Multiplayer issues

[Puzz3D]

Im not sure if "complex" is the word u are looking for there Yuuki.

MTW/VI runs off a very similar engine to STW but has many more features and things which variate the combat and effect the base stats such as spear ranks , armour peircing weapons, and shield bonuses.

I dare to imply that rather, in its simplicity you find STW to be the most tactical and most enjoyable of all the Total War games...

but for complexity in gameplay I think that title must go to its successor...

I mean complexity in the gameplay. There is a difference between complexity in the gameplay and complexity in the battle engine. It's true that the MTW battle engine is an improved STW engine and has more features, but the tactical gameplay of MTW/VI v2.01 is less complex than STW v1.12. RTW has an even more complex engine (although it is missing a squeezed too tight feature and a man specific distance calculation for ranged shooters), but that didn't translate into a more complex gameplay because the features of the engine weren't sufficiently adjusted relative to one another. The gameplay of RTW is the most simplistic of all the total war games.

If CA continues on the course it has been on, then MTW2 will have the most simplistic battle gameplay of all the total war games. When you see them spending time on "finishing moves", that doesn't bode well for the kind of battle gameplay that is required to restore the complexity of the tactical game to what it once was.

[Orda Khan]

Maybe they will have learned from the experience of deteriorating tactical play and spend the time to ensure that MTW II is the game we all want. I find it no surprise that STW was tactically a far better game, simple is usually far more effective than complex. I still think that this simplicity can be utilised even with 21 factions. There were no upgrades other than honour in STW and their appearance in STW/MI did nothing to improve things, they just introduced a multitude of game spoiling imbalances. Providing units can start with decent enough morale so that there are no chain routs, I see no need for any upgrades in MP, not even honour/valour. I hope CA will strive to achieve a good MP experience. Overly strong or too weak factions will not do. Unique faction units and variety of use among factions will keep the game interesting. Most important is a user friendly Lobby and a reliable server

.......Orda

[BHCWarman88]

It's good to see that you are intrested in how the multiplayer game turns out, but have one thing to say.

The totalwar series is a singleplayer series of games, and working on the campaign and the ai and everything to do with it should be ca's priority. Mulitplayer really isnt' that important to me, and i'm sure to a lot of the org members. So the campaign game should definitely get priority...

Just my 2c

so, Work 90% of your time on SP, and only 10% on MP?? I think BOTH, SP and MP, should get equal Priority. if you don't like MP, or if it not important to you, that alright. we all can say our Options, but MP should be worked on euqally with SP,if not More, because RTW's SP sucked, STW's and MTW's SP was cool. I fell in love with STW, but RTW SP sucked. BI's SP was kinda better..

[Puzz3D]

Work 90% of your time on SP, and only 10% on MP??

According to what GilJaysmith said, RTW got 15% of the work. That's enough if you have someone working on it that knows what they are doing. It's pretty strange that total war demos are not MP since they are only battles. MP shouldn't be something left to get working after the game is released as it was with RTW and MTW.

[Duke John]

but MP should be worked on euqally with SP,if not More, because RTW's SP sucked,

Well according to many MP was bad, so your reasoning is flawed as apparently the whole game is bad (as both SP and MP is bad). I'm gonna whine more time that MP could have been alot more fun with a mod, but such an insane idea is of course refused by the MP community. The MP community does need to get more united if it wants to get the fullest out of TW games. A bit of tweaking will always make it better so, the SP community knows that and is embracing the mods that patches alot of bugs. That the MP community does not do this is not the wisest thing to do in my opinion.

[Puzz3D]

The MP community does need to get more united if it wants to get the fullest out of TW games. A bit of tweaking will always make it better so, the SP community knows that and is embracing the mods that patches alot of bugs. That the MP community does not do this is not the wisest thing to do in my opinion.

Don't let CA off the hook, by saying it's up to the community to make the game play properly. Besides, you cannot get a concensus of opinion on which mod to use in MP, and some issues can't be fixed in a mod. The official release should play well enough that mods are unnecessary.

[Duke John]

The official release should play well enough that mods are unnecessary.

The game plays well enough for some people, it might be good enough for CA.
Others have a different opinion. What is their solution? Wait 2 years for the next engine and hope that it will be better. I admire their patience.

[Puzz3D]

The game plays well enough for some people, it might be good enough for CA. Others have a different opinion. What is their solution? Wait 2 years for the next engine and hope that it will be better. I admire their patience.

The Community Mod, STWmod and DUXmod for MTW/VI which all provide good gameplay are failures because most players won't use them. Even the existing STW community uses the official v1.02 stat rather than mods. There is no other choice than to wait for CA to bring the gameplay back up to the level it was in original STW or until another game not developed by CA does it.

[Myrddraal]

The Community Mod, STWmod and DUXmod for MTW/VI which all provide good gameplay are failures because most players won't use them.

Thats exactly what DJ is saying. If the MP community accepted to play with a mod, then life would be easier. Thats all....

[Duke John]

Puzz3D, I know that you have tried your best making MP better using mods. NTW has/had a big enough MP community to form clans. NTW2 will again be designed for MP and I am sure that enough players will come online to have a few games. Sure it won't be possible to play a NTW2 MP game whenever you like, but that is a sacrifice most are willing to make to play a balanced game in their favourite period. So I can't understand why there isn't at least a small group of players who does this for the roman period.

Perhaps the MP community should ask for an easy way to switch between mods while staying in the lobby... which was already possible in a way with M:TW

[Puzz3D]

If the MP community accepted to play with a mod, then life would be easier.

That's never going to happen.

So I can't understand why there isn't at least a small group of players who does this for the roman period.

Because the MTW/VI battle engine is better, and you have control over the important stats (except fatigue rate). So, that's the one that got the most work put into it by players interested in bring the gameplay up to the highest level.

[Orda Khan]

So I can't understand why there isn't at least a small group of players who does this for the roman period.

This would have been possible if people had stayed around and made a bit of effort, unfortunately they did not. When all is said and done, the MP game should be a working feature when the game is released, it was not and most players simply quit

........Orda

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Puzz3D, I know that you have tried your best making MP better using mods. NTW has/had a big enough MP community to form clans. NTW2 will again be designed for MP and I am sure that enough players will come online to have a few games. Sure it won't be possible to play a NTW2 MP game whenever you like, but that is a sacrifice most are willing to make to play a balanced game in their favourite period. So I can't understand why there isn't at least a small group of players who does this for the roman period.

Perhaps the MP community should ask for an easy way to switch between mods while staying in the lobby... which was already possible in a way with M:TW

There were a few RTW MP mod, they had no success at all, and some small groups of people did try to create and push mods. I guess the difference between MP mod and SP mod is that, in MP, everyone got an idea of what is balanced or not balanced... There are HUGE questions and debates about what is needed to make the game better in MP.
In SP, well, you can pretty much mod it yourself, and well, if it plays fun, even if it is not balanced, it matters less, since anyway, playing vs AI is not balanced to start with.
Of course, good SP modders will try to achieve a good balance between spears, infantry, missile, cavalry... But, to be honest, even if they are not successfull, chances are it won't show up too badly and it won't make much of a difference.
In MP, unbalanced units WILL make a difference. Badly.

You also need to understand that many players just want to get a game, play a while... Waiting in lobby for that 6th player for a modded 3v3 is not a good experience.

A switch in lobby to play mod/ unmodded games would be good.
Even better would be to play with the host (possibly modded) unit file, with a clear indication for all players that those files are modded and that they are playing a modded game.

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Because the MTW/VI battle engine is better, and you have control over the important stats (except fatigue rate). So, that's the one that got the most work put into it by players interested in bring the gameplay up to the highest level.

I don't know if MTW/VI is a better engine, but I'd definitly agree it's far easier to mod MTW into a balance game than RTW.

Way too much stuff working into odd ways in RTW.

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

My wish list for MTW2 MP:

- good lobby/ MP specific features; ignore that works, observer mode, chat with multiple people without 10 000 clicks
- compared to RTW/BI, less chaos on battle; in RTW, compared to MTW/VI, where I could predict what would happen when one unit was moving/ fighting, when a unit would break, RTW/BI is chaotic: sometimes unit breaks for no reason, and overall, with its fast speed and killrate, it seems very, very chaotic and unpredictable. In test games, with similar units doing 1v1, I could get very random results.
Part of a strategy game is the ability to plan, since results are VERY random, what can be planned?
I think a slower game would be more interesting and less random; or if random, that randomness would be less damaging.
If I got a fight between tow units of similar strenght, I want to be able to know they'll fight 2 min until half strenght then one will rout with some good odd to be right.
In RTW, one may route in 10 sec, or in 5 min. And even if of similar strenght, the end result might be very unbalanced.
- better balance: since MTW 1.1, CA has not been able to make a good anti cavalry infantry units that works...

Louis,

[Orda Khan]

IMO, original MTW was much better than the eventual VI disappointment

.....Orda

[Puzz3D]

IMO, original MTW was much better than the eventual VI disappointment

VI got rid of the swipe (infinite charge bug), and got rid of the battlefield upgrades.


Louis,

RTW/BI has battlefield upgrades which alters the balance of the units. This also means that shooters get better melee ability from the kills they get with their ranged weapon. Why would killing with a bow make you better with your sword?

RTW/BI doesn't have a squeezed too tight combat penalty.

It has a delay before units respond to orders (good luck trying to counter enemy attacking moves).

It has no visual obstruction effect for shooters in deep ranks.

It has no distance calculation for shooters in deep ranks (if the front man can shoot, all the men shoot even if the unit is 20 ranks deep).

Units run 1.5x faster with low fatigue rate, and go into slow motion animation when fighting. This reduces the number of combat cycles which increases the uncertainty as you pointed out.

The maps are smaller than MTW.

The normal unit size was reduced to 67% of what it was in MTW to maintain framerate. This is another factor which increases the uncertainty of combat. Some uncertainty in the combat is good, but too much is bad.

You don't have separate control of hold formation and hold position.

You may not have morale boost for covered flanks. It's never been revealed if this is still a function in RTW/BI.

The velocity of arrows is too high causing the trajectory to be too low.

The AI changes your army formation into a line when you move your army if it consideres it unformed. This means you can't maintain unusual formations.

You can't have subgroups.

You can't point to where you want a unit to face and have it rotate to face that direction.

I haven't been ablt to figure out how to "about face" my army with a single command without the right and left side units marching to the opposite flank.

The fatigue indicator is gone from the unit icons.

[x-dANGEr]

All the formation matters you adressed can be solved simply. If you're afraid of ruining your army's formation, just group them, advance them, then ungroup.

[Puzz3D]

All the formation matters you adressed can be solved simply. If you're afraid of ruining your army's formation, just group them, advance them, then ungroup.

I loose all my groups doing that.

[Orda Khan]

I loose all my groups doing that.

Group army, drag and drop works every time. Make sub groups and drag and drop each group if you want to make sub groups. Either way your army maintains whatever formation you choose

......Orda

[Puzz3D]

Group army, drag and drop works every time. Make sub groups and drag and drop each group if you want to make sub groups. Either way your army maintains whatever formation you choose.

Sure I can move each individual group, but that's less efficient to how movement was done in the previous engine where you could move your whole army forward with a single click and maintain formation without erasing and then recreating the individual groups.

[Orda Khan]

I used to try playing RTW like MTW too but it is a different game and controls have changed. The use of sub groups is really only required when about to engage, up until that point I leave my army as a whole. Archers, infantry and cav or whatever group choice can be asigned at this point or not, it is just as easy not to even bother. Any unit or units can be given individual orders and after a foray can be brought back to original formation with drag and drop, it is that easy

.......Orda

[Puzz3D]

I used to try playing RTW like MTW too but it is a different game and controls have changed. The use of sub groups is really only required when about to engage, up until that point I leave my army as a whole. Archers, infantry and cav or whatever group choice can be asigned at this point or not, it is just as easy not to even bother. Any unit or units can be given individual orders and after a foray can be brought back to original formation with drag and drop, it is that easy

That's right. It's easier not to bother with groups. You call that a better movement system? I don't. Also, don't forget the previous engine allowed subgroups within groups. There were two independent levels of grouping. You could do some sophisticated maneuvers with that system far beyond simply putting all archers, infantry and cavalry in 3 homogeneous groups.

The right click for moving units is a big improvement, and it was requested many times over the years by players. We had a patch to STW, the MI add-on, a patch to MI, MTW, a patch to MTW, a VI add-on and a patch to that, and in all that time CA never put in the right click requested. Now the game uses right click, but no player asked for an AI that would change the army formation when you moved it or for the subgroup feature to be removed.

Now all I have to do is redraw my groups each time I want to move them. I could do that in the previous engine, but I didn't use it much until it was time to regroup the army because it has a drawback. If your cursor hits the edge of the screen when you go to redraw, the camera moves. That disorients the player, and you have to take time to reposition the camera. I've played this game enough online to know you can't afford that kind of inefficiency when moving units and remain competitive at the highest level.

[Orda Khan]

I could do that in the previous engine, but I didn't use it much until it was time to regroup the army because it has a drawback.

Yes it was a drawback because if you did, the group did not maintain its formation, in RTW and BI it does. Groups and sub groups are only required when about to engage, until that point the army is marching as a whole and these groups do not need to be homogeneous either. There is no inefficiency, only different commands

.........Orda

[Puzz3D]

Yes it was a drawback because if you did, the group did not maintain its formation, in RTW and BI it does. Groups and sub groups are only required when about to engage, until that point the army is marching as a whole and these groups do not need to be homogeneous either. There is no inefficiency, only different commands

It could be seen as good that the group doesn't maintain its formation on a redraw. That allows you to gather scattered units without changing the grouping. If you want to maintain the formation, you can use a click movement command.

In RTW/BI there is no way to move multiple groups simultaneously with a single command. The AI will disolve the individual formations and make a single formation out of the combined units. This happens with either a click movement command or redraw a command.

Marching your army as one group is bad because they march at the rate of the slowest unit. That means the whole army incurs more fatigue than necessary.

The player alone doesn't determine when he's about to engage. The opponent has a say in that as well. Once you make the individual groups in RTW/BI, you can't make any more whole army movements unless the army is in a formation the AI likes.

Whole army rotation was a problem in the previous engine for the same reason that any whole army movment of any kind is a problem in RTW/BI. It's the fact that you have to group the whole army as one group. At least in the previous engine you could have a whole army group and individual subgroups at the same time. RTW/BI doesn't have subgroups.

[Orda Khan]

It could be seen as good that the group doesn't maintain its formation on a redraw. That allows you to gather scattered units without changing the grouping.

If you drag and drop a group in MTW, the selected units form a line. Doing the same in RTW or BI the units are drawn out in the original formation of that group. Scattered units can be gathered in this way without changing grouping. Even units not belonging to that group can be rounded up in this way, in which case a line will be formed. After that, drag and drop the group into its formation and issue whatever command to the others.

Marching your army as one group is bad because they march at the rate of the slowest unit. That means the whole army incurs more fatigue than necessary.

Try putting a unit into 'shieldwall' mode and march the whole army as a group, you will find that the shieldwall unit arrives at the destination a long time after the rest.

The player alone doesn't determine when he's about to engage. The opponent has a say in that as well.

True, but there is a point where engagement is inevitable and the player should realise that

........Orda

[Puzz3D]

Try putting a unit into 'shieldwall' mode and march the whole army as a group, you will find that the shieldwall unit arrives at the destination a long time after the rest.

I tested infantry and cavalry in RTW. When you group them, they both walk at the same speed. When you don't group them, the cavalry walk faster than the infantry. I didn't test phalanx or shield wall modes.

True, but there is a point where engagement is inevitable and the player should realise that.

I make whole army moves until the skirmishers are engaged. I do that because I've already set the precise distance between the skirmishers and the supporting infantry and cavalry. In RTW, I have to make my individual groups after getting into skirmisher range which means I'm already in the strike range of enemy cavalry while I'm fiddling around making the groups.

The AI that changes your formation is not needed by experienced players. It was put in there for players who don't know how to move their army around and keep it organized. There isn't even a switch to turn such a beginner's feature off.

[Duke John]

Marching your army as one group is bad because they march at the rate of the slowest unit. That means the whole army incurs more fatigue than necessary.

I disagree. If I put my cavalry behind my infantry I definitely do not want to them get in front during simple march moves. The fatigue system is flawed not the marching one. They should not break one feature to patch another.

The AI that changes your formation is not needed by experienced players.

I don't think that it is controlled by an AI. The R:TW engine probably simply does not store any formation data if the units are not grouped together. If you place multiple units the engine consequently has no idea how the units should be placed and selects an appropiate group formation.

[Orda Khan]

Something I have noticed with the drag and drop feature is that each unit walks to the appointed destination. Moving the group by other means may cause some units to run to maintain formation. With a number of groups within the army and selecting all, it is still possible to use alt/right click and they arrive maintaining their position. Using the < and > keys the whole army can rotate facing with no detriment to the formation. I also noticed that units do not necessarily move according to the slowest unit, moving laterally especially, the infantry are slower than cavalry. I always keep my units out of enemy missile range and once the army is deployed, my archers are grouped and moved into range. At this point, my army can be moved using drag and drop, into a position to provide support for my archers. There really is ample time to do this and still counter any foray by enemy cav

........Orda

[Puzz3D]

With a number of groups within the army and selecting all, it is still possible to use alt/right click and they arrive maintaining their position.

It depends on the formation. I tried moving two groups with a space between them using alt/right click, and the AI reformed my two groups into a single line group. Also, the AI doesn't recognize an echelon formation as organized. It will change it every time.

I always keep my units out of enemy missile range and once the army is deployed, my archers are grouped and moved into range. At this point, my army can be moved using drag and drop, into a position to provide support for my archers. There really is ample time to do this and still counter any foray by enemy cav.

You loose your spacing when you do that, and with the speed of cav your archers are vulnerable until you re-establish the spacing. Also, if you see enemy cav coming in and try to intercept it, your cav doesn't move for 2 seconds. That makes the spacing even more critical.

The best method to maintain a whole army formation probably is as you say to keep the army in a single group at all times, and give individual unit commands during engagement. That gives up the use of individual groups to avoid the beginner level feature of the AI deciding your formation. Alternatively, you can use multiple groups and always move them independently.