 0.

The Rules were posted.

Then “you” decided to change the rule. No one else reporting to this forum was involved, or has ever agreed to that change.

I'll run the contest, you make the rules.

Was referring to:

We'll make it a no-rules default.

Clan Emissaries can negotiate for each Match, as they always have in all CWC Competitions.

Now that Rule is posted.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=51604

http://p219.ezboard.com/fclanwars354...opicID=1.topic

Just wanted to be sure we were all on the same page “this time”.


(no offences taken or intended)

[Puzz3D]

I just want to raise the question: Do these rules actually make the game anymore enjoyable and does it actually help the balance at all?

Also I am extremily unhappy with the max cav rules that were added. I've always been a cavalry focused player and simply 7 cav and 3 of them cav archers doesn't cut it. (especially the limit on cavalry archers)

Btw has anyone considered that these rules are actually quite a turn-off for some of the remaining VI-clans?

The 7 max on cav has come about because of the v1 max rule. It's an indication that letting spears go to v2 is not solving the problem. With a v1 across the board for all units, you don't need a rule to limit the number of cav because the florins act to limit the elite cav to 1 or 2 units per army. Remember in MTW v1.0 chiv knights cost 875 and Spanish lancers were 1100, and cav didn't get any pushback on spears. With all v1, the middle cav has a chance and the spears don't have to be as good, so you don't need them at v2. The elite infantry is also limited by the money which gives more of a chance to middle infantry, but the fact that swords like fmaa and cmaa are relatively cheap is a persistent issue. Cheap swords were an intentional design choice, but spears were better and cheaper in MTW v1.0, so swords had to flank them or hit seams between the spears to win, and cav had to flank as well.

The objections to all v1 have traditionally been that certain factions are weakened by it, and the morale is lower than the standard 10k game. You could go to all v2 and use 15k, but the morale is then so high that flanking is less effective and units fight longer. That actually gives you more time to flank, but you have to flank in force to be effective.

A lot of players have left MTW/VI because they are tired of the cav/sword thing. I tried for six months to use 4 spear units in MTW/VI, and I finally just gave up. If the idea is to bring some of these players back for a tournament, something different has to be offered. If it's just a tournamnt for the present MTW/VI players, then you can just play by the normal rules that are currently in use. We got along fine in STW with a single faction, and every tournament was packed with players long after the game had been released. If you can get a dozen units in one faction working properly in MTW/VI, you don't need any of the other factions or units. More units and more factions does not necessarily mean a better game.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gah Puzz I just realised your Yuuki. What the hell do you know about TW? Hows it going old friend?

The 7 max on cav has come about because of the v1 max rule. It's an indication that letting spears go to v2 is not solving the problem.

No the spears do work much better but cav is still more manoverable and faster. By taking a lot of cav people can send it either left ot right faster than your spears can counter. The 7 cav rule is not needed but some people hate to see those 12 and 13 cav armies. Believe me v2 spears stop vo CK. Weve been playing this for a while now and almost to a man we agree its far more balanced and fun and has greatly improved play. There are so many people who dont even want to play regular rules anymore after trying this.Bye the way I almost always take 3 spears now.

[Puzz3D]

Hows it going old friend?

I'm doing quite well Gawain. thx.

No the spears do work much better but cav is still more manoverable and faster. By taking a lot of cav people can send it either left or right faster than your spears can counter.

Yes, and this inability to hold a flank may have to do with the way the outnumbered penalty interacts with the relatively high cost and low morale of anti-cav units. One on one, a v0 orderfoot or v1 chiv sergeant can beat a v0 chiv knight, but in a mass attack the lower morale of the anti-cav units will cause them to rout. Until you can stop about twice the number of cav units with anti-cav infantry, that quick rush to one side with cav is going to be quite effective. One solution is to make the cav knights very expensive with a v1 minimum rule. Another is to allow anti-cav to go to v2, but v2 anti-cav is going to be quite expensive, so you still need the limit on cav. Why not limit cav knights to 2 per army and allow all the medium and light cav a player wants? The outnumbered penalty won't kick in because the medium cav doesn't "outclass" the anti-cav infantry which is one of the requirements to inflict the outnumbered penalty.

I know a lot of players don't want to play with less than morale 8 on their melee units, but I thnk the game is playable in the 4 to 8 range and allows flanking to be very effective. For some reason, the battle engine only seems to work well over a limited range of morale values of about 4 points. I suppose some players prefer a range of 6 to 10 rather than 4 to 8. I'm willing to play the game in either range. With the 6 to 10 range you can better utilize a tactical reserve, but flanking has to be done with several units to be effective. A single cav unit flanking is probably not going to have much effect, and ranged units will have less ability to rout enemy units with their ranged fire.

[AggonyDuck]

The real problem in here ain't with the morale of the spears or the lack of maneuverability. The problem is the fact that spears are only useful for holding and slowly killing cavalry. The spears will kill the cavalry that they face in head on confrontations, but they do it too slowly and have a hard time catching the cavalry.

Compared to Yaris in STW the true ineffiency of the VI spears becomes apparent. This will not change by using a different florin level, because the problem lies in the unit, not in the florins used. (although spears are somewhat useful in low florins due to being one of the few unit types who can hold a heavy cav charge)

[Puzz3D]

The real problem in here ain't with the morale of the spears or the lack of maneuverability. The problem is the fact that spears are only useful for holding and slowly killing cavalry. The spears will kill the cavalry that they face in head on confrontations, but they do it too slowly and have a hard time catching the cavalry.

Infantry is never going to catch cavalry.

Compared to Yaris in STW the true ineffiency of the VI spears becomes apparent. This will not change by using a different florin level, because the problem lies in the unit, not in the florins used. (although spears are somewhat useful in low florins due to being one of the few unit types who can hold a heavy cav charge)

Spears in MTW are more like naginata were in STW. MTW has polearm anti-cav units that kill cav faster than spears do. For instance, a halbardier has 7/7 (att/def) vs a chiv knight's 5/5 and a swiss halbardier has 9/4. Compare that to a yari samurai in STW which has 8/2 vs heavy cav's 2/6. It's just that the polearms don't break the cav charge the way yari samurai do.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Tried some games tonight using rule two heavy cav max. This seems morerealistic. I dont think there were to many armies that had half their army made of elite mounted knights. Two or three should be more than enuff. Id like to see this made an opitional rule. Its too late to implement it now I think
.People will get pissed if we keep changing. But giving a list of options amybe acceptable. The emissaries could hammer out the details. If no agreement is reached you go to default rules.

[Jochi Khan]

What happened to the...MTW/VI is the best TW game.

This thread is taking on the old school yard chant...It's my ball I decide who is going to play.

Tomi you deserve a medal for all the work you do, but this doesn't look as if it is going to bring the 'old clans' back to VI. Too much swapping and changing.

Jochi