RTW Multiplayer Rules: A Synopsis

[GrimSta]

first off, mods can you please move this to Campus Martius as i dont have the right level of Privilages

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

Hello all, not many people in this forum know me as i rarely post here

Im writing this (for want of a better word) Article on the application and effects of rules in multiplayer games of BI and RTW. Many games i have played in require the player to acknowladge a set of rules to even allow themselves to play.

Im basiccly trying to pinpoint the need for rules in an online game, and then say *why* they are not needed for an enjoyable game.

1 Common Rules (to name but a few)

a) Maximum of 8 Cavalry Units.

This is strange, Maximum of 8 units of cavalry limits a Hunic or Sarmation/Roxoloani player in BI (Parthia/Armenia/Numidian in Vanilla) and i feel 8 units of Cav is totaly un-warranted. IF i were to face a game against someone taking 8 units of cavalry i would know to be prepared, largley because my normal armies feautre lots of spearmen anyway (but thats beside the point ) *if* you see someone taking any of the aforementioned armies just take a look at the amount of men they have taken, thats a fairly good indicator of the type of army available. e.g in a large size game a Sarmatian player with 600 men is probably OD'ing on the cav, to counter it take your armies basic spearman choice (Saxon Keel/Barb-Picitish Spearmen/Levy Spearmen etc etc) this provides an effective cunter to cavalry spammers.
Archers are also one of the best ways to counter Cavalry units. 4 Units of Archers with lvl 2 weapon upgrades is a) very cheap b) deadly to cavalry. Hide the Archers behind your main inf, turn off Skirmisher mode and watch your archers pick off the cav one by one. Obviously upgrade the weps to lvl 3 if you can.

b) Maximum of 2 Units of Horse Archers/No Cantabarian Circle

I can see were this is comming from, but again i disagree. As a Burgundii player i find Horse Archers are soemthing i could spend time and energy worryign about, but i dont, for the very simple reason that once they have run out of arrows the main enemy army is most likley 6ft Under, or my army is, this often leaves the Cav Archers in the strange position of being the only 2 units left alive at the end. Many players will send their cav archers out ahead to draw out certain units (cavalry/archers/light inf) of course they will never catch them so is this a good way to spend 600 Denarii?? not really imho, a unit of cheap Barb Cavalry will give the Horse Archers all the chasing they need and also survive the arrow storm that will come its way, at about half the price of the cav archers.
Limiting them too two units actually increases thier effectivness, commanders learn to value them.
Archers have a hard time agianst horse archers due to the Cantabarian Circle, which helps keep your HA alive....indeed it does but in my experiance (stats may not reflect this) they kill less. people may argue with me on this, but i find that a unit of Desert Horsmen (berber cav archers) will kill more than a Circling unit of Sassanid Horse Archers. no idea why, but in my experiance it is the truth

C) Maximum of 6 Units of Any one Type

I disagree with this totaly and Utterly. Some people say it is to stop people spamming the Plumbatarii, so what? Plumbatarii are only good agianst Infantry charging them head on.....hit em in the side with a unit of Burgundian Lancers, or Clibinarii and watch those Legionaires go running back to Ravenna.
In my Celt army i take 8 units of Gallowglasses, why? beacuse they are good celt infantry. my opponents regularly take many units of Plumbatarii and get jacked off when i take 8 units of Gallows. why? because i have *8* of them. this is of course totaly unfair, compared to the oh so weak Plumbatarii army of doom. now everyone has at one point used Plumbatarii...in fact the first army i used was WRE with 5 Plumbs and a 1st Cohort. i rarely lost a game. now however i use a totaly differant army (ill go into more detail later)
and i enjoy playing it, its never one sided unlike the games withg my Plumbatarii army.
and the point is that i still have very good games with no limits than i do against people who list 10 restrictions on the game.

D) Maximum of 2 Units of Berserkers

I can see what some people are getting at, Berserkers are very good, however they also have the armour of a small rubber duck, shoot em and they fall, they have two HP, but a defence of 9, compare that too a legionaires defence of 25 and we see the differance.
My Burgundii Army in a 10K game looks like this:

Generals Unit: Chosen Horde Swordsmen
2 Units of Lombard Berserkers
6 Units of Burgundii Lancers
2 Units of Barbarian Cavalry
5 Units of Barbarian Spearmen
2 Units of Chosen Axemen

Ok, i lose games sometimes, i also win games. and the Berserkers have *never* won a game for me, i tried using 4 Berserkers, and i ended up losing more than i did with two units, god alon knows why ( ) but i did. oh, and with this army i did not build around the rules of units and restrictions, i built it because it is balanced.

Hounds of Culaan - More berserkers, weaker than Lombards but easier to build and cheaper, potentialy you can field more but people restrict them. why?? oh why? they are not game winners, any more than Lombards are, or any more than a ERE army of 3 units of clibinarii is. Berserkersgo...well..berserk, you lose control and they hunt enemies relentlesly, but i prefer direct control over frenzy, and im sure many other people do too.

E) No Artillary

This is the biggie, this and Elephants. The rule of no Artillary is one used in 99% of games you will play. i do not see why they should
not be used, they are not that great. Onagers cant hit moving units at all, and ballistas kill less than Archers do...so why cant we take them? the reason is, and it is the same for every restricted unit, that people cannot figure out valid tactics to beat them. Personally i prefer using light cav to drive the crews away from the machines, other people use Archers/Skirmishers though.
Liek i said earlier, Artillary can be beaten by people who actually think about the overall strategy, and use thier faster units to draw fire away from their main line units, who use archers to pepper the crews, who use light cav to drive the crew away. who can succesfully beat the enemy army without caring about the two units of onagers shooting balls of fire on them. people who can, in a word adapt to new enviroments and short term tactics with a felxibly designed army.

F) No Elephants

The best games i ever played were against |StormyLegion|Sparks persian army with 2 Elephants, 8 Horse Archers and 10 Levy Spearmen, i could not beat, got knows i tried. but the whole fun was that i spent time devising strategy after strategy to alleviate disaster for my Slavs/Germans or Berbers in equal measure.
Elephants can be downed by Legionaires....Romano British Legionaires. Javlins are key, and Flaming Arrows are pretty usful too , i still lost but the point was i *nearly* won the game, but i still enjoyed it.

G) Limits on Archers

Lots of Archers are hard to cope with. i recomend using about 3-4 units, but they are not exactly hard to kill, again the wonderful Barbarian Cavalry can facilitate in the removal of most archers. Remember, when archers run they dont shoot.
If someone limits you too 2 units of archers, then the reason is that they have an army that cannot cope with more than two units.

Putting my money were my Mouth is!

The Army i use to play online varies depending on what army i face. If i face Rome, i go for my Celtic Army:
Generals Unit: Noble Cavalry
3 Units of Noble Cavalry
2 Hounds of Culaan
7-8 Gallowglasses with gold/silver weapons
2 Pictish Crossbowmen
2 Kerns

I personally find this army balanced enough to take out some armies, and i do lose my share, i would say i am 50/50, when Hounds charge in conjunction with Gallows then the enemy knows whats hit them

Over to the Burgundii

Generals Unit: Chosen Horde Swordsmen
2 Units of Lombard Berserkers
6 Units of Burgundii Lancers
2 Units of Barbarian Cavalry
5 Units of Barbarian Spearmen
2 Units of Chosen Axemen

This army as i have already mentioned is balanced and can cope with cav spammers, and also infantry spammers. It is fun to play with and i am also at 50/50 wins losses with it.the more cavalry in this army shows that Lancers are very useful, in flanking and also Wedge formation into another Cav unit, the +10 Charge Bonus is worth it imho....but i do also love the units design and the fact they are "Lancers". Lancers of course are a very "flash" unit in the British Military History.

Summary

Rules are made by the people the rules help. God knows i am a hypocrite when i say this, i only stopped the Artillary rule today, once i actually looked at my game plan and thought about how *we* are ruining the whole point of online gaming in the RTW Universe. Rules only hinder the person joining the game, not the host, and i think to balance out games of BI and RTW online we should remove the factors designed by us, the players to balance the game.....the rules we impose on our games.
I know i am going to get flak from people saying rules stop people spamming units, but if they take the time to look over what i have just posted then they may, hopefully chaneg their minds.

well, thats my two cents (+$50 shipping charge ) and like i said, i hope i can change some old habbits around here. If anyone wants to discuss this with me, then feel free, i can be contacted on MSN at teh_bear@fsmail.net, and any posts here i will do my utmost to respond to (im in Scotland, so Americans and Aussies may have trouble getting me on MSN )

Later Folks!!

[Orda Khan]

Well Grimsta, you will most definitely not be getting any critcism from me. Maybe more people would do well to adopt your approach to a game that should be an enjoyable experience. I have maintained this since I began playing. Rules only ruin the game and as you rightly point out, are imposed mainly to 'help' overcome a supposed problem, that problem being the fact that they cannot overcome it any other way

.....Orda

[Vanya]

GAH!

Well said.

Vanya always likes challenges anyways.

Vanya sez... If host fear da rush, host low koku.

Now, if only Vanya could get some Roman Arquebusiers...

GAH!

[GrimSta]

thanks for the replies guys, i would have responded sooner but i only just got full membership

I uploaded some battle replays, ill get a link and post it here

[Puzz3D]

Im basiccly trying to pinpoint the need for rules in an online game, and then say *why* they are not needed for an enjoyable game.

I'm against rules as well. The game shouldn't need them. If the gameplay without rules deteriorates to armies that can only be countered by the same army, the game is fundamentally flawed and isn't worth playing.

[hellenes]

I'm against rules as well. The game shouldn't need them. If the gameplay without rules deteriorates to armies that can only be countered by the same army, the game is fundamentally flawed and isn't worth playing.

Correct, and to add something:
Rules were created to play in a flawed and imbalanced game against:
People that you dont know.
People that arent your friends.
People that play ONLY to win.
People that have no lives but only testing the engine for exploits and weaknesses.
And we all know the percentage of such people online...

Hellenes

[Jochi Khan]

It is now getting so bad that, players joining a game hosted with *no rules* are trying to insist on 'no art' 'no eles' 'xx max cav' etc. etc. etc.

What would happen if you walked onto the football field and told the opposing side "no offside, no penalties and no tackling"
I know what sort of answer you would get.

The game is there to be played, it has it's own rules, you don't make it up as you go along.

Yes unfortunately, there are people who 'must win at all costs'.

But, it has been this way right from Shogun through Medieval and now into Rome.

Jochi

[GrimSta]

I am in a clan at the moment, but i have all but stopped playing online games due to the shear amount of rules....it really does suck, and i will still play online games, but only against my good friends and people with similar outlooks on the game as myself.

[Orda Khan]

People that have no lives but only testing the engine for exploits and weaknesses.

That sums up Total War MP. Very well said Hellenes. This is no new phenomenon, every Total War game has been fundamentally flawed and we should remember that. Rules have been, or could have been, applied to any of the series and all these fundamentally flawed games probably were/are not worth playing. On reflection, I have possibly wasted five years by playing this series and all the crap that comes with it. But all the crap is basically introduced by the players not the game. It's the players analytical approach to a game that is supposed to represent historical warfare that ruins MP. I have played many MP games where the approach was to field realistic armies and these were far more enjoyable than the usual

.......Orda

[hellenes]

That sums up Total War MP. Very well said Hellenes. This is no new phenomenon, every Total War game has been fundamentally flawed and we should remember that. Rules have been, or could have been, applied to any of the series and all these fundamentally flawed games probably were/are not worth playing. On reflection, I have possibly wasted five years by playing this series and all the crap that comes with it. But all the crap is basically introduced by the players not the game. It's the players analytical approach to a game that is supposed to represent historical warfare that ruins MP. I have played many MP games where the approach was to field realistic armies and these were far more enjoyable than the usual

.......Orda

One word:
http://www.blizzard.com/patches/

Hellenes

[Puzz3D]

It's the players analytical approach to a game that is supposed to represent historical warfare that ruins MP.

The game never has been realistic or historically accurate, and isn't intended to be. It is an analytical game not a battle simulator.

There is nothing wrong with trying to take a strong army. It is after all a competitive game. What I'm saying is that every army should have a counterarmy. The game is supposedly designed so that every unit has a counterunit. If that is working properly, an army overloaded with a certain unit will have a counterarmy containing many of the counterunit. As a result, no single army will emerge as the best army.

The plethora of rules being used in RTW multiplayer is due to the poor playblance. Apparently RTW/BI has improved playbalance, but players won't want to give up the rules they've been using for the past year. Past games in the series used less rules which is an indication that those games worked better. Original STW was played without any unit limits. Taking 16 monks in STW was considered cheap, but players like Obake insist that 16 monks could be defeated.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Rules can have three different functions:
- help newbies from picking spam armies that will be defeated in 10 seconds
- making your own army invincible by choosing rules that exactly fits your faction/army
- playing a certain type of standard game where you think the balance between different units is good

- When I set rules it's because of no.1 and no.3, but I also often open 1vs1 games where I tell the visitor, the challenger, to set the rules. In 2vs2, no.1 is important because if someone gets a newbie ally it's ok as long as the newbie ally doesn't bring 20 elephants and get them running amok through his ally's army after 10 seconds. A 2vs2 game with 1 beginner + 1 good player vs 2 good players or experts works fine if the armies brought aren't too bad.
- No.2 also unfortunately happens often, but it's as simple as just leaving the server if you find the rules boring. If the host plays roman there's at least no fear of an unjust game (maybe a boring game, but not an unjust game) because you can always also pick romans.

I find that some of the most enjoyable games are 12.5k no art no ele, or 15k denarii with no art or ele. I also often limit berserkers, but usually to max 5. Even if I don't think it's fun with more than around 2 berserkers, I like to set the limit of the rule a little higher to make the enemy army more unpredictable. What I want is for the rules to not destroy the possible element of surprise and possibility of the enemy bringing an army you couldn't predict, so that you're forced to bring an own army which is balanced and can fight almost any type of enemy army. As a matter of fact, I use almost the exact same army against all opponents, no matter which faction they choose, for the purpose of getting a both fair, fun and challenging game.

[Orda Khan]

The game never has been realistic or historically accurate, and isn't intended to be. It is an analytical game not a battle simulator.

Oh.....Puzz3D disagrees with me........no surprise there then.

represent historical warfare

Well this was my quote, which nowhere mentions historical accuracy.

People that have no lives but only testing the engine for exploits and weaknesses.

....And this is the quote by Hellenes that sums up Total War MP. Notice I say Total War and not Rome Total War. I could go on but there really is no point. When I see factions and units from ancient armies all over the game and given the very description of the game and then someone says it does not represent historical warfare, then obviously I am wasting my time. But I suspect some people, like Hellenes, understand what I am saying

.......Orda

[Puzz3D]

It's the players analytical approach to a game that is supposed to represent historical warfare that ruins MP. I have played many MP games where the approach was to field realistic armies and these were far more enjoyable than the usual

I see no point going into battles with armies that are inferior to those of the opponents. You fielded your "realistic armies" in games where the other players weren't doing that. That ruined MP for you. I don't know where you get the idea that the game is "supposed to represent historical warfare". It doesn't, and even Creative Assembly says it doesn't.

[M.Cornelius Marcellus]

I see this topics is about rules on MP BI games.
Some say rules are necessary cause the game is unbalanced. Some say that cantabrian, art, ele, berserker are not fair.
My opinion is that BI is the most balanced game of the totalwar series. I mean the one that presents the most number of different factions all competitive.
All factions have strength and weakness.
Lombardi/Burgundi – axes, berserkers, archers, no cantabrian
Eastern empire – plumbatarii, e. archers, no cantabrain
Western empire – plumbatarii, palatine, bad archers, no cantabrian
Sassanid – archers, ele, catafracts, cantabrian, bad infantry
Saxons – hearts, axes, bad archers, no art
Slavs, Hun, Vandals – Good archers and horse achers, cantabrian circle, some good infantry, no art
And so on.
Imo if you play without rules, accepting ele, art, berserker, and so on, the game is various and still balanced. And for this we must thank CA … for this not for other.

Some can spam. And that surely could spoil the game. I saw more than once 10-12 plumbatarii army, and more than once 6-8 eastern archers armies. I saw all elephants too. But usually the spam is tipical of new players and childish persons, because it is not challenging.
So if you are veteran, try to beat it. That’s all.

Marcus

[Puzz3D]

My opinion is that BI is the most balanced game of the totalwar series. I mean the one that presents the most number of different factions all competitive.

I place a lot of value on what you say marcus, but even if the game is balanced enough to make counterarmies playable it doesn't help me overcome the other aspects of the game which I find detract from the playing experience. They are the excessive running speeds of units, too many units to control, the delay in response to orders, the battlefield upgrades and the ground textures which make it very hard see your units from a high perspective.

The turning off of the chat in the foyer doesn't bother me much because like Vanya I'm fine with jumping into games at random to play with whoever is there without rules. The early days of MTW before players would only play with their clanmates were fun for their diversity and spontaneity.

[GrimSta]

Can i just stick my head in here and say thanks to all who responded and who actually care about the multiplayer aspect in RTW/BI....this thread died about 2 weeks ago at TWC :(

Keep up the debate!

[M.Cornelius Marcellus]

Hi Yuuki,
after some games i can distinguish my units well, just like a did on VI.
Imo the run speed is higher but it is only a problem to get used to it.
The number of units its the same problem: get used to it. I am old and very slow in clicking, but still i can fight well. And often the best stategy is too move slowly and react slowly but precisely, even in BI.
Unit control in BI is better: no more alt ctrl click ... groups ... just create your formation and drag it. That is all. With this it is simpler even to create a coordinated attack.

What is the real problem imo? Bad chat, bad connection and lags. That is surely the subject where CA give us a very bad low service.

Marcus

[Puzz3D]

Well I did cause a lot of my own problems because I tried to play RTW as I had played MTW and STW. I was using ALT click to move groups and it doesn't work all that well. Dragging the line is faster and works every time. The right click for movement is much better than MTW's left click which often caused you to select a new unit unintentionally. I also turned off banners in RTW which makes it harder to identify your units, and banners should be on for MP. I used a speed slowdown mod in SP for a long time which made it harder to get used to the speed in MP, but have stopped using that and play at regular speed in SP all the time now. I still think units move too fast, but I can play it like that. Maybe I'll try RTW/BI again. RTW v1.3 didn't lag much at all when I tried it in 3v3 with large units, and was very playable. The phalanx even worked well.