Note on whinging

[caravel]

RPS calculations are the bain of strategy games. Any strategy game. I really hate games where a spearman could never defeat a swordsman because a sword is rock and a spear is sissors.

I don't get this "bane of strategy games" argument. Under the RPS system level used in MTW or STW, spearmen would not always lose to swordsmen, but swords have an advantage over spears in hand to hand melee combat that I would have thought would have been quite obvious. Cavalry have the same advantage over the swords, and spears have that holding advantage against cavalry. It is not a clear cut system though. For example Trebizond Archers or other skirmishers can often take on light, or even medium cavalry and win. Swordsmen can win against cavalry when flanking, wheras in a head on assault they would surely lose. Morale fatigue and height all play a big part in this. When a unit is more seasoned, better equipped or elite it can counterbalance those effects, this adds another dimension to battles removing their predictability. If predictable easy battles are what you want then your simplified system is ideal.

You seem to be calling for a simplification of battles down to a high speed RTS style clickfest level. These type of fast battles don't involve any kind of tactical manouvering or outflanking. They are unrealistic and dull.

[lars573]

I don't get this "bane of strategy games" argument. Under the RPS system level used in MTW or STW, spearmen would not always lose to swordsmen, but swords have an advantage over spears in hand to hand melee combat that I would have thought would have been quite obvious. Cavalry have the same advantage over the swords, and spears have that holding advantage against cavalry. It is not a clear cut system though. For example Trebizond Archers or other skirmishers can often take on light, or even medium cavalry and win. Swordsmen can win against cavalry when flanking, wheras in a head on assault they would surely lose. Morale fatigue and height all play a big part in this. When a unit is more seasoned, better equipped or elite it can counterbalance those effects, this adds another dimension to battles removing their predictability. If predictable easy battles are what you want then your simplified system is ideal.

That is not RPS. In a RPS system it's not that spear vs. spear lack advantage over each other. It's that they can't damage each other very well at all. AoE uses RPS. Where if two spear units could attack each other for 5 minutes and not get very far. But a sword unit would kill either in 5 hits.

You seem to be calling for a simplification of battles down to a high speed RTS style clickfest level. These type of fast battles don't involve any kind of tactical manouvering or outflanking. They are unrealistic and dull.

RTW battles are the best form. Not over simplified (if you don't turn on arcade battles), not overly complecated (like S/MTW). Optimal. Now could there be improvement, yes. The AI needs work on army management. I won't mind working a little harder for victory in M2TW.

[L'Impresario]

Regarding some of the elaboration here:

Put back the combat penalty when units overlap
- I'm not sure this applied with RTW and the historical style of battle during that period.

This is one of the most important things that need to be fixed. This means you can lump all your cav units together in one mass and win vs an opponent that will try to pin and flank you. The importance of this can't be understated.

Aren't these already the case:
Provide more settings on fatigue rate, morale level, and ammo
Separate the fatigue, morale and ammo settings

No, you don't have multiple selection regarding these, it's a "use it or leave it" approach. If one wants to play with fatigue, but not with the standard fatigue system that doesn't penalize enough (as in MTW/VI for example) running around, then no other option exists. Same thing with the other settings, some people don't want to use upgrades to most units in order to bring them to a desired general morale level, and sometimes the upgrade system works contrary to intuition and number-crunching methods ("army selection skills") become more important than the actual use of your units.
With ammo it's maybe harder more settings (like 1/2, 1/4, x2 ammo?), but we 're not talking mainly about an arrow exchange with the AI, but rather vs intelligent players, where you might be relunctant to move unless the opponent has used a good portion of his ammo/ tired his shooting units. Now, if this means 15 minutes of non-stopping, pure shooting, then it's something that can alienate a portion of the players (I can speak of VI here), that consider it an extremely long time, given that over time units start becoming less effective, slowing further the combat resolution phase. Just to be able to cater to different tastes without small modding that makes games incompatible.

[caravel]

That is not RPS. In a RPS system it's not that spear vs. spear lack advantage over each other. It's that they can't damage each other very well at all. AoE uses RPS. Where if two spear units could attack each other for 5 minutes and not get very far. But a sword unit would kill either in 5 hits.

When we say 'RPS' we are not speaking of RPS in it's pure form, but the RPS style of unit melee engagement 'rules' used in all TW games. Basically that one unit is more suited to taking on a certain type of unit than another. For example Pikes should do a great deal of damage to any type of cavalry, and a 9 star general's Kataphraktoi unit should be no exception. Yes they should fare better, but the end result should be the same. Brute forcing your way through with valour and upgrades is not sound tactics. The overriding factors of the unit type should take priority. A pike is a pike whether wielded by elite bodyguards or the conscripted peasants. The player should be forced to use his units intelligently... not bumrushing.

With TW it works as basically: Spears beats horses beats swords beats spears. If that system wasn't in place we would have a situation where certain units would become pretty useless. More definition of the 'RPS', as it was in STW would only improve gameplay and tactics while enhancing the overall multiplayer, and singleplayer experience.

RTW battles are the best form. Not over simplified (if you don't turn on arcade battles), not overly complecated (like S/MTW). Optimal. Now could there be improvement, yes. The AI needs work on army management. I won't mind working a little harder for victory in M2TW.

In your opinion. In my opinion they are boring, fast paced, simplistic slugfests, and in the opinion of many other RTW players they are the same. Which is why so many mods for RTW tend to address these sorts of issues. They are in no shape or form 'optimal'.

[econ21]

With TW it works as basically: Spears beats horses beats swords beats spears. If that system wasn't in place we would have a situation where certain units would become pretty useless. More definition of the 'RPS', as it was in STW would only improve gameplay and tactics while enhancing the overall multiplayer, and singleplayer experience.

I guess RPS opens up more scope for tactics, but personally, I would prefer the modelling to be based on history and realism than artificial gameplay considerations. If a battalion of M1 Abrams renders most other land units "useless" by comparison, so be it. However, I freely admit one of the problems for my perspective is that people don't agree on what's a realistic model of historical conflict. When MTW came out, I recall an epic thread in the Org on the "Myth of the Cavalry charge", where it was hotly disputed whether cavalry was underpowered in MTW. At the time, I was struck by a lot of informed people arguing that - contrary to the original thesis of the thread - actually knights were not as vulnerable to spears etc as people assumed.

Personally, I think RTW did a good job of modelling some of the interactions between units, at least after tweaking of the stats as in RTR or EB.

For example, contests between phalanxes and non-phalanxes often evolve in believable ways. For me, this was to be the litmus test of how RTW modelled combat between different types of units: who would win, the legion or the phalanx? People argued about it endlessly, but I am happy with the answer provided in RTW. The phalanx slowly grinds through if its flanks are secure; otherwise, the swordsmen slowly work around the phalanx and things fall apart. The weakness of the RTW phalanx is in the AIs inability to maintain a solid line and defend its flanks. It may also be too vulnerable to cavalry (although if you keep it at rest and get rid of the 2 hit point generals, it may do better).

I actually like the fact that the swords vs spears difference is muted in RTW. It seemed wholly unrealistic in MTW and my heart sinks at the thought of it inevitably returning in M2TW (please, no repeat of the 100 strong Byzantine sword-armed infantry! For realism, give 'em long spears and make them anti-cavalry shields, not legion type meat grinders). Most Medieval units (like Ancient warbands) used a mix of melee weapons. And I'm not convinced swords are much superior to spears in infantry combat, as throughout history spears have been favoured (including the gunpowder period with the bayonet, not the sword, being adopted as a secondary weapon). For much of the Medieval period, the best Catholic infantry should be dismounted knights, who would be equipped to handle both cavalry (using their - possibly shortened - lances as spears or polearms) and other infantry (using a variety of swords, axes, maces, pole-arms). They should also be the best cavalry. Yes, this might render a lot of other Catholic units potentially "useless" but pricing and availability constraints should mean that they have nonetheless to be used. I always hoped people would do a kind of "MTW - Total Realism" mod that reflected this - they never did; hopefully we will see that now with M2TW.

I think RTW did a better job modelling horse archers than STW or MTW. The shooting on a the move ability is welcome and foot archer vs horse archer contests are not so lopped side (I confess, I would have thought the edge was with the foot archer, but playing Mount and Blade made me question that presumption - it's not so easy to hit a fast moving, skirmishing horse.) The AI uses its horse archers rather well too. A Hun or Parthian army can be a painful thing to handle, whereas in MTW, Mongol or Turkish horse archers could provide something of a turkey shoot (no pun intended).

In terms of cavalry and archery, I think CA have given us the ability to mod their power as we wish by altering the stats. I've tried a lot of different representations - IMO, cavalry and archery are rather too strong in vanilla RTW. I like EBs representation and can even live with the extreme nerfs in RTR. However, I felt knights were a little dull in MTW. Giving them a bit of the vim they enjoy in RTW would not be inappropriate. I always found knights were an optional extra in my MTW armies (all my comments are SP only) - that does not feel right.

I fear I have gone off-topic a little, but there's only so much one can say about whingeing.

[caravel]

I guess RPS opens up more scope for tactics, but personally, I would prefer the modelling to be based on history and realism than artificial gameplay considerations. If a battalion of M1 Abrams renders most other land units "useless" by comparison, so be it. However, I freely admit one of the problems for my perspective is that people don't agree on what's a realistic model of historical conflict. When MTW came out, I recall an epic thread in the Org on the "Myth of the Cavalry charge", where it was hotly disputed whether cavalry was underpowered in MTW. At the time, I was struck by a lot of informed people arguing that - contrary to the original thesis of the thread - actually knights were not as vulnerable to spears etc as people assumed.

Modelling based on history would be ideal though some abstraction has to occur. There were few 'M1 Abrams' units during that period. Knights were not the mainstay of an army, they were moreso the well armed and well protected nobility. Neither were armies organised into units of like types and weapons, 'feudal men at arms', for example, would have been armed and armoured with whatever they could scavange/steal/afford. There were no real 'standing armies' as such.

[Little Legioner]

If we take presantation movies as a solid reference your lists are already dead guys. I just hope they've been increased the overall speed only for movies not actual game. ( infact i'm praying for that )

As a clarification CA may give some information in their FAQ section about this matter titled "battle mechanics".

[Lord Adherbal]

It's a big problem with slingers. LOS for individual men would fix it for low tragectory weapons. For higher trajectory weapons such as archers, you reduce the accuracy of the volley. BTW, the velocity of arches is too high.

M2TW is going to have guns. This is going to be a disaster if they shoot through their own units because of the nearly flat tracjectory.

this is incorrect. I believe the problem was addressed in some patch. The NTW2 mod has musket units who all have a flat firing trajectory and shooting friendly units in the back only happens VERY rarely.

[econ21]

There were few 'M1 Abrams' units during that period. Knights were not the mainstay of an army, they were moreso the well armed and well protected nobility.

Point taken on the knights. I was using it loosely to refer to a well-armoured, semi-professional warrior with a horse - I guess a man-at-arms would be the proper term for this. Knights, as in the nobility, would be included here but not the majority. By the high period, I suspect most men-at-arms might be functionally armed and armoured to a similar extent to the knights proper, but with less finely crafted equipment.

AFAIK, by the High Period of MTW, such men-at-arms were the mainstay of many Catholic armies; for example, the Hundred Years War French. They were supplemented by some missiles (mercenary crossbowmen) and probably at times had a lot of low grade feudal infantry along with them as well. But my impression is that the cutting edge of the medieval French army, for example, was it is large number of men-at-arms. And the decisive encounters in the many of iconic Hundred Years War battles were when they were be met by English equivalents, often dismounted and supported by longbowmen and billmen etc.

Yes, men-at-arms were not invulnerable M1 Abrams, as the longbowmen and the pikemen showed, but at their prime, they were rather more than one element of an RPS system of warfare. They were the mainstay.

I guess you could say MTW models these non-knight men-at-arms with the mounted sergeants and men-at-arms swords units. But:
(1) The mounted sergeants in MTW are too lightly armoured, at least in the High Period. They should be closer to the MTW chivalric knights unit.
(2) These men-at-arms units should have had the mount/dismount option before battle, as should the knights proper.
(3) When dismounted, the knights and men-at-arms should have been at least as good against cavalry as the spears.

All three changes would undermine the RPS system. Basically, Catholic players would want men-at-arms plus missiles - most other units would be, if not "useless", then clearly inferior. But arguably this would model history better.

Medieval scholars feel free to contradict me; I'm no expert.

[Puzz3D]

I guess RPS opens up more scope for tactics, but personally, I would prefer the modelling to be based on history and realism than artificial gameplay considerations. If a battalion of M1 Abrams renders most other land units "useless" by comparison, so be it. However, I freely admit one of the problems for my perspective is that people don't agree on what's a realistic model of historical conflict. When MTW came out, I recall an epic thread in the Org on the "Myth of the Cavalry charge", where it was hotly disputed whether cavalry was underpowered in MTW. At the time, I was struck by a lot of informed people arguing that - contrary to the original thesis of the thread - actually knights were not as vulnerable to spears etc as people assumed.

You do realize that the consequence of that thread was a degrading of the multiplayer gameplay. Swords were given a hidden +1 attack vs spears, cost of spears was increased 15%, cost of cavalry knights was decreased 25%, and the cavalry was given some pushbacks (+6 attack on the next combat cycle which is a 300% attack bonus) against spearmen. All this done with no improvement to the morale of spears. Since swords were also cheap, they were given upgrades making the problem worse. The system only worked as a combined arms game with either no upgrades or uniform upgrades across all units. You can't play multiplayer with no upgrades because the morale is so low that the gameplay is a routfest. Creative Assembly refused to provide stepped morale settings as an option. After the MTW v1.1 patch multiplayer quickly deteriorated into cavalry and sword armies, and that remained to be the case despite fixing of the infinte charge bug and removal of battlefield upgrades in VI v2.01.

I actually like the fact that the swords vs spears difference is muted in RTW. It seemed wholly unrealistic in MTW and my heart sinks at the thought of it inevitably returning in M2TW (please, no repeat of the 100 strong Byzantine sword-armed infantry! For realism, give 'em long spears and make them anti-cavalry shields, not legion type meat grinders). Most Medieval units (like Ancient warbands) used a mix of melee weapons. And I'm not convinced swords are much superior to spears in infantry combat, as throughout history spears have been favoured (including the gunpowder period with the bayonet, not the sword, being adopted as a secondary weapon). For much of the Medieval period, the best Catholic infantry should be dismounted knights, who would be equipped to handle both cavalry (using their - possibly shortened - lances as spears or polearms) and other infantry (using a variety of swords, axes, maces, pole-arms). They should also be the best cavalry. Yes, this might render a lot of other Catholic units potentially "useless" but pricing and availability constraints should mean that they have nonetheless to be used. I always hoped people would do a kind of "MTW - Total Realism" mod that reflected this - they never did; hopefully we will see that now with M2TW.

The sword units are a fabrication in STW and MTW, and I agree the swords were made too strong in MTW v1.1 and thereafter. They also cost less than the spear they beat in MTW. At least in STW, the sword unit was more expensive than the spear it beat which is what makes the RPS gameplay work in a system like Total War multiplayer where you can buy as many of whatever you want.

I think RTW did a better job modelling horse archers than STW or MTW. The shooting on a the move ability is welcome and foot archer vs horse archer contests are not so lopped side (I confess, I would have thought the edge was with the foot archer, but playing Mount and Blade made me question that presumption - it's not so easy to hit a fast moving, skirmishing horse.) The AI uses its horse archers rather well too. A Hun or Parthian army can be a painful thing to handle, whereas in MTW, Mongol or Turkish horse archers could provide something of a turkey shoot (no pun intended).

That's true, but if HA don't have a counterunit you don't have a combined arms game in multiplayer. If HA are going to be uncounterable, they should be significantly more expensive than the unit they can beat. In STW, a cav archer cost 450 and could beat a no-dachi infantry which cost 300, but they couldn't beat a warrior monk that cost 500 and the only difference between the no-dachi and warror monk was the melee combat power. This was in a game where the cav archer had a clearcut anti-unit in the yari cav. In Samurai Wars, we will model the mongol horse archer with a better bow and perhaps more armor to reflect increased difficulty in hitting them, but the cost is going to have to go up otherwise the gameplay will be damaged.

We have taken steps in the new Samurai Wars stat to make the standard cav archers better by giving them the same accuracy as the foot archers and increasing their morale. We can't lower their cost because the no-dach which they beat are in the next cost slot below them. You can't make a higher mobility unit beat an equal cost lower mobility unit because then you aren't placing any cost on the higher mobility. In RTW, mobility doesn't seem to have a proper cost associated with it.

In terms of cavalry and archery, I think CA have given us the ability to mod their power as we wish by altering the stats. I've tried a lot of different representations - IMO, cavalry and archery are rather too strong in vanilla RTW. I like EBs representation and can even live with the extreme nerfs in RTR. However, I felt knights were a little dull in MTW. Giving them a bit of the vim they enjoy in RTW would not be inappropriate. I always found knights were an optional extra in my MTW armies (all my comments are SP only) - that does not feel right.

That's why we need options on the number of arrows for multiplayer. We didn't need that in STW because the effectiveness of archers was fine. Remember the STW demo where you had to beat a yari samurai with a samurai archer? To win you had to shoot, fall back to higher ground, shoot again, fall back to higher ground and finally charge down using the hill advantage. What's happened to that kind of balancing that Creative Assembly used to perform? Now they don't do that because the players they are aiming the game at won't notice it anyway?

[Myrddraal]

That's why we need options on the number of arrows for multiplayer.

OH NOW I GET IT! So you want an option for MP whereby you can reduce the amo of all units. Sorry I didn't get that at first. Duh.

I think the problem we have here is a problem which cannot be solved universally. Cost is meant to represent the actual cost in money for a Lord to raise a unit, but when it comes to MP and custom battles (where unit production is limited by nothing except money), this can prevent balanced armies from being selected. Things like a cost associated with mobility don't make sense in SP but are (it seems) necessary for MP. A seperate currency (called MP points or something) could be implemented for MP and custom battles maybe?

This probably wont happen, but it's the only way I see of resolving these issues.

[Puzz3D]

OH NOW I GET IT! So you want an option for MP whereby you can reduce the amo of all units. Sorry I didn't get that at first. Duh.

I think the problem we have here is a problem which cannot be solved universally. Cost is meant to represent the actual cost in money for a Lord to raise a unit, but when it comes to MP and custom battles (where unit production is limited by nothing except money), this can prevent balanced armies from being selected. Things like a cost associated with mobility don't make sense in SP but are (it seems) necessary for MP. A seperate currency (called MP points or something) could be implemented for MP and custom battles maybe?

There are different considerations between single player campaign and multiplayer. For instance, there is no upkeep cost in multiplayer and the general has no command stars in multiplayer. The only controls in multiplayer are the florin level and "arcade" on or off which turns off fatigue and morale and provides unlimited ammo. If you raise the florins to get more morale on the units it wrecks the rock, paper, scissors gameplay as players try to make superunits with the upgrades or as Orda says they numbercrunch the cost/benefit ratio with stat compare tools to the disadvantage of those players who don't want to have to use those tools. Above all, newbies get blown away by players who have mastered the unit purchase/upgrade optimizations. What's strange about this is LongJohn used the reason that newbies would be confused when he refused to provide more options on multiplayer. Creative Assembly has made the game extremely confusing with the upgrade system they have implimented.

Why not simply provide generals with increasing command stars for various levels of play? With a system like that, multiplayers could find a setting which provided a good balance between maneuver and attrition gameplay without upsetting the combined arms balance. LongJohn is on record as saying he thinks the optimal morale level is different for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 games, and this system would allow adustment for that. You would still have the possibity of low morale battles (mostly maneuver) and high morale battle (mostly attrition) with this system. This system would actually make the gameplay more like a campaign game, and some players do come to multiplayer after playing campaign.

Variable fatigue and ammo is not necessary if Creative Assembly does a good job of optimizing, but since STW they haven't shown the ability to continually improve the game in this area. They oscillate around the optimal point by a wide enough margin that the gameplay is significantly affected. For instance, ranged units too weak in MTW only to be too strong in RTW, and fatigue rate too high in MTW while too low in RTW. We don't see a steady improvement in these optimizations since original STW. That's why when someone posts how RTW is improved over STW, I don't see it that way.

In MTW, you can designate a unit for use in single player campaign or custom/multiplayer or both. We use this in STWmod for MTW/VI to separate the cost and morale level of each unit whether it's intended for SP campaign or multiplayer. Creative Assembly could do this, but if they don't want to then I don't see how multiplayer can ever improve especially when there are ever more units and more factions in each release. I see a steady degradation of the gameplay with each release if they stick to the multiplayer system they used in STW.

This probably wont happen, but it's the only way I see of resolving these issues.

I don't think this is going to be solved either.

[Lord Adherbal]

I think RTW did a better job modelling horse archers than STW or MTW. The shooting on a the move ability is welcome and foot archer vs horse archer contests are not so lopped side

it is an improvement, but the ability to shoot 360° is unrealistic too. A HA unit chased by light cavalry shouldn't be able to fire backwards. An exception being elite HA's who master the "parthian shot" technique, but this would still not be as effective as shooting forward. And the right flank of a HA unit should definitly be a "blind zone" because it is physically impossible for a horseman to shoot in that direction unless he can shoot both left and right handed.

[Lord Adherbal]

A seperate currency (called MP points or something) could be implemented for MP and custom battles maybe?

There already is a seperate cost value for a unit in the SP campaign and in MP/custom battle.

[econ21]

You do realize that the consequence of that thread was a degrading of the multiplayer gameplay. Swords were given a hidden +1 attack vs spears, cost of spears was increased 15%, cost of cavalry knights was decreased 25%, and the cavalry was given some pushbacks (+6 attack on the next combat cycle which is a 300% attack bonus) against spearmen. All this done with no improvement to the morale of spears.

Well, this might be an example of a conflict between SP and MP; or between realism and gameplay. I felt after these changes (primarily the pushback effect, I guess), CA finally got the balance between spears and knights in SP to a reasonable level. There certainly seemed to be less complaints. In MTW 1.0, knights seemed to bounce off spears (maybe the same is true in STW). After the tweaking, a unit of royal knights was dangerous, a real threat if they hit your flanks or get behind your lines. After the changes, if royal knights charged head on into a unit of feudal spears, they might prevail. But it would be very bloodly for the knights and given the rarity/cost issue, the general of the spears would be happier at the trade. That was my rough impression from my SP games - I did not do formal tests of outcomes before and after the patch - and intuitively it seemed fair enough.

However, as I said earlier, I'd like to see M2TW knights retain a little bit of the power of RTW cavalry. Knights against good infantry - say Flemish pikes etc - should like MTW. But knights against run of the mill stuff, should be a bit more like RTWs uber-cav. Otherwise, historically, why did people go to all the cost of training and maintaining knights if a run of the mill infantry could negate them? It does not compute. An example of the kind of balance I am thinking of may be Goth's mod for BI. It seems to do a reasonable job of modelling Dark Age and super-heavy cavalry. It's nasty but you still don't want to charge Gothic spears head on, you still want to go for the flanks and you still want to set up a good charge.[1]

I take your points about swords and MP, but I tended to under-use swords in SP. I regarded them in MTW as most of us regard Egyptians in RTW - sure, they are powerful but they are so unhistorical, they are aesthetically ugly.

[1]BTW, I wonder if RTW has improved the modelling of the cavalry charge? Playing RTR Platinum, where the cavalry attack stat is nerfed, and also Goth mod where there are no 2 HP uber-bodygyards, I am starting to appreciate the nuances involved in getting a charge bonus to kick in. Ideally, you want to be in formation, facing the right way, start at a trot and have enought time for the run up. Do that and your men lower lances, and hit with great impact. Mess it up and you go straight into a messy melee with no advantage either side and much lower lethality. I don't recall these subtleties from STW and MTW.

[Puzz3D]

Well, this might be an example of a conflict between SP and MP; or between realism and gameplay. I felt after these changes (primarily the pushback effect, I guess), CA finally got the balance between spears and knights in SP to a reasonable level. There certainly seemed to be less complaints. In MTW 1.0, knights seemed to bounce off spears (maybe the same is true in STW). After the tweaking, a unit of royal knights was dangerous, a real threat if they hit your flanks or get behind your lines. After the changes, if royal knights charged head on into a unit of feudal spears, they might prevail. But it would be very bloodly for the knights and given the rarity/cost issue, the general of the spears would be happier at the trade. That was my rough impression from my SP games - I did not do formal tests of outcomes before and after the patch - and intuitively it seemed fair enough.

Royal Knights were never supposed to be a viable combat unit according to LongJohn. They were put in there for flavor, and I think against his wishes. Changing the playbalance to accomodate that unit would be wrong.

However, as I said earlier, I'd like to see M2TW knights retain a little bit of the power of RTW cavalry. Knights against good infantry - say Flemish pikes etc - should like MTW. But knights against run of the mill stuff, should be a bit more like RTWs uber-cav. Otherwise, historically, why did people go to all the cost of training and maintaining knights if a run of the mill infantry could negate them? It does not compute. An example of the kind of balance I am thinking of may be Goth's mod for BI. It seems to do a reasonable job of modelling Dark Age and super-heavy cavalry. It's nasty but you still don't want to charge Gothic spears head on, you still want to go for the flanks and you still want to set up a good charge.

I'm sure that you'll get what you want to the detriment of multiplayer.

I take your points about swords and MP, but I tended to under-use swords in SP. I regarded them in MTW as most of us regard Egyptians in RTW - sure, they are powerful but they are so unhistorical, they are aesthetically ugly.

I don't care what unit represents the third component of the rock, paper, scissors system just so long as there is one. MTW multiplayer deteriorated to a two component system, and RTW to a one component system. I'd like to know what happened to Creative Assembly's attention to gameplay which they claimed was their focus just before RTW was released. They have stated that historical accuracy and realism are not their focus.

BTW, I wonder if RTW has improved the modelling of the cavalry charge? Playing RTR Platinum, where the cavalry attack stat is nerfed, and also Goth mod where there are no 2 HP uber-bodygyards, I am starting to appreciate the nuances involved in getting a charge bonus to kick in. Ideally, you want to be in formation, facing the right way, start at a trot and have enought time for the run up. Do that and your men lower lances, and hit with great impact. Mess it up and you go straight into a messy melee with no advantage either side and much lower lethality. I don't recall these subtleties from STW and MTW.

Cavalry charge bonus was broken in STW. There was no noticable charge bonus given. In MI, +12 morale was added to all units in multiplayer, and the power of guns increased from 4 to 16 eventhough anything above power 8 didn't do anything because the system saturated at 8. On top of that, the weapon and armor upgrade costs were incorrectly calculated. The naginata cav unit was introduced with identical stats to a warror monk except faster and it was cheaper in cost! The single man kensai simply cannot be balanced in that combat system, and the invisible ninja with 100 ammo was another indication of changes which were not historical or gameplay improvements unless you think extreme units are fun. What it did to multiplayer was to make some bizarre exploits possible.

In MTW/VI v2.01, the charge bonus was finally fixed and the subtlety of managing the cav charge properly as you describe does exist in lower florin battles, but most games were played at such high florins that pumped swords beat cav frontally. You could even beat cav frontally with pumped ranged units due to that screwy discount on ranged unit upgrades. These aren't problems in MTW/VI SP as far as I remember.

[Orda Khan]

Otherwise, historically, why did people go to all the cost of training and maintaining knights if a run of the mill infantry could negate them?

Prestige mainly. Or old boys school, or elitists club, or them and us, the have and have nots. Precisely the reason why the Longbow 'serfs' did not find it so disagreeable to despatch them (Agincourt murder of prisoners)

the ability to shoot 360° is unrealistic too.

Agreed.

A HA unit chased by light cavalry shouldn't be able to fire backwards. An exception being elite HA's who master the "parthian shot"

That would cover most of the horse archers who ever rode the steppes. All these HA were 'elite', if elite is the correct word.

this would still not be as effective as shooting forward.

Agreed, or to the left side.

And the right flank of a HA unit should definitly be a "blind zone" because it is physically impossible for a horseman to shoot in that direction unless he can shoot both left and right handed.

Though there were bound to be some left handed HA, not enough to negate the above statement.

The most obvious thing I have noticed about this thread or any whingeing on these boards seems to be that the MP side of TW is suffering most. How do we expect to substantiate our concerns about overlapping units when some think that is how battles were fought in these times?

"This left the infantry unprotected and so closely huddled that a man could hardly wield his sword or draw back his arm once he had stretched it out." Ammianus Marcelinus.

I wonder how eight cavalry units on top of each other would fare?
I find it extremely odd that some like Lars in particular, find the tactical battles so boring as to want them over as quick as possible. There again, given how easy it is to defeat the AI, I suppose boring is a good description of SP battles against the current AI

.......Orda

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

You do realize that the consequence of that thread was a degrading of the multiplayer gameplay. Swords were given a hidden +1 attack vs spears, cost of spears was increased 15%, cost of cavalry knights was decreased 25%, and the cavalry was given some pushbacks (+6 attack on the next combat cycle which is a 300% attack bonus) against spearmen. All this done with no improvement to the morale of spears. Since swords were also cheap, they were given upgrades making the problem worse. The system only worked as a combined arms game with either no upgrades or uniform upgrades across all units. You can't play multiplayer with no upgrades because the morale is so low that the gameplay is a routfest. Creative Assembly refused to provide stepped morale settings as an option. After the MTW v1.1 patch multiplayer quickly deteriorated into cavalry and sword armies, and that remained to be the case despite fixing of the infinte charge bug and removal of battlefield upgrades in VI v2.01.

(for context, Yuuki is answering Econ21 on spears being overpowered)

To be honest Yuuki, in MTW 1.0, spears were too powerfull, to the point that it was sword that were not needed. Too bad the correction went overboard.

After 1.1, spears were basically useless. To bring spears into a MP game was one of the fastest way to say you were new to the game (or, if you were a vet, that you wanted some added challenge )

Louis,

[Puzz3D]

To be honest Yuuki, in MTW 1.0, spears were too powerfull, to the point that it was sword that were not needed. Too bad the correction went overboard.

Yes that's true, and AMP had already perfected a highly effective spear/sword army tactic within about 2 weeks of the game's release. The problem is that Creative Assembly was only willing to perform one playbalance adjustment to MTW. I don't think you can get the game balanced well enough with just one pass. MTW/VI got a total of three playbalance passes, and it's still not as well balanced as original STW which never had any playbalance adjustments made after it was released unless I'm forgetting something about the v1.12 patch. Bob Smith says CA has set the bar high. Well, it's not as high now as it was back in 2000 with regard to playbalance or battle mechanics.

Tosa is right that LongJohn did ask for playbalance suggestions prior to the release of VI. We asked for pavise xbow and arbs to be moved to the late era. Instead he moved both regular and pav arbs to the late era which left high era with weaker, shorter range xbows, and they had the pavise on top of that! This shows a misunderstanding of what was being asked. It was made very clear back when MTW first came out that ranged weapons were too weak.

[lars573]

When we say 'RPS' we are not speaking of RPS in it's pure form, but the RPS style of unit melee engagement 'rules' used in all TW games. Basically that one unit is more suited to taking on a certain type of unit than another. For example Pikes should do a great deal of damage to any type of cavalry, and a 9 star general's Kataphraktoi unit should be no exception. Yes they should fare better, but the end result should be the same. Brute forcing your way through with valour and upgrades is not sound tactics. The overriding factors of the unit type should take priority. A pike is a pike whether wielded by elite bodyguards or the conscripted peasants. The player should be forced to use his units intelligently... not bumrushing.

Actually a generals Kata unit should be an exception. Just as a pike isn't going to the same if weilded by a conscripted peasant or elite bodyguards. Your examples are both flawed. Kataphraktoi and pikes are mean't to brute force your way through with valour and upgrades. And when used this way they tend to excel. Sword units also tend to be good at that, provided they have armour.

With TW it works as basically: Spears beats horses beats swords beats spears. If that system wasn't in place we would have a situation where certain units would become pretty useless. More definition of the 'RPS', as it was in STW would only improve gameplay and tactics while enhancing the overall multiplayer, and singleplayer experience.

And that's a bad model. It always has been. It means that a spear unit has 10 points of defense for spear attack. But only 5 for sword attack. It would also mean that in terms of damage calculations melee cavalry is all the same. Lance or sword makes no differnece. No RPS systems mean that every faction has to have at least one of every type of unit in the RPS wheel. Without regard to history. It worked in STW because every faction used the same army. Save the Mongols but they were given a tone of Korean and Chinese subject infantry to compensate.

In your opinion. In my opinion they are boring, fast paced, simplistic slugfests, and in the opinion of many other RTW players they are the same. Which is why so many mods for RTW tend to address these sorts of issues. They are in no shape or form 'optimal'.

Not as many as you think. They are optimal. The lack of an RPS system means that if your lacking a certain kind of unit you can still win many kinds of battles. The faster movement speeds mean that battles only take 10 minutes. Rather than 30, which is far far far too long.

[Lord Adherbal]

makes me wonder why on earth some people bothered playing TW games, instead of sticking with AoE and other "fast" RTSes. What is most painfull is that CA decided to listen to these people and not their old fanbase who prefered tactics and thinking and for whoSTW/MTW was not too complicated. Its not like we have a lot of alternatives.

[caravel]

Actually a generals Kata unit should be an exception. Just as a pike isn't going to the same if weilded by a conscripted peasant or elite bodyguards. Your examples are both flawed. Kataphraktoi and pikes are mean't to brute force your way through with valour and upgrades. And when used this way they tend to excel. Sword units also tend to be good at that, provided they have armour.

Maybe you've misunderstood me. My example of a 15th century pikeman vs 11th century obsolete Byzantine Kataphraktoi was chosen to illustrate some of the imbalances already present in MTW even. When Pikes are in formation and braced to take a cavalry charge the effect should be devastating on the cavalry as it would be historically. They are there to stop cavalry, and stop it they did. A warhorse would be very reluctant to charge into a row of gleaming spikes. Armouring up the horses makes little difference, horse armour is mainly frontal, it slows animal down significantly and the underside is still exposed.

And that's a bad model. It always has been. It means that a spear unit has 10 points of defense for spear attack. But only 5 for sword attack. It would also mean that in terms of damage calculations melee cavalry is all the same. Lance or sword makes no differnece. No RPS systems mean that every faction has to have at least one of every type of unit in the RPS wheel. Without regard to history. It worked in STW because every faction used the same army. Save the Mongols but they were given a tone of Korean and Chinese subject infantry to compensate.

Not a bad model because it's not absolute. Spearmen are not invulnerable to knights, swordsmen are not invulnerable to spearmen. Spearman though should lose vs swordsmen most of the time, unless the spearmen are of a particularly elite type. Even then it would be close, because at the end of the day horses can't just charge head first into a wall of spears. This is realistic, if it wasn't the evolution of the spear into the pike, into the square formation, wouldn't have occurred.

Not as many as you think. They are optimal. The lack of an RPS system means that if your lacking a certain kind of unit you can still win many kinds of battles. The faster movement speeds mean that battles only take 10 minutes. Rather than 30, which is far far far too long.

There is no lack of rps in RTW, it's just not as obvious. There will be the same sort of system in M2TW also. If you didn't need specialist units for specialist roles there would be no point in training spear type troops and one may as well deploy all swords or all cav and just bumrush. If you're lacking a balanced force and the enemy isn't, then the enemy should gain the upper hand. My goal is not to simply win a battle, but to play it well. Historically battles didn't last ten minutes. I've often played defensive battles against the Mongols as the Turks lasting over 1 hour, where the enemy sent wave after wave of reinforcements. The mongol's strength, and weakness, is their cavalry. When deploying an army against them one knows to field an army that is heavy on spears, missiles (preferably arbalests) and anti-cav/anti armour units. Swordsmen would be simply outflanked and butchered by the charging cav. Sounds wrong? Well think about it. A man with a sword and shield standing on the ground is pretty much defensless against a cavalry charge, there's not alot he can do but wait and hope that he doesn't get his head split open in the first passage, once the melee starts he has a slight chance to unhorse the riders though the still have the height advantage, which is critical. For me this makes for an interesting tactical battle. Without this aspect I could simply bumrush my upgraded and teched up swordsmen at the enemy cav and not bother with any kind of unit selection or strategising.

[Puzz3D]

There is no lack of rps in RTW, it's just not as obvious.

There is an RPS system in RTW, but it has been weakened since STW. This means RTW requires more precise balancing to make it work properly. Who thinks CA has time to do this more careful balancing? I don't especially when LongJohn said he though 25% imbalance was ok. A multiplayer can easily exploit a 25% imbalance. It was done in STW with the warrior monks and they were only about 15% out of balance. Also, multiplayer requires enough cost differential to fit the units into the RPS system. I would say the minimum should be that the spear cost no more than half of the cav it beats. Triarii do meet that requirement.

[lars573]

Maybe you've misunderstood me. My example of a 15th century pikeman vs 11th century obsolete Byzantine Kataphraktoi was chosen to illustrate some of the imbalances already present in MTW even. When Pikes are in formation and braced to take a cavalry charge the effect should be devastating on the cavalry as it would be historically. They are there to stop cavalry, and stop it they did. A warhorse would be very reluctant to charge into a row of gleaming spikes. Armouring up the horses makes little difference, horse armour is mainly frontal, it slows animal down significantly and the underside is still exposed.

But Cataphracts were created to fight pike phalanxes and not suffer huge casualties. Hence the horse armour. Should a cavalry unit take huge losses frontally charging a spear unit, yes. Should they always lose, no. That should depend on the units involved.

Not a bad model because it's not absolute. Spearmen are not invulnerable to knights, swordsmen are not invulnerable to spearmen. Spearman though should lose vs swordsmen most of the time, unless the spearmen are of a particularly elite type. Even then it would be close, because at the end of the day horses can't just charge head first into a wall of spears. This is realistic, if it wasn't the evolution of the spear into the pike, into the square formation, wouldn't have occurred.

RPS models are absolute. If what you call the TW RPS system isn't then it isn't an RPS system. By their nature they are iron clad and absolute. The phalanx was created to counter chariots. The western pike phalanx (developed by Phillip of Macedon) was created to turn the phalanx into a more offensively capable unit. Also the only pike block that was used to counter cavalry was the western one (which was re-used in the 16th century). The medieval Hawaians and the ancient Sumerians both developed densely packed blocks of men with pikes. Neither of whom would have ever seen a horse, let alone a group of men riding them into battle.

There is no lack of rps in RTW, it's just not as obvious. There will be the same sort of system in M2TW also. If you didn't need specialist units for specialist roles there would be no point in training spear type troops and one may as well deploy all swords or all cav and just bumrush. If you're lacking a balanced force and the enemy isn't, then the enemy should gain the upper hand. My goal is not to simply win a battle, but to play it well. Historically battles didn't last ten minutes. I've often played defensive battles against the Mongols as the Turks lasting over 1 hour, where the enemy sent wave after wave of reinforcements. The mongol's strength, and weakness, is their cavalry. When deploying an army against them one knows to field an army that is heavy on spears, missiles (preferably arbalests) and anti-cav/anti armour units. Swordsmen would be simply outflanked and butchered by the charging cav. Sounds wrong? Well think about it. A man with a sword and shield standing on the ground is pretty much defensless against a cavalry charge, there's not alot he can do but wait and hope that he doesn't get his head split open in the first passage, once the melee starts he has a slight chance to unhorse the riders though the still have the height advantage, which is critical. For me this makes for an interesting tactical battle. Without this aspect I could simply bumrush my upgraded and teched up swordsmen at the enemy cav and not bother with any kind of unit selection or strategising.

Historically battles did last hours. Combat however didn't. That would only be 10-20 minutes tops. And no a man with only a sword and shield would not be defenseless against a horse.

[caravel]

But Cataphracts were created to fight pike phalanxes and not suffer huge casualties. Hence the horse armour. Should a cavalry unit take huge losses frontally charging a spear unit, yes. Should they always lose, no. That should depend on the units involved.

No. There was no cavalry designed to counter phalanxes. Any The formation had to be either loosened up, vollied with missiles, and charged hammer and anvil style or engaged by other infantry and flanked by shock cavalry. Cataphracts are simply eastern armoured cavalry, their armour is for protection against arrows, javelins and sword cuts. It doesn't magically allow them to charge a phalanx head on. The same applies to Western European Knights.

RPS models are absolute. If what you call the TW RPS system isn't then it isn't an RPS system.

Call it what you will. The TW community call it "rock, paper, scissors", as a loose definition.

By their nature they are iron clad and absolute. The phalanx was created to counter chariots. The western pike phalanx (developed by Phillip of Macedon) was created to turn the phalanx into a more offensively capable unit. Also the only pike block that was used to counter cavalry was the western one (which was re-used in the 16th century). The medieval Hawaians and the ancient Sumerians both developed densely packed blocks of men with pikes. Neither of whom would have ever seen a horse, let alone a group of men riding them into battle.

There is absolutely no conclusive evidence that the phalanx was created to counter chariots. There are many cases of phalanx vs phalanx battles throughout history.

Historically battles did last hours. Combat however didn't. That would only be 10-20 minutes tops. And no a man with only a sword and shield would not be defenseless against a horse.

It would depend on the conditions and size of the engagement. 20 minutes would be a minor skirmish though not a large scale engagment. Not defenseless, but at a disadvantage.

[Orda Khan]

Historically battles did last hours. Combat however didn't. That would only be 10-20 minutes tops.

Pardon?!?!.......erm ....no.

This part of the quote: "so closely huddled that a man could hardly wield his sword or draw back his arm once he had stretched it out" is fairly accurate with respect to the shield wall. Anyway, this is irrelevant since it isn't represented in the TW system.

Quite obviously not. Ammianus, as an officer and historian, wrote this to describe the desperate situation of the Roman troops. It is in fact irrelevant as you say, since RTW offers no combat penalty in a situation where it should; or more importantly where it once did. I repeat my previous statement. There are obviously those here who are relating SP battle experiences. In MP the situation was exploited to the full, just like any stat imbalance has been. The result is a terrible experience for those of us who appreciate the tactical battles that TW MP once offered. Regardless of whether one plays SP or MP, enough has been posted on 'SPAM' armies in RTW for any of us to be aware that things are not right. Kraxis has posted a particularly good point regarding situations where the AI may overlap units through no choice and actually gain an advantage where it should obviously be disadvantaged.

I am sure that no-one here deliberately sets out to cause bad feeling, I know I don't and I can assure any who may take offense that none is intended.

Because of the obvious differences (ie SP/MP), we should at least begin to understand both sides of the argument before we start to accuse anyone of anything. Somebody even mentioned 'pause', that function does not exist in MP. The AI is never going to exploit the game and bring a SPAM army. Unfortunately, this behaviour is normal in MP....'if it's there exploit it'. Yeah great!! As Louis says, regardless of whether it can be beaten, all the effort of hosting, army selection, deployment has been wasted.

wasted time is gone forever, you will never get it back

I loved this statement when I saw it first, it is so very true.

Whether we whinge or not, let's not lose sight of the fact we all love this game and all we want is for the game to be the best it can be. I am sure everyone must be aware by now that these gripes do not come simply from personal opinions

........Orda

[Puzz3D]

That is not RPS. In a RPS system it's not that spear vs. spear lack advantage over each other. It's that they can't damage each other very well at all. AoE uses RPS. Where if two spear units could attack each other for 5 minutes and not get very far. But a sword unit would kill either in 5 hits.

That's too extreme. In STW, two 60 man (YS) spears will fight for about 2 minutes and possibly less, and it will take about 30 seconds for the best sword (WM) to beat the standard YS spear. The absolute longest combat is between two NI (naginata infantry) which are much more defensive than spears and fight for about 3 minutes. On top of that, two YS can beat one WM by using maneuver, but I know that for you this is too complicated.

RTW battles are the best form. Not over simplified (if you don't turn on arcade battles), not overly complecated (like S/MTW). Optimal. Now could there be improvement, yes. The AI needs work on army management. I won't mind working a little harder for victory in M2TW.

If something can be improved then it is not optimal. If RTW is best, why did my clan stop playing the game? Why did the FF clan stop playing? How could there be a successful Knights of Valor Clan Wars Competion involving many clans long after RTW was released if RTW was so good? That competition was a direct result of RTW gameplay issues not being addressed in the RTW v1.2 patch. There were were over 500 signatures on the multiplayer petition asking that, in addition stability issues, specific gameplay issues be addressed. The stability was addressed, but the gameplay issues were not addressed. Cavalry spamming and rushing ruled RTW, and it's still a problem if you happen to be a player who wants to play a combined arms game.

[Ser Clegane]

The faster movement speeds mean that battles only take 10 minutes. Rather than 30, which is far far far too long.

To reduce the overall "battle-time" during campaign I would rather liked to have seen a reduction in the number of battles than in the length of individual battles.
That the former did not happen was actually my major gripe with R:TW as I was looking forwards to less but more decisive/meaningful battles (especially as the developers announced that this would be the case) and I got the impression that the number of battles actually increased compared to M:TW.

I would be very happy if M:TW2 would change this situation as I would love to play a campaign with relatively few but epic battles that leave you with a feeling of having changed the course of history instead of having to fight lots of quick battles that I forget as quickly as I fought them (I know that I can auto-resolve but doing so insituation where your forces aren't clearly superior this might be a waste of troops)

[Puzz3D]

I would be very happy if M:TW2 would change this situation as I would love to play a campaign with relatively few but epic battles that leave you with a feeling of having changed the course of history instead of having to fight lots of quick battles that I forget as quickly as I fought them (I know that I can auto-resolve but doing so insituation where your forces aren't clearly superior this might be a waste of troops)

In playing XGM, you can't go anywhere near that auto resolve if you play a faction such as Carthage which doesn't have as high income as several other factions. The strategic AI programmer thought it would be fun to force the player to play every battle, and that's why he put the bias that favors the AI in the auto-resolve. It seems to me the tactical difficulty setting could be used for that or maybe the strategic difficulty if the tactical difficulty settings tracked the bias accurately so you could match them up if you wanted to.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

If something can be improved then it is not optimal. If RTW is best, why did my clan stop playing the game? Why did the FF clan stop playing?

I am not going to answer for the whole clan... Many got accounts here, so they'll answer or correct me if they see fit.

On top of the many reason you've listed and I'd basically agree with, I'd also add a few other points. It was, still is, not possible to play 4*4 large unit size game.
FF liked the large unit size because it helped a bit balancing out the game (normal size helps cavalry), and we like 4v4, because we're a team, we play as a team, and 1v1 is not our thing (ok, it was Crandaeolon specialty... But otherwise, no, nope, no thanks).
Once it became obvious 2v2 was the best we could hope for, a major part of the team game and team tactic appeal was gone for us.

We gave a last try after 1.2, with a modding attempt, we gave up on it... Either modding was too small to affect the gameplay enough, or to large and have unintended consequences.

From there, it became obvious the game was not for us anymore.

Louis,