MP faction

[buujin]

yeh, but those stats are for units with completely different physics and game mechanics, careful rebalancing would still be needed
eg. cav charges and charge impact have hugely different mechanics in STW and RTW, hence most probably also in MII:TW

He's right. The RTW engine is completely different and has many flaws which is why even with limitless tweaking u can never retain the same balance and gameplay that STW/MTW had. I suspect this is the same Engine which will be used in M2:TW. Sadly, In this case the unit stats are irrelevant.

The balance in mtw was not ruined by having too many different troop types to choose from, it was ruined by valour upgrades which made some troops more cost effective than others to upgrade (FMAA for example). I believe this was also a problem in some previous versions of STW.

Imo Having true balance can only be obtained by taking each troop type at face value relative to its initial price and not upgrading it , (ala Mizus STW mod and DUX mp mod for VI).

[Duke John]

Then you should be glad to hear that Napoleonic: Total War 2 has disabled the upgrading of troops.

[Darren_Shan]

any luck to let CA know of this?

[allfathersgodi]

I don't see an MP faction as all that challenging, your opponent has the same strengths and weakness as you do, the missile units have the same capability, your cavalry can charge and flank, disengage, re-engage, wheel around just as quickly as his. Your Spearmen have the same reach as his.

Where is the challenge in that? The challenge lies in trying to beat someone who is an awesome commander of the Horde with a faction that is mis-matched (HRE, Byzantines, Italians). Or using cavalry in a place that is ill-suited for cavalry (Scotland is an example)...

The true challenge would, I think, lay in what ever faction you pick versus what your opponents pick. Imagine trying to defeat the Horde with a HRE force of Gothic Sergeants and Knights? Or a Byzantine force of Kataphraktoi?

[L'Impresario]

Then you should be glad to hear that Napoleonic: Total War 2 has disabled the upgrading of troops.

That is an excellent choice IMO, and a first step - and I think that many more would be still neded if RTW is an indicator of what will come- for more diverse gameplay and easily determined "balance" in M2TW would be an option allowing you to play at a fixed valour level. I 'm making here the assumption that V0 will be quite unstable for purposes outside the campaign, and I'm also hoping that every valour/honour/experience level will have more easily discernable changes in the unit stats - ofcourse changing this system for something else, at least online, would be more than welcome, but anyway;)

[cromwell]

I agree it would be nice to have a bonus faction for the purists of MP. Saying the troops are the same and move the same and where is the challenge in that. I submit to you where is the challenge in the game of chess, both sides have the same pieces. It's how u use them!

Their is no denying that as each version of TW games have come out, the MP community has added more and more rules. This alone shows the inbalance. It's a joke now, 6max, no ele, no zerks, no catabrian, ......etc.

You can expand the rock,paper,scissors, to 5 or 7 items, you just have to follow the mathmatical formula. If CA were vigilant about keeping this true, we wouldn't have the online problems we face today.

PS. We could go about this for years...lol

Cromwell

[Orda Khan]

I don't see an MP faction as all that challenging, your opponent has the same strengths and weakness as you do, the missile units have the same capability, your cavalry can charge and flank, disengage, re-engage, wheel around just as quickly as his. Your Spearmen have the same reach as his.

Where is the challenge in that? The challenge lies in trying to beat someone who is an awesome commander of the Horde with a faction that is mis-matched (HRE, Byzantines, Italians). Or using cavalry in a place that is ill-suited for cavalry (Scotland is an example)...

The true challenge would, I think, lay in what ever faction you pick versus what your opponents pick. Imagine trying to defeat the Horde with a HRE force of Gothic Sergeants and Knights? Or a Byzantine force of Kataphraktoi?

When all is equal it is superior battlefield tactics that win the day, if you cannot see the challenge in that then you never played STW.
I used Mongols almost exclusively in MTW and I routed many european armies. In one 3v3 I routed my Spanish opponent and then finished the other Spanish army and Danish army that had routed my allies. I had 1500+ kills.
However, these european armies should never have lost and I fought one opponent who knew exactly what to do against the Horde.........NOTHING.
With HRE, Italy or whoever, all you needed to do was deploy in close formation with crossbowmen close to the spear line and let the Horde do their damnedest. Arrows killed far less in MTW and any european army could easily sit and soak up every Horde arrow and still have enough men left to win the day.
Sure, if your opponent could be drawn into mistakes you could achieve wonders, if he refused to budge and kept his missile units safe while they covered the HA, the Horde could do very little about it. I faced the Horde with european armies (and I never used anything heavier than Feudal Knight cav) and believe me, it was easy to stop them. I complained about their weakness when MTW was first released and hope that MTW II will address this issue. I will not hold my breath since the Huns were no real threat in BI.

Then you should be glad to hear that Napoleonic: Total War 2 has disabled the upgrading of troops.

Good for you Duke John, you know my thoughts on upgrades in MP....the scourge of the game

........Orda

[allfathersgodi]

Cromwell, chess is to slow and one dimensional. Want a challenge, give your opponent four moves for every three of yours, or give him extra knights or rooks or Bishops in exchange for pawns. Chess is a piss poor metaphor for combat and warfare...

Orda Khan, that is because the AI sucks (and AI will always suck) and never used the Horde's advantages. Plus the Mongolians are very weak in the game.
Use the Mongolians right, you can defeat any army, not matter who is commanding it.

IMHO, keep the valour, troop experience and weap/armor upgrades (add more upgrades as well, such as horses). I like that extra dimension to the game. No way in hell can 10 units of green Hobilars stand up to 10 units of green CKs or Cataphracts in a head-to-head charge...

I still ask, where would the challenge be in meeting an opponent who is fielding an army that is a mirror image of yours?

[L'Impresario]

With HRE, Italy or whoever, all you needed to do was deploy in close formation with crossbowmen close to the spear line and let the Horde do their damnedest. Arrows killed far less in MTW and any european army could easily sit and soak up every Horde arrow and still have enough men left to win the day.
Sure, if your opponent could be drawn into mistakes you could achieve wonders, if he refused to budge and kept his missile units safe while they covered the HA, the Horde could do very little about it. I faced the Horde with european armies (and I never used anything heavier than Feudal Knight cav) and believe me, it was easy to stop them. I complained about their weakness when MTW was first released and hope that MTW II will address this issue. I will not hold my breath since the Huns were no real threat in BI.

Well, I think that despite the lack of the -ultimately- overpowering Parthian shot and shot-on-move in earlier TW games, a Cavalry based faction with fast HA and light cav did have many advantages in certain game types.
For example in VI, when playing in a florin level that allows all cav armies that include effective countercharging light cav and a small force of relatively powerful heavy cavalry, and in a large map that doesn't have too many forests or very steep hills, then a GH user could: a) surround his opponent in a 1v1 and make him spread his missile units, thus making him vulnerable to expendable light cav charges, while tiring his mobile forces (in case of overpowering missile adversaries, an all cav rush under circumstances can be a cheap way to win heh); b) in team games, although probably a random team wouldn't perform very well, all cav forces offer a chance to overpower a specific point of the enemy formation due to mobility. Ofcourse this can be regarded as not very honourable play, because most of the time it requires a quick attack, even before missile exchanges are played out.
But money/ morale levels are very critical in all such cases.

In RTW the mobility advantage was further enhanced by other qualities specific to cavalry. A combined arms approach was even less fruitful than 10-15k VI, simply because a detailed interaction between the various army pieces couldn't be put down and rationalized, the battle system being too "instance-intensive", if I may use that weird term heh.
In the end, we must recongise that it is extremely hard for CA to balance the game when they implement so many radical features that are not as "predictable" as in the previous engine.

Orda Khan, that is because the AI sucks (and AI will always suck) and never used the Horde's advantages. Plus the Mongolians are very weak in the game.
Use the Mongolians right, you can defeat any army, not matter who is commanding it.

IMHO, keep the valour, troop experience and weap/armor upgrades (add more upgrades as well, such as horses). I like that extra dimension to the game. No way in hell can 10 units of green Hobilars stand up to 10 units of green CKs or Cataphracts in a head-to-head charge...

He 's referring to MP, but Mongols can be an effective faction, it's just that it relies on breaking some traditional approaches to the game, and extra effort by teams, maybe not worth it though in the end.
BTW v4 Hobilars can win v0 Ck (and more easily Kataphraktoi), and for that matteralmost any other cav can do that with the right upgrades. The charge score advantage the CK have can be negated in various instances.
I really do think that upgrades are allowing for a most counter-intuitive game (the greater the florin amount you use, the more intensive this is).

[drone]

I still ask, where would the challenge be in meeting an opponent who is fielding an army that is a mirror image of yours?

The challenge is in beating that army. If you are better than your opponent, you will win, if you aren't, you will lose. If you don't think this is a challenge, you aren't playing the right opponents.

Selecting an army based on it's cheese does not equal skill. Exploiting a faction's special units by spamming them is not skill. The argument here is for a specialized faction, balanced against itself, with a counter for every unit. With this type of battle, the ability of the general to exploit his enemy's mistakes while covering up his own, determines the outcome. This may not be the most exciting thing in the world, but for those who enjoy the challenge of even odds, it is a great idea.

[FearofNC]

Cromwell, chess is to slow and one dimensional. Want a challenge, give your opponent four moves for every three of yours, or give him extra knights or rooks or Bishops in exchange for pawns. Chess is a piss poor metaphor for combat and warfare...

chess is a good metaphor imho... but if you want another example... take combat sports.. boxing, westling.. or martial arts.. do these athleats find fighting someone in their same weight class boring? challenge is overcoming odds yes... but as a 145lb (mongal metaphor) fighter.. how much fun is fighting a heavy weight???



reguardless... its one thing if this idea afected the regular mp game... it doesnt.. its just an addititon.. so if you dont find it fun.. then you dont have to play it. there are people that will enjoy it.. there are people who will buy the game because of it.

[econ21]

I will not hold my breath since the Huns were no real threat in BI.

Is this based on MP experience? In SP, I would be very reluctant to face a Hun army in an open field battle (they are little threat over bridges or in sieges). Horse archers seem pretty frustrating (but historically so) in RTW. Foot archers don't have the advantage over them that they had in MTW and the Parthian shot (& their fast speed) makes it hard to run them down.

I'd wager horse archers in RTW/BI are more powerful than in STW or MTW, but that's based solely on SP impressions.

[allfathersgodi]

As a boxer and a full-contact martial artist, I prefer fighting out of my weight class. And believe me for every disadvantage a light-weight has against a super-heavy weight the super heavy weight has just as many disadvantages (which are ripe for the light weight to take advantage of).

How often do you see Super-Heavy Weight bouts go past the 5th round? Often. how many bouts between ultra-lights do you see that go past the 5th round? I haven't seen many.

In fencing, I was at a severe disadvantage fighting my friend Rachel who was 5 foot 2 and a hundred pounds even, bear in mind that I am 6'2" and weigh 180 pounds. In sharp contrast, my other sparring partner Billy is 6'5" and weighs 290, and because of that size he has many disadvantages. Granted these disadvantages can be trained down, but they still exist.

I was 180 pounds and loved fighting Wookies (people bigger then me). I loved fighting southpaws, you rarely see them and are a challenge because of that.
And I absolutely loved to fight martial artists who weren't of my styles (except for TKD fighters, TKD suck and any practicioner should be shot on sight). I got absolutely sick of fighting against my same school...

[buujin]

whats wrong with TKD ? :P

[allfathersgodi]

What is wrong with TKD? Sorry, If I post on the problems with TKD it would cause the server to crash...

For a bit of background, I am ready to test for my first dan in Bujinkan (just got to go to Japan), I studied Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, boxed, fenced and practiced Kenjutsu in college and then went on to study Wing Chun for six months...

I say keep all the upgradeables, let a unit's experience, morale, discipline, bravery, armor, weapons and leadership count in battle. But that is just me...

[buujin]

I study muay thai ;)

[Monarch]

i think nc's point is pretty clear... one unit stat like shogun had. the same units available to each faction, like shogun had. mp battles based more on skill and tactics than selecting and upgrading the proper unit.

But how boring would that get? A super army would be produced and everybody would copy it, so you wouldn't have to fun of guessing what the guy will have, "oh he's sassanids so I'l need quite a few spears". Picking your army is strategic, personally it's a nice idea and a good one but I'd get bored of it quickly.

Is this based on MP experience? In SP, I would be very reluctant to face a Hun army in an open field battle (they are little threat over bridges or in sieges). Horse archers seem pretty frustrating (but historically so) in RTW. Foot archers don't have the advantage over them that they had in MTW and the Parthian shot (& their fast speed) makes it hard to run them down.

I'd wager horse archers in RTW/BI are more powerful than in STW or MTW, but that's based solely on SP impressions.

Ye but in mp remember you get to choose who you face Hun's with. I agree if I'm Lombardi with poor army I have no hope vs huns, but in mp I can choose Romans with great armour (arrows basically deflect off) and then tailor an army to fight huns. In sp your going to be fielding what you can spare. So in mp I'm just going to get spearmen, cavalry and some plumbatri to chuck onto Huns.

So yeah, I believe it was based on multiplayer experience. A hunnic horde is very powerful, but against a WRE army (a WRE army in capable hands) huns are very ordinary.

-Monarch

[FearofNC]

But how boring would that get? A super army would be produced and everybody would copy it, so you wouldn't have to fun of guessing what the guy will have, "oh he's sassanids so I'l need quite a few spears". Picking your army is strategic, personally it's a nice idea and a good one but I'd get bored of it quickly.

there is no super army when the units are balanced like in stw days... you could bring several different kinds of armies and win.. its all about how you use the army... plus there is the upgrade levels... some players would upgrade 1 unit of monks very high and manuver it so its first in combat... this one unit would rout its oppenent and that would cause other units to lose moral and run... but then you have to watch for another player noticing this and focusing a range attack on it... there were several thousand variations in armies and all had their strenghts and weaknesses... if you always play with the same army some1 will build a counter to it.

but i can see where some would get borded with it.. but then there is always the regular factions too... just perfect for those that want to switch it up now and then. i know i wouldnt play the mp faction exclusivly...

[allfathersgodi]

I've been thinking about it and I can only surmise that an MP faction would be boring and based on Western European factions whose historical style of combat was much more attritional then the Russian, Mongolian and Muslim maneuver style of warfare.

I do not like the idea. But if there was a historical faction like this, I do not see why it cannot be put into the game.

[Orda Khan]

It is just unfortunate that NC's idea would mean the armies would be non factional. I can understand why people imagine this being boring, especially when certain factions appeal to certain people. Trust me when I say that STW battles were never boring and NC is right when he mentions the multitude of army variations; not one of these was THE army, all could be beaten if the opponent had the tactical skill.

A super army would be produced and everybody would copy it

Exactly what happened in MTW. One look at any CWC battle will show you what army became the popular choice.
Unfortunately MP stats do not reflect real life. Missile stats were not good enough in MTW and armour was too good...and then ofc came the upgrades that could make a superman out of a lowly Militia Sergeant. MP stats would have to be supremely balanced to provide life like encounters.

Is this based on MP experience? In SP, I would be very reluctant to face a Hun army in an open field battle (they are little threat over bridges or in sieges). Horse archers seem pretty frustrating (but historically so) in RTW. Foot archers don't have the advantage over them that they had in MTW and the Parthian shot (& their fast speed) makes it hard to run them down.

I'd wager horse archers in RTW/BI are more powerful than in STW or MTW, but that's based solely on SP impressions.

Well it is based on MP but applies to SP as well. You see, Hun units are very expensive (a bit like Golden Horde were) compared to units of equal values in other factions...
eg: Hunnic archers/Alan merc HA. Alans have better stats and cost less. Same thing applies to Hun HC compared to Nobles.
Playing SP as Huns you could roll over anything but you could roll over the Huns as any other faction, this is down to the ineptitude of the AI. You are correct about RTW/BI HA, they are a vast improvement over the static HA of STW or MTW but what do we see posted about the Cantabrian Circle? Yet we are expected to believe that RTW is a tactically superior game. So much so that abilities of certain factions are banned or ruled out as being unfair.
The Huns would historically form two rotational groups, walking at first, gradually cantering and finally at a gallop as they hit the perimeter they would ride at enemy lines, break left or right firing arrows over the first line of defence into those behind. They then returned and the process began again. Imagine the difficulty of hitting any of these riders. As you aimed at the rider who just rode before you, there were many more of his friends pumping arrows into your lines. A moving target is difficult enough to hit without being hampered by incoming missles. If it were easy to target Cantabrian Circles, what would be the point in using them? But people say they are immune (not true) to archer fire. I think CA went some way to producing an accurate feel, you cannot rely on archers to counter HA, you have to find another way. I hope they do not dumb them down in MTW II.
Whatever CA decide about MP, it really has to be more along the lines of STW for balance, I would hate to think of 21+ MP factions where only about half are used

.......Orda

[Puzz3D]

I've been thinking about it and I can only surmise that an MP faction would be boring and based on Western European factions whose historical style of combat was much more attritional then the Russian, Mongolian and Muslim maneuver style of warfare.

I do not like the idea. But if there was a historical faction like this, I do not see why it cannot be put into the game.

I think you're missing the point. With a single faction balanced for multiplayer you could build either a slow heavily armored army or a fast lightly armored army. You could also build an army that was a combination of both. Attrition and maneuver would both be important, but would vary in relative importance depending of the type of army you chose. You could win with any of these armies if you used them properly and played better than your opponent.

Such a faction is not an historical faction. It's a faction that actually enhances the gameplay to something more than can be achieved with strictly historical factions. You can't depend on superior combat power to win because you don't have superior combat power than your opponet. You're only going to win by maneuvering better than your opponent so that you get the better unit matchups be it a melee matchup or a ranged matchup. This requires that the player have a good grasp of how each unit is going to perform and use each unit individually. (Using each unit individually isn't possible if the gameplay is too fast.) Ideally, this should be highly intuitive and not require anyone to "study stats". Only then can the player free himself of confusion and play the battle at a strategic level where the superior plan wins provided it's executed properly (tactically correct execution). Only then can a beginner pick an army and not be at an immediate combat power disadvantage compared to a veteran player.

Since the game has a rock, paper, scissors gameplay there will exist highly effective counterarmies to unbalanced armies. You aren't prevented from taking an unbalanced army to catch your opponent off guard, but, if you became too predictable, you will probably be facing the counterarmy more often than not. This guarantees variety in the armies that players choose. Upgrades are ok, but not if they are so powerful that they break the rock, paper, scissors, and not if the cost of those upgrades is calculated incorrectly. The upgrades are too powerful and/or the cost is not calculated properly in all versions of Total War to date. Creative Assembly seems incapable of getting this right.

The reduction in unit size and combat cycles to resolve combat is an example of taking the game in a direction which increases the luck factor in outcome of the battle. Some luck factor is good, but too much is bad because it undermines good strategic and tactical play. The gameplay didn't need a higher luck factor than the already considerable one present in STW and MTW.

Battlefield upgrades are bad for multiplayer because they alter a unit's performance as the battle progresses. We saw 4 man cav units beating 30+ man anti-cav infantry units in MTW because of the battlefield upgrades. This is not intuitive, and undermines a player's ability to make the correct decisions. LongJohn, who designed the battle engine, agreed with us and removed battlefield upgrades in MTW/VI. For some unfathomable reason they are back in RTW.

It's not necessary to use a single faction to achieve this higher level of gameplay in multiplayer as the DUXmod for MTW/VI and other mods such as the Comminity mod for MTW/VI demonstrate. However, Creative Assembly has demonstrated that they will not balance the multitude of units and factions which they have introduced into the game to the extent necessary for the gameplay to achive the highest level of quality. Players who are used to the imbalanced gameplay of the official versions after original STW, don't realize how much better the gameplay can be. This isn't a question of adapting to the gameplay of the official releases. The talented players of the past could adapt, but why play an inferior game to that which they played 5 years ago namely original STW? It wasn't perfect but it was good, and it was Creative Assembly who set that standard of gameplay.

[x-dANGEr]

I will summarize my opinion(s):

1) Upgrades, now they are becoming my RTW terror, an upgraded unit of urbans can beat other 2, thus, I'm no more playing R: TW. They shouldn't remove upgrades, but rather make their price equalling their benefit.

2) MP Faction: Well, I wouldn't mind if they'd put one, as long as the other mode is always available. This way, I can try it and the way you are describing it really eagers me to.


@ All those who disagree: It simply won't erase the standard mode, so I think their is no reason to disagree.

[allfathersgodi]

As long as it doesn't affect single player campaign, I wouldn't care...

[Orda Khan]

I think I would be right in saying we would all love to play the game with different factions, each with its unique qualities........BUT..... Having seen that balance has been an issue that CA will not/can not achieve, for a decent MP experience, something like this would certainly help matters. Other than that, only a Mod will improve things and we all know that Mods are never embraced by more than a low percentage of the MP community

......Orda

[allfathersgodi]

Hmm, the Danes, the Sicilians, the Byzantines and other Factions historically had major disadvantages and weaknesses. I am not sure what you mean by balance, but I enjoy using a weaker faction against a stronger faction, say the Sicilians against the Byzantines, or a small force of good units against a larger force of good units.

I don't like balance or an even playing field, I like to win when statistically I should loose. There should be another option in MP, random mode, where the computer picks an army for you and you got to play that army.

Something else, Fog of War. I can only see what all of my units can see... and if a unit gets its LOS with the General cut off, I cannot command it...

[Orda Khan]

Hmm, the Danes, the Sicilians, the Byzantines and other Factions historically had major disadvantages and weaknesses. I am not sure what you mean by balance, but I enjoy using a weaker faction against a stronger faction, say the Sicilians against the Byzantines, or a small force of good units against a larger force of good units.

I don't like balance or an even playing field, I like to win when statistically I should loose. There should be another option in MP, random mode, where the computer picks an army for you and you got to play that army.

Something else, Fog of War. I can only see what all of my units can see... and if a unit gets its LOS with the General cut off, I cannot command it...

Balance is the thing that is required that makes the game impartial, so that any faction you choose should theoretically not place you at a disadvantage. This becomes increasingly difficult the more factions and units are introduced. Without balance MP suffers. It is and always has been, possible to defeat more than one army through tactical skill, however this becomes less possible when there are obvious strong and weak factions. Sure, you can still beat a strong faction with a weak one but against a player of equal or better ability this is not going to be the case. Regardless of whether we play for fun, we want an equal chance of victory and balance is the defining factor in achieving this.
One thing that has not been mentioned in this thread is army cost. STW was created with a target of 5000 koku per army. Of course this does not stop people using higher or lower but it does affect the balance because each upgrade increment has to be calculated correctly to maintain the original ideal. With the introduction of weapon and armour upgrades, this has not proven to be the case and if you add factions that are weaker than others into this equation, the game becomes a mess.
The conclusion has to be ...
A: Programmers spend the necessary time to make sure that MP is balanced.
B: A desired army cost is applied to ensure that balance is maintained.
The likelihood of getting the above is quite slim and I think NC can see that too, which is why he has asked for a MP specific faction so that we can return to the days when victory lay solely in the tactical skill of the player

.......Orda

[Puzz3D]

I don't like balance or an even playing field, I like to win when statistically I should loose.

Then you will loose every battle against a player of equal skill. The only way your unbalanced system works is when your opponent is weaker than you. In a tournament, only the better players are left in the final rounds. You want the winner determined by what faction the players take rather than their skill?

There should be another option in MP, random mode, where the computer picks an army for you and you got to play that army.

I think that's already and option in the game and nobody uses it.

Something else, Fog of War. I can only see what all of my units can see... and if a unit gets its LOS with the General cut off, I cannot command it...

You can't see hidden units until one of your units gets close to it. You can raise the camera which gives you more range of vision than ground level would, but on the other hand you do have 20 units to control. You couldn't do it without a raised camera. Also, you can thank the degraded weather system for the lack of fog. Fog was very prominent in STW, and it could conceal the movement of whole armies until they were upon you. Creative Assembly would have the players believe that the lack of fog is an improvement.

When are people going to understand that LOS has nothing to do with command and control in this game? Each unit is under the control of it's own unit commander and operates independently of the unit leader. It's the player's task to coordinate the individual units so that they act to carry out a plan and provide support to other units. Why do players think that adding in features that inhibit a player's ability to coordinate his units makes the gameplay better? It does't make it better. It's already difficult enough to command only 16 units in MTW which has a slower overall gamespeed. Look at just about any MTW replay, and you'll see units standing around doing nothing at the height of the battle because the player is too busy to get around to all of his units.

[Randarkmaan]

Personally I think this is a great idea that we should post on the .com forum if enough people agree with it. I have Shogun and I've got to say that even though the units are the same for every faction it's great fun, too bad I lost the CD-key and can't install it again though.
And in order to make this MP faction seem more varied(variation and flavour always adds to the overall feel) you could have say different types of each unit for an example, (Western) European, Russian/Eastern European, Viking/Scandinavian, Byzantine, Mongol, Turk and Arab, they would differ only in appearance, not in performance.
If CA fail to do this I think we(the community) should make a mod for this even though it wouldn't get as many players as the real game, no new graphics would be needed it all would require balanced stats and good promotion.

BTW: Is it illegal to provide someone with a CD-key for Shogun as I suddenly REALLY wanted to play it right now!

[allfathersgodi]

Then all it will be is a chess match... There are countless examples of armies with superiority in numerous areas, getting defeated handidly by better generals. One example of this is the English in the 100 Years War who were often out-numbered generally and out-numbered in the area of Cavalry, who had three key advantages, the Longbow, better generals and foot-wear.

With a pure MP faction, I feel that the art of warfare is less of a possibility. I stand by this. I feel that doing this would put the two playes on such an equal footing that strategy and tactics is out the window, it will generate into a single melee.

Of course the engine is geared more toward the archetypal western europe style of warfare, which is attritional. And one of the defining characteristics of attrition warfare is lack of all except the most rudimentary of strategy and tactics... The shield-wall is a prime example of attrition warfare.

Of course as long as they allow the other Factions in MP, I'll play...

[Puzz3D]

Then all it will be is a chess match... There are countless examples of armies with superiority in numerous areas, getting defeated handidly by better generals. One example of this is the English in the 100 Years War who were often out-numbered generally and out-numbered in the area of Cavalry, who had three key advantages, the Longbow, better generals and foot-wear.

The players who want a balanced faction for online play want the better player to win the battle. This faction's units have to be balanced properly within a rock, paper, scissors gameplay so that strategy and tactics are maximized.

With a pure MP faction, I feel that the art of warfare is less of a possibility. I stand by this. I feel that doing this would put the two playes on such an equal footing that strategy and tactics is out the window, it will generate into a single melee.

STW v1.12 gameplay had plenty of strategy and tactics, and the armies were all drawn from the same set of units. It wasn't perfoect because it could have been better balanced, and there were some limitations in the battle engine.

Of course the engine is geared more toward the archetypal western europe style of warfare, which is attritional. And one of the defining characteristics of attrition warfare is lack of all except the most rudimentary of strategy and tactics... The shield-wall is a prime example of attrition warfare.

The best battle engine in the series is MTW/VI v2.01. It was an evolution of the STW battle engine. The RTW/BI engine is inferior because it's missing some important features that were in the older engine. Problems in MTW/VI were the ineffective ranged units and ineffective spear units leading to a sword/cav dominated gameplay. STW v1.12 had more useful ranged units and spears that worked properly, so there were more tactical options with the four basic elements of ranged, sword, spear and cavalry in the rock, paper, scissors system. Those four basic elements have to be well balanced for the gamplay to have the full range of tactical options. You can have more than four elements, but it still has to be well balanced to maintain diversity in the tactics. If the elements are not well balanced, the gameplay collapses to a narrow solution. The attrition warfare you mention is one of the consequences of imbalance. It's one of the narrow solutions caused by a particular imbalance in the units. LongJohn, who designed the STW/MTW battle engine, went on record saying he felt 25% balance was good enough. I disagree with that because I've seen good players turn a 15% imbalance into a big advantage. I think you need not more than 10% imbalance.

The RTW/BI 3D engine looks nice, but, except for the killing at the spearpoints and the men being tossed around, it seems to use the same 2D system for the combat resolution with some of the features of that 2D system missing. Unfortunately, even a balanced faction for multiplayer isn't going to bring back the missing features. The emphasis on watching the men fight close up has meant a lengthening of the combat cycle which is not good from a statistical point of view especially since the number of men in a normal sized unit have been reduced to 66% of what it was in the previous 2D engine games. If you increase the uncertainty in the combat, then you diminish the value of using correct tactics. I would say the previous STW/MTW engine had a good level of uncertainty, and the gameplay didn't need more uncertainty.

The player community can't make a mod that balances everything because some parameters in the battle engine are not accessible to them. Getting players to use a custom mod is also very difficult.