RTW Multiplayer Rules: A Synopsis

[Puzz3D]

Why the appearance of some MTW units have not received the same level of criticism is beyond me. I can only put it down to the fact that MTW, as a game, was acceptable to the masses. It seems that RTW was less favourable and has therefore received ( IMO ) undue criticism.

More people play RTW online than played MTW. So it seems RTW is the one more acceptable to the masses. RTW also has the most fantasy elements. RTW has also brought back the confounded battlefield upgrades to multiplayer which had been eliminated in MTW/VI as a result of suggestions made right here in these forums. It didn't make sense that towards the end of a battle a unit of 3 men could defeat a unit 10 times larger, and I saw replays demonstrating just that. It also doesn't make sense that a ranged unit gains increased melee capability during a battle because it kills enemies with its ranged weapon. Battlefield upgrades favor strong units because they are more likely to get alot of kills. This exacerbates the issue of overpowered units because they become relatively stronger than less capable units as the battle progresses, and this boost in melee capability doesn't cost the player any money.

By 'some' I presume you are talking about Hunnic Elite? Do you think Elite units should be beaten by Light Cav? Should there always be a counter unit? Maybe there is a counter tactic instead.

I was thinking that every unit should have a counter unit. As long as that's true, the multiplayer system where you can buy as many of whatever you want will self-regulate. The alternative is to restrict purchasing those units that are not balanced relative to the other units so that the armies remain diverse.

I don't think light cav should beat hunnic elite archers. I mentioned that because in another post you said light cav was the counter to horse archers. If the counter to hunnic elite is hunnic elite, then have fun but you won't see me playing the game. It's the same reason you don't see me playing much MTW/VI where the spears and ranged units are so weak that the game devolved into cav/sword armies. I might still play some MTW/VI MP from time to time just for competitive reasons. I choose MTW/VI over RTW/BI because for me the speedup of movement coupled with the delay of units responding to orders, the increase in the number of units to be controlled, the battlefield upgrades and the bad ground textures of RTW/BI all detract from a good playing experience.

[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!

[Puzz3D]

But in RTW there is no such limit, so there is no point in buying weaker units. On top of that the speed difference between light (weaker) and heavy (stronger) infantry/cavalry is so small (and both insanely high) that this is nolonger an advantage worth considering. So why buy any weaker units at all if you can buy a whole army of stronger units ? Even if they have good counter-units that doesnt help much, because unless you know the enemy will buy 20 units of type A before the battle starts - so you can buy 10 or so units that counter type A - it is unlikely you will have enough counter units to deal with such a "spam" army.

So either you make the RPS values so extreme that a counter-unit can deal with 2 or 3 of the units it's supposed to counter, or you have to put an artificial number on each unit type/class. Until then the game will largely be decided by the army you buy, and not by the skill of the players.

We made the RPS in Samurai Wars for MTW/VI strong enough that a spear costing 400 is 2x stronger than the best cav which costs 1200. That cavalry unit runs 2x faster than the spear. The sword which is 2.5x stronger than the spear and 20% faster costs 1000. The sword can be killed by the arrows of an archer costing 500 or by the cav costing 1200. We set the money level to 10k which averages 625 per unit. This limits the number of elite units you can buy, and the game also has the 20% surcharge for more than 4 of one type. There are no battlefield upgrades to upset this balance in Samurai Wars, and purchased upgrades are not cost effective. At 10k it's not possible to buy an all cav or all sword army. You can skew your army to be about 50% cav or swords which keeps things interesting, but an army containing 25% of the counterunit should be viable.

This is the kind of playbalance design which Creative Assembly doesn't seem to have time to develop for the vanilla game. The 20% surcharge in MTW/VI on more than 4 of a single unit type was a hedge by the designer against imbalance. Samurai Wars is balanced well enough that it woud play fine without this surcharge feature. Since the kensai unit was impossible to properly balance in this engine, we eliminated it from the Samurai Wars online unit set. That Creative Assembly includes units in multiplayer that are impossible to balance tells you something about where they are when it comes to balancing.

[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.

[Orda Khan]

I don't think light cav should beat hunnic elite archers. I mentioned that because in another post you said light cav was the counter to horse archers.

This is not quite true. In the 'shields are better v missiles' thread I suggested a 'tactic' using Light Cav. This was not a one on one counter, it was a trap which may or may not be successful. The attempt would be to get behind the HA, target it frontally and close from the rear with the Light Cav.

I did try to explain my views regarding rules and the game and like GrimSta, I think they only serve to spoil the game. I have played in battles where balanced armies were fielded and I thoroughly enjoyed them. I have played others where SPAM armies were used and the enjoyment factor was zero.

People have chosen to believe I am a BI 'Fan Boy'....They are wrong, there is plenty I would change about RTW or BI but that was true with MTW and STW too. No doubt this will be true of the next TW game, which I do not think I will be buying ( a lot depends on the era CA choose )

I certainly think a lot was lost when the old 'Friendly' and 'Competitive' games were lumped together, the game approach definitely seemed to change, even some people seemed to change. I remember the games I used to host in STW attacking hills, there were even comments here on .Org about how much fun they were. Nowadays it feels like fun is a dirty word so perhaps by not playing Total War MP I am better off

.....Orda

[Redleg]

Some of the discussion is far above how and why I play the game. Now I don't play much online RTW, actually not at all- but from my time of playing STW and MTW I will share this


One should play the army that they wish to play. You will find that by playing heavy on one type of unit - your army is unbalanced. You might win lots of battles with that army - but the game loses its luster because you have neglected to experiment and try other troop mixes and nations. What good is it to play with an unbeatable army - no enjoyment nor learning new game tactics with that.

Personally I go for a mix of troops that seem to make tactical sense for the battle in which I am fighting. Am I defending or am I attacking. If I defend - I want more spears and ranged weapons - with Cav and swords to protect the flanks. If I am attacking I want a heavier sword mix - but still bring spears and ranged because of their effects.

If one wants to balance the battle use the amount of money available. That is the best equalizer of the game. Play with an amount that allows the players to have a decent mix of troops without allowing a player to over-equipped or over valor there armies.

In the days of STW that value was a certain amount it allowed for a good mix of troops at low honor levels whiched forced the players to think and fight tactical battles.

With MTW the same applied. The individual who thought about his unit selection, bought his army according to the tactical role his army was to have, and thought about the terrian that the battle was being fought on - was always a pleasure and enjoyable to fight - regardless if I won or lost.

Find the balance that allows one to enjoy the game - forget about setting rules that tell you how many or what type of units to bring. FIght the army you can afford to fight with the money that is allocated for the battle.

Mix and match - constant changing of units is what the multiplayer function allows you.

[Puzz3D]

Find the balance that allows one to enjoy the game - forget about setting rules that tell you how many or what type of units to bring. FIght the army you can afford to fight with the money that is allocated for the battle.

STW was balanced at 5000 koku. This gave an average of 312 koku per unit in a system where the prices of the units ranged from 100 to 600. MTW is also balanced at 5000 florins, but no one will play it there because the morale is 4 points lower than it was in STW where the units were purchased at honor 2 as opposed to valor 0 in MTW. The rout point was also moved from -24 in STW to -16 in MTW (later increased to -18 in VI). So, people play MTW/VI at 10k, but this allows too many elite units, and on top of that the upgrades possible at 10k damages the unit balance especially because ranged units get discounted upgrades. This gives an average of 625 florin per unit in a system where the unit prices range from 100 to 675 if you eliminate the peasants (50) at the low end and lancers (850), swiss armored pikemen (750) and gothic knights (725) at the top end all of which are only available in late era.

[Redleg]

STW was balanced at 5000 koku. This gave an average of 312 koku per unit in a system where the prices of the units ranged from 100 to 600. MTW is also balanced at 5000 florins, but no one will play it there because the morale is 4 points lower than it was in STW where the units were purchased at honor 2 as opposed to valor 0 in MTW. The rout point was also moved from -24 in STW to -16 in MTW (later increased to -18 in VI). So, people play MTW/VI at 10k, but this allows too many elite units, and on top of that the upgrades possible at 10k damages the unit balance especially because ranged units get discounted upgrades. This gives an average of 625 florin per unit in a system where the unit prices range from 100 to 675 if you eliminate the peasants (50) at the low end and lancers (850), swiss armored pikemen (750) and gothic knights (725) at the top end all of which are only available in late era.

Yep the 5K games in STW were always good fights.

I found that one can enjoy a good balanced game at 8000K for MI - not many want to play at that value - but it provides for a good balance and reduces the number of elit units that people can bring.

I found my best balance was to bring what I considered the basic army for the time.

mostly low cost troops - spears and arrows, low cost cavarly - with about 1/4 of the army being Medium to elite troops.

What many forget is that most armies in Medievil times were peasant levies or if the lord had lots of money - he might have a better trained militia with spears and bowmen.