Multiplayer issues

[Orda Khan]

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.

My groups have NEVER been changed, that is unless I make a mistake like forgetting the Alt key.

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.

My army stops, archers are grouped (approx 1 second) I set their destination to fire and as they begin to march, the rest of my army is moved to support (approx another second) I would not consider my position vulnerable at all. Plus, there are different factors present now so the common Pavs out in front with a big gap between them and your army is not necessarily the best deployment; so my archers may even be in a group with spears, which are able to protect in more ways than one. As for my cav not responding for 2 seconds, I have stated before that I have never seen a 2 second delay in reaction to orders. When cav does delay is when a moving unit is in front of it, the cav waits for a clear path.

One thing is certain, MTW II will not be using the MTW engine

...........Orda

[Puzz3D]

My groups have NEVER been changed, that is unless I make a mistake like forgetting the Alt key.

I just tried moving these two groups forward with alt/right click:

XXX_XXX________________XXX_XXX
__CCC_____________________CCC__

and it got changed into this:

CCC_XXX_XXX_XXX_XXX_CCC

Plus, there are different factors present now so the common Pavs out in front with a big gap between them and your army is not necessarily the best deployment; so my archers may even be in a group with spears, which are able to protect in more ways than one.

Then your spears are going to get shot.

As for my cav not responding for 2 seconds, I have stated before that I have never seen a 2 second delay in reaction to orders. When cav does delay is when a moving unit is in front of it, the cav waits for a clear path.

I just measured the delay with a stopwatch for equites and urban cohorts several times. It's 1.5 seconds and a lot longer than that for cav to get up to running speed. It was the same for a basic movement command or an attack on an enemy unit.

[Duke John]

Some delaying might be caused by the animations. A soldier must first finish it's current walking animation, then the walk to run animation. After that he is at full speed. I don't know how long this delay is but it could be 1 second. Or do you mean click, 1.5 second delay, soldier finishes walking animation, walk to run, runs?

[Orda Khan]

I just tried moving these two groups forward with alt/right click:

XXX_XXX________________XXX_XXX
__CCC_____________________CCC__

and it got changed into this:

CCC_XXX_XXX_XXX_XXX_CCC

T=Tribal cav
L=Lancers
I=Infantry
H=Horse archers

I moved this....

HHH__HHH________________HHH__HHH

TTT_TTT__________________TTT_TTT
__LLL________________________LLL__
________IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_________
Using alt/right click with no problem at all. I then used < and they did a left about face. Then > and they did right about face. Every move, the formation was maintained.

Then your spears are going to get shot.

Again, try using shieldwall for some units of spears (that have that function) and deploy them just in front of your archers. See how many casualties you get.

I just measured the delay with a stopwatch for equites and urban cohorts several times. It's 1.5 seconds and a lot longer than that for cav to get up to running speed. It was the same for a basic movement command or an attack on an enemy unit.

Yes I tested it as well.They did not wait any measurable amount of time before moving. I would not expect horse or man to instantly hit running speed, if the time from moving to running full tilt is only 1.5 seconds I think that is quite good

......Orda

[Kalle]

As far as multiplayer goes I think there can be no doubt RTW is/was so sucky in so many aspects, movement and grouping included (lobby and chat also among other things) that it is the cause of the mp community twisting and turning in fear of utter death and destruction.

There might be more mp players around then there ever was in MTW but there is no mp-community to talk of and if MIITW doesnt improve on RTW the community wont even twist or turn anymore.

Kalle

[Puzz3D]

I moved this....

HHH__HHH________________HHH__HHH

TTT_TTT__________________TTT_TTT
__LLL________________________LLL__
________IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_________
Using alt/right click with no problem at all. I then used < and they did a left about face. Then > and they did right about face. Every move, the formation was maintained.

You grouped them as lines right? I'm trying to do something more sophisticated than that with each wing in its own group.

Again, try using shieldwall for some units of spears (that have that function) and deploy them just in front of your archers. See how many casualties you get.

I play RTW not BI. Regardless of the amount of casualties, the melee infantry is going to be weakened and be at a disadvantage in any ensuing melee.

Yes I tested it as well.They did not wait any measurable amount of time before moving. I would not expect horse or man to instantly hit running speed, if the time from moving to running full tilt is only 1.5 seconds I think that is quite good.

I can measure it. It's 1.5 seconds to start moving, and then an additional acceleration time to full speed. In STW/MTW, cav will be at full speed within 3 seconds. Since running speeds are lower in STW/MTW there is more time to react to a charge by enemy cav. I'm well aware that there are people playing this game who don't want the opponent to have time to react, and CA has decided to satify those players.

[Orda Khan]

[HHH__HHH_]no1_______________[HHH__HHH]no2

[TTT_TTT]__________________[TTT_TTT]
[__LLL___]no3_______________[___LLL__]no4
________ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIno5_________
Group 5 is an infantry line.
1 and 2 are skirmish cav.
3 and 4 are left and right wing cav.

I play RTW not BI. Regardless of the amount of casualties, the melee infantry is going to be weakened and be at a disadvantage in any ensuing melee.

In an online battle, Auxilia Palatina lost 2 men during a long onslaught of arrows. Not only were enemy archers dead or out of arrows, the WRE still had arrows left.

As far as multiplayer goes I think there can be no doubt RTW is/was so sucky in so many aspects, movement and grouping included (lobby and chat also among other things) that it is the cause of the mp community twisting and turning in fear of utter death and destruction.

Speed and stacking were a major issue, the lobby was not very nice. Movement and grouping changed and forced people to learn all over again. Who knows, perhaps MTW II will be different again, at the end of the day we had to learn to use STW and MTW

......Orda

[Puzz3D]

[HHH__HHH_]no1_______________[HHH__HHH]no2

[TTT_TTT]__________________[TTT_TTT]
[__LLL___]no3_______________[___LLL__]no4
________ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIno5_________
Group 5 is an infantry line.
1 and 2 are skirmish cav.
3 and 4 are left and right wing cav.

I see you don't have any foot archers, and you infantry is in the last line out of range of enemy arrows. Those horse archer skirmishers can go into cantabrian circle and become immune to enemy arrows. Horse archers are more mobile than foot archers, so the supporting lancers don't have to be as close as they would for foot archers.

In an online battle, Auxilia Palatina lost 2 men during a long onslaught of arrows. Not only were enemy archers dead or out of arrows, the WRE still had arrows left.

That will happen if the enemy obligingly shoots at the front of heavily armored infantry. I guess the thing to do is put a unit of armored spears right on top of the archer. After all, there isn't any combat penalty or accuracy penalty for doing that. You have to be careful not to spend too much money on the armored spears because it will leave you with inferior melee cav or sword infantry. Although I was trying to play without stacking units, I'll try this.

Who knows, perhaps MTW II will be different again, at the end of the day we had to learn to use STW and MTW.

Different isn't good enough. The standard of play declined with the new RTW engine. CA set the standard, but they didn't maintained it. They don't have to maintain it, but just look at all the great players who left this game.

[Orda Khan]

I see you don't have any foot archers, and you infantry is in the last line out of range of enemy arrows. Those horse archer skirmishers can go into cantabrian circle and become immune to enemy arrows. Horse archers are more mobile than foot archers, so the supporting lancers don't have to be as close as they would for foot archers.

Since I was showing placement and movement of groups, I could just as easily have chosen 20 archers but if you like, I have also deployed like this

--------------------aaaaa_aaaaa_aaaaa_aaaaa_aaaaa
-------------------------sssss_sssss_sssss_sssss
----------------------AAAA_AAAA_AAAA_AAAA_AAAA
--------------------CCCC_CCCC_GGG_CCCC_CCCC_CCCC

a=archers
s=spears
A=infantry
C=cav
g=gen
Supporting cav are some distance away from the archers but they do not need to be the only counter to an attack by enemy cav. The spearmen provided all the necessary support, any cav that attacked was met with a volley of spears and routed very quickly with no archer casualties. In the eventual melee, my cav was free to flank and rear the enemy.

That will happen if the enemy obligingly shoots at the front of heavily armored infantry. I guess the thing to do is put a unit of armored spears right on top of the archer. After all, there isn't any combat penalty or accuracy penalty for doing that. You have to be careful not to spend too much money on the armored spears because it will leave you with inferior melee cav or sword infantry. Although I was trying to play without stacking units, I'll try this.

Because of the lack of penalties for stacking units I NEVER take advantage of this flaw in the game mechanics. You see I readily admit that aspects of this game have become inferior to previous titles but I still believe there is a work around that will provide decent enough playability.

Different isn't good enough. The standard of play declined with the new RTW engine. CA set the standard, but they didn't maintained it. They don't have to maintain it, but just look at all the great players who left this game.

A very valid point, many exceptional players left and what a great shame that was. Had these players decided to put more effort into ways of making the game playable (rules have been enforced since STW) such as hosting no spam, no stacking games, I am convinced that RTW and BI would have been a much better experience. STW and MTW communities discouraged unfair play and a standard was in place so that, by and large, we knew that players would be more inclined to adopt the approach of the majority. Instead of that the mass exodus left countless players, new to the game, to uncover the failings and exploit them.....and there was no core around for them to appreciate that skillful tactics provide a better game than spam.
I gave up playing MP not because of the server and lobby problems but because spam armies turn up so often and regardless of whether they can be beaten with a balanced army, the battle has been ruined, the experience marred. However, really great battles are still possible and I have enjoyed quite a few hard fought encounters of an hour or so long.
My worry now is that those great players will not return and the new game, good or bad, will only be the worse for it

......Orda

[Darren_Shan]

3 cheers 4 multi!!!

LEGENDS WILL OWN ALL!

[Puzz3D]

LEGENDS WILL OWN ALL!

Own all what? All versions of Total War?

Why don't you come play a real game like STWmod or DUXmod where it's not possible to attack your opponent before he can react to your move, and you have to come up with something more sophisticated than killer armies of super units to win?

[x-dANGEr]

Well, I don't know what I'm doing wrong nowadays, but I can't seem to work the alt-click thing. I now simply group, move, then de-group to get a formation moving.

Grouping: For sure it's bugged in RTW/BI (Both versions). I had experiences with it that weren't delightful at all, espiecially in combat. So, I only use this function to move my army, not to engage it. Let's say you have 6 units of Cav grouped together, and their is a bunch of enemy units in front. You order the group to charge the centered unit with a wedge formation, so your cav can pierce through the unit. The funny part is, though, that every unit will act strangely. I haven't figured out how 'precisely' yet, but I think each one will charge what is the closest unit to it.

Orda, you seem to be 'used' to the new grouping system in RTW(BI). Can you describe/detail it please?

@Puzz3D & Orda: Do you guys play MP? I'm just wondering if those experiences you're talking about are coming out of MP or SP.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

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

There are several good reasons for mod not to work well for MP purposes. The main cause is that you would be hard pressed to find 2 MP players agreeing on well... anything
I mean... read "units tire too fast"

It's a long work to make a mod, it's an even longer work to balance it, and MP balance requirement are WAY more demanding than SP balance requirement.

And then diffusion is a real mess. Playing a MP mod actually means waiting for HOURS in lobby that someone show up for a game.

Is the community at fault for that?

Well, feel free to blame it, but that's how it is. What it means is that there is no second shot for MPers, no hope that it will get better than vanilla.

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

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.

No question that RTW/BI got many issues compared to MTW/BI and that are very odd in a MP game, battle upgrade being one of them. I am not going to answer all those points, neither will I go into the argument about grouping and subgrouping Hord army with Orda... :)

The game physics is far from perfect, or even far from good. The game balance is horrible. The lobby and the connection is a shame.

I'd disagree with some of your point on interface. I'd agree with others. For me the main interface improvement has been the whole left click/ right click for selection/action: much better than MTW.
But I agree that AI changing player formation is an unwelcome change. Same with squeezing penalty.

There is one point that I forgot to mention: I'd like to be able to play real large battle that does not turn into lag festival.
I got a decent machine, but it's very, very hard to run a large 3v3 game, not to mention a 4v4 game.
4v4 were my favourite back in MTW.

So I really hope that MTW2 will be better optimized and that playing large 4v4 battle will be possible with no lag or delay. Yes, it's demanding, but it was possible!

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

3 cheers 4 multi!!!

LEGENDS WILL OWN ALL!

Is that what MP is down to?

Is there any chance that MP lobby will get back to being the interesting place for deep tactic and balance discussion instead of the current rant festival?

Louis,

[Puzz3D]

Is there any chance that MP lobby will get back to being the interesting place for deep tactic and balance discussion instead of the current rant festival?

RTW/BI is a lost cause. They just turned off foyer chat again, but, even with it turned on, the lack of a private chat window makes operating a clan or having a discussion very difficult. The design of the online foyer in Medieval 2 will show Creative Assembly's degree of commitment to multiplayer.

I've been told that replays in RTW v1.5/BI v1.6 now work, but I haven't tested this myself.

There are several good reasons for mod not to work well for MP purposes. The main cause is that you would be hard pressed to find 2 MP players agreeing on well... anything
I mean... read "units tire too fast"

Well, the way I look at it is you evaluate the available alternatives and play the better ones, but it does take some promotion to get enough people interested so you can have some battles. We've been pretty successful organizing mod games using MSN, and picking up additional players in the foyer. You might have to play more than one mod depending of who is playing what at a particular time.

[Orda Khan]

Orda, you seem to be 'used' to the new grouping system in RTW(BI). Can you describe/detail it please?

Take another look at my reply about moving using alt/right click. If you make a selection of groups, let's say 4 groups within your army of 20 units, by selecting ALL ( ctrl+A ) and alt/right click at the intended destination, your entire army will march to that point and arrive in the same deployment. Using the < and > keys, you can alter their facing but maintain the deployment. Each group can be selected and given separate orders but you will then lose your original deployment, but that was true also in MTW. To overcome this, I found it easier to deploy my units as I wanted and group the entire army and I abandoned alt clicking because it was simpler to just drag and drop the army at their destination. The simplicity of this allows many variables...

1. You are threatened and the current selected destination is unwise. No problem, drag and drop a new destination.

2. During the march you need to send cav on a raid or to assist allies. Select the unit/s required, do not ungroup and issue their orders, the rest of the army will continue to their appointed destination. After your cav have completed their task, select ALL again and drag and drop even if this means no new destination for the army as a whole, your cav will return to their original deployment.

3. Engagement begins. No real need to ungroup, you can select single, multiple units, your spearline, your archers, whatever and issue orders which will be carried out. After which you may want to move to a flank or adjust position and by selecting ALL and using drag and drop, your disorganised units will reform their original deployment.

Most important to remember when doing any of this is selecting ALL, failure to do this WILL affect deployment as dragging and dropping will draw out one line. The method I used in RTW was to select and move all units as a group and once initial engagement began, create separate groups. Hope this helps.

@Puzz3D & Orda: Do you guys play MP? I'm just wondering if those experiences you're talking about are coming out of MP or SP.

Speaking for myself, I was mainly MP but I have notplayed TW now since BI. The whole MP part of the game became a sorry mess, even the Lobby interface was awful. When I look back at the smart and 'professional' look of the STW Lobby, I can not begin to understand what went wrong. STW Lobby was the best of the lot and I hope CA make some effort to recreate it

......Orda

[x-dANGEr]

I know all that, but.. What function does the alt-click thing do? I mean, the way you're describing it, it seems rather complicated than simple. (Complicated considering that in the time you may take doing all that, more than 2 armies can be crushed).

Speaking for myself, I was mainly MP but I have notplayed TW now since BI. The whole MP part of the game became a sorry mess, even the Lobby interface was awful. When I look back at the smart and 'professional' look of the STW Lobby, I can not begin to understand what went wrong. STW Lobby was the best of the lot and I hope CA make some effort to recreate it

I really can't understand what's so wrong about RTW lobby. I played only Medieval before and I only played that SP, being the 9 years old boy I was.

[Puzz3D]

[QUOTE=x-dANGEr]I know all that, but.. What function does the alt-click thing do? I mean, the way you're describing it, it seems rather complicated than simple. (Complicated considering that in the time you may take doing all that, more than 2 armies can be crushed).
I'm also speaking from the multiplayer perspective. In SP, you can pause the game and, even if you play SP without pausing, the AI isn't nearly as aggressive as human players. The point being that you have to be as efficient as possible when moving the units in MP.

You can move multiple groups with ALT right click if they are in a configuration that the AI deems to be organized. If the groups are separated by more than a certain distance, the AI will reorganize them into a single line. If you keep the army in a single group all the time, then you have to choose multiple units individually which is not efficient, but I suppose it is better than having your units move to a place you didn't intend. Drag and drop is ok as well until your cursor hits the edge of the screen and the camera spins around. I have the camera scroll speed on high so I can get around fast enough to play the game, so when the camera spins it spins a lot and it's very disorientating. A compromise method would be to always move groups individually. I think I'd choose that over always using a single group.

I really can't understand what's so wrong about RTW lobby. I played only Medieval before and I only played that SP, being the 9 years old boy I was.

In STW and MTW, you had a private chat window of about 4 lines where you could communicate with a group. In addition to that, in STW you could make your own, password protected, chat rooms and play battles from within those rooms. They could be used for tournaments or clan training or clan meetings. If you put a player on ignore or ban or buddy, the game remembered that between sessions. The text was easier to read than the yellow on black of RTW. Who in their right mind would think yellow on black is good for a long playing session?

The latency of the host was shown for each game in STW and MTW. I know CA's official position is that latency doesn't matter in a broadband game because you aren't supposed to play without a good broadband connection, but the fact is there are people trying to play with low speed or bad connections. The result is that you waste your time if someone with high latency joins your game. Another issue is that in STW, you didn't stay connected to the matchmaking server once the battle launched. In RTW/BI, if you loose connection to GameSpy during a battle you are kicked from the battle. There is no need of that and it leads to more ruined battles and more wasted time for you. It seems to me that CA operates as though they don't care how much time you waste trying to play their game. You don't get time back. It's gone forever.

STW had a rating system, and, although it was flawed, it was something by which players could get a rating. You had the option of playing competitive games which were rated or friendly games which were not rated. In MTW, that was removed, but it was promised that we would get access to the battle results database so that the community could make their own rating system and it could also be used to track tournament results. Well, it never happened. Another feature lost, and everytime I hear some CA PR person say how the game has been improved it really grates on me. They remove features and claim the game is improved while never talking about the lost features.

It's the same in the battle engine. Think about it. What is the 3D battle engine providing in terms of combat? Killing at the spearpoints and some men being tossed in the air. There aren't any damage areas on the 3D men. It's the same 2D combat model except for the spearpoints. The spearpoints proved to be a problem, since the spearmen can never be killed if the enemy can't get past the spearpoints. You never see any spears break. Instead what you see is horses jumping over the spears. You do see swordsmen run between the spears if you click behind the spearunit which is pretty strange looking. I've seen men running with a spearpoint up against their chest and they just slide off and get between the spears still trying to run to that point you clicked. It is effective though in forcing the spearmen to switch to their less effective sword.

[TheViking]

will they make it so we can play the campain im multiplayer, at least when its lan games?

will MTW2 be like MTW with RTW engine? there have to be something else if im going to get it like a MP campain.

there were to many posts, didnt cope reading them all.

[Tempiic]

hmmm fond RTW memories rising. :)

[Lord Adherbal]

let's hope MTW2 has Eras again. Try to imagine how "fun" MTW would've been if there were no eras and the entire selection of units was available in every game.

[Puzz3D]

let's hope MTW2 has Eras again. Try to imagine how "fun" MTW would've been if there were no eras and the entire selection of units was available in every game.

The official silence on these issues is deafening.

[sunsmountain]

Multiplayer stands or falls with balance. Lag, the lobby, and other things are less important to me.

But balancing multiplayer takes time, time they should also spend on improving the battlemap AI. And entering new ideas like the Pope, crusades, and other stuff (glory goals, anyone?)

[x-dANGEr]

let's hope MTW2 has Eras again. Try to imagine how "fun" MTW would've been if there were no eras and the entire selection of units was available in every game.

I think you made a mistake their.. Can you please explain what did you mean? (Let's hope MTW2 has Eras again, imagine how fun MTW would've been if their were no eras.. I see contrary 0-o)

[Duke John]

Adherbal is right. How fun would picking a early Viking army be when facing an army filled with Lancers, Arbalesters and cannons? Oh yeah, the fun is trying to find a counter in a broken system.

[L'Impresario]

Well I think 2345 florins vikings with experience 6 and weapon 2 upgrades -so that the thrown axes can cause some real damage there- are more than a match for the 2125 florins exp.1 wpn1 lancers. After all, remember that the viks will get the nice AP bonus.

[Lord Adherbal]

I think you made a mistake their.. Can you please explain what did you mean? (Let's hope MTW2 has Eras again, imagine how fun MTW would've been if their were no eras.. I see contrary 0-o)

note the " " around fun, it was ment ironically. What's the point of taking early units such as "feudal men at arms" if you can pick "gothic foot knights" aswell. And don't tell me unit costs will balance that, because only one of the 2 units can be cost effective; the other unit is basicly obsolete. Next to that there is the large difference between warfare in MTW's Eras. It's basicly 3 games in one, but without eras that is ruined and you'll get unhistorical armies every time.

[AwesomeArcher]

Another quick question, does anyone know if you will only be able to only have one multiplayer name per cd key? It would simplify things greatly. I think they shold base multiplayer off of AOE III's multiplayer, it is simple yet it has everything you need. Seperate chats, clans built in, stat recording, and ladders showing all sorts of stats. I am sorry if this has been brought up.

[x-dANGEr]

note the " " around fun, it was ment ironically. What's the point of taking early units such as "feudal men at arms" if you can pick "gothic foot knights" aswell. And don't tell me unit costs will balance that, because only one of the 2 units can be cost effective; the other unit is basicly obsolete. Next to that there is the large difference between warfare in MTW's Eras. It's basicly 3 games in one, but without eras that is ruined and you'll get unhistorical armies every time.

So you want eras to be in.. Aha..