MP balance mod suggestion

**Geoffrey S** · 08-02-2006, 13:46

Alright, well, thanks for the input. If even longterm players view this as unattainable, it's probably best left aside. In particular, Puzz3D's point about patches is a good one. Were there a dedicated team for such a mod it might be doable, but even then as has been stated not everyone wants the same changes (though this is why I mentioned only minor tweaks).

I guess the more regular players can come up with good rules for balance among each other, anyway.

**Orda Khan** · 08-02-2006, 16:35

There were plenty of dedicated people who tried their utmost to find a Mod that was sufficiently well balanced to provide a worth while MP experience in RTW. SPQR Mod failed due to version conflict, regardless of whether both players had the same version installed on a clean RTW install.
Many dedicated players decided that RTW was useless and simply quit playing.
COH was even set up to try to steer the game towards 'honourable' play in a vain attempt to put an end to ruinous spam armies.
Multiple rules were applied to try to find some gameplay.
And of course, there are always those who do not see anything wrong with the vanilla game.
Oh, I almost forgot the dreadful lobby!

L'Impresario does not agree with my Euro bias claim and maybe at 5k this is not so prevalent. However, most refused to play at such levels due to overall morale and who can blame them since chain rout after chain rout is hardly enjoyable (even when it's you who is routing others) and these chain routs happened over and over, I know because I saw them.
And then there is my old gripe....the STAT COMPARE TOOL. Which gives the studier a breakdown of units in such a way that 'THE' army is soon exposed and consequently used by all.
The only time I really enjoyed MTW or VI was playing Mods but even Mods could do nothing about the static horse archers of STW and MTW.
I really have started to doubt the game will ever be worth playing MP again and unless the AI gets radical treatment I doubt it would be worth playing at all

.........Orda

**L'Impresario** · 08-02-2006, 17:52

However, most refused to play at such levels due to overall morale and who can blame them since chain rout after chain rout is hardly enjoyable (even when it's you who is routing others) and these chain routs happened over and over, I know because I saw them.

That's subjective, each morale level has different nuances and chain routing is present in all but the highest florin levels, when there's a considerable skill difference or serious mistakes. I didn't mention specifically 5k or medium flat maps or anythign else, but I did point out indirectly that habit is a strong force. Personally, I find a base mrl score 5 to be a good compromise between allowing too many errors to go unpunished and trying to control fickle events that can determine a battle. At base mrl 8, you 'll be hard pressed to find a situation where a flanking charge can rout in secs a unit that's not tired or cut from the bulk of its army.
For a more relaxed game there are higher florins settings. On lower morale a single player can rout more frequently multiple opponents, ofcourse not under any circumstances, so you usually can't be sure of the end result. And since units can rout even with few losses should a mass rout occur, the one chasing the fleeing enemy is also taking some risks when his units are getting divided. This back-and-forth game has been proven to offer an enjoyable experience for the appropriate players many a time.

On the "perfect" army, I can say that your own troops seldom guarantee you victory in all occasions, given that there are numerous examples of sword & cav armies being unable to face eastern ones even in 10k. The easier example being 10k 1v1 in a steppe map versus all cav. Or when the enemy uses his v0 alans to force you either to attack him or bring forward knight units and sustain unnecessary casualties.

Regarding mods and weak points of the VI game, like static HA, the modable stats offer you an easy and fast way to strive for a balance. With some creativity, one could make HA shoot faster than normal archers and give them more ammo, trying thus to show their ability to shoot on the run and replenish their arrow stock.

**Orda Khan** · 08-03-2006, 17:49

Originally Posted by L'Impresario

That's subjective, each morale level has different nuances and chain routing is present in all but the highest florin levels, when there's a considerable skill difference or serious mistakes. I didn't mention specifically 5k or medium flat maps or anythign else, but I did point out indirectly that habit is a strong force. Personally, I find a base mrl score 5 to be a good compromise between allowing too many errors to go unpunished and trying to control fickle events that can determine a battle. At base mrl 8, you 'll be hard pressed to find a situation where a flanking charge can rout in secs a unit that's not tired or cut from the bulk of its army.
For a more relaxed game there are higher florins settings. On lower morale a single player can rout more frequently multiple opponents, ofcourse not under any circumstances, so you usually can't be sure of the end result. And since units can rout even with few losses should a mass rout occur, the one chasing the fleeing enemy is also taking some risks when his units are getting divided. This back-and-forth game has been proven to offer an enjoyable experience for the appropriate players many a time.

On the "perfect" army, I can say that your own troops seldom guarantee you victory in all occasions, given that there are numerous examples of sword & cav armies being unable to face eastern ones even in 10k. The easier example being 10k 1v1 in a steppe map versus all cav. Or when the enemy uses his v0 alans to force you either to attack him or bring forward knight units and sustain unnecessary casualties.

Regarding mods and weak points of the VI game, like static HA, the modable stats offer you an easy and fast way to strive for a balance. With some creativity, one could make HA shoot faster than normal archers and give them more ammo, trying thus to show their ability to shoot on the run and replenish their arrow stock.

I mentioned 5k in particular because I was one of the players who tried various settings. Watching your entire army turn and flee without even being engaged is nobody's idea of fun. If pressed, I would have to favour MTW v1.0 as the best experience and I feel subsequent patches did nothing for gameplay, but that is my opinion.
As for the east/west thing, I know what I saw back in MTW MP days and it was not by chance that the best players with eastern factions swapped to Euro's when facing an opponent of equal skill.
I honestly doubt we will ever see a return of decent MP

.......Orda

**CBR** · 08-03-2006, 18:24

Its no coincidence that the MP mods for MTW/VI all have low costs for missile units. A unit equipped with a bow in vanilla was simply too expensive and that didnt change when playing at 5k.

We ran lots of 5k battles during the summer of 2003 to see if VI had improved things (VI had lowered the rout level by 2 points) The conclusion was that big battles were full of chain routs and rush armies were too powerful.

I know I had a lot more fun playing Turks in Community Mod than in vanilla MTW/VI

CBR

**L'Impresario** · 08-03-2006, 18:55

We ran lots of 5k battles during the summer of 2003 to see if VI had improved things (VI had lowered the rout level by 2 points) The conclusion was that big battles were full of chain routs and rush armies were too powerful.

As I've said, it depends. My personal experience with 6k in high that we used as a standard for almost a year in 2005 (before making the mod that is) were very enjoyable and had become the norm in the VI lobby for a while (buu was hosting them with a passion heh). I don't remember any special advantages to rushers, because it takes lots of coordination to launch an attack in such a florin level, even if base mrl was 5-6 (one could easily take v2 FMAA for 506 florins). If you try to swarm an enemy with fast and cheap units you 're endangering yourself needlessly, as the rout can turn your way.
Keep also in mind that missile units also have a greater effect in low florins and can be upgraded for few florins. In 10k v4 Xbows are a very effective infantry that can save you florins and provide excellent fire cover.
But in most florin levels upgrading offers opportunities for exploits, it's just that in lower settings most individual units have a diminished role compared to the army as a total, therefore how you handle them is more important.

**Puzz3D** · 08-14-2006, 19:01

Well, yet another attempt at a balance mod, Samurai Wars for MTW/VI goes down the drain. I would say over 1000 manhours went into that. Too many players have problems getting mods to work online.

**Vladimir** · 08-02-2006, 18:19

I really don’t think the Eastern factions in MTW/VI were weaker per say but they did demand more attention from the player. While the European style units had a fire and forget style the fast, mobile, ranged units of the East demand more attention. These attributes demand greater skill on the part of the “general” and also serve to enhance his ability.

When playing as the Turks I’m able to take down the Byzantine using ~80% Turcoman Horse Archers. Now, I don’t recommend that you try that on multiplayer but there are a cheap and effective way of defeating your enemy.

It’s less about balance and more about tactics. If you can assign certain units to certain people you can fight European armies like Saladin did, and not like an armchair general.

**Puzz3D** · 08-02-2006, 19:39

Originally Posted by Vladimir

When playing as the Turks I’m able to take down the Byzantine using ~80% Turcoman Horse Archers.

That's the very thing you don't want to be repeatedly effective in multiplayer. Taking 80% of one unit type should leave you vulnerable to the counterunit which your opponent will start to utilize. Every unit must have a counterunit otherwise you don't have a combined arms game, and the army type used will eventually converge to the army that has no counter.

Originally Posted by Vladimir

If you can assign certain units to certain people you can fight European armies like Saladin did, and not like an armchair general.

In multiplayer, people pick their armies. They aren't assigned armies. This is why balanced units within a faction and balanced factions are so critical. With the large number of units and factions in the game now, the task of balancing is enormous. In STWmod which only has 14 unit types and all factions using the same unit set, it took several months of work and hundreds of tests to balance, and we are still finding things that need adjustment a year later.

**Geoffrey S** · 08-02-2006, 23:20

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

That's the very thing you don't want to be repeatedly effective in multiplayer. Taking 80% of one unit type should leave you vulnerable to the counterunit which your opponent will start to utilize. Every unit must have a counterunit otherwise you don't have a combined arms game, and the army type used will eventually converge to the army that has no counter.

This is one of the major issues I encountered when playing RTW in multiplayer at last. There wasn't nearly enough of a sharp divide between units qualities, as in spears beating cavalry headon, or sword armed units eventually beating spears. And cavalry was simply too powerful. Experience modifiers only made this imbalance worse.

Even in MTW, I could rely on low-grade spearmen beating high level cavalry, of there being some kind of logic. This was absent in RTW, with too much emphasis on elite units, and more noticeable in MP than in SP to me.