Note on whinging

[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.

[Kraxis]

Overlapping units are also important in SP, less than in MP, but still.

As it is now bridges are hardly that much of an advantage as they should be. Right now the attacker can 'just' punch through with a mass of units, the same in cities. The only reason the AI fails is because it doesn't rest and doesn't apply critical force (it come in drips and draps).

And overlapping phalanxes are downright impossible to beat.

And no, I don't think overlapping happens too much. I at least try to keep my forces from overlapping, and if the AI can't keep it's forces properly seperated (could have something to do with it's inability to keep a line), then why cater to that, rather than fix said problem? The problem is still there, and it is going to ruin battles regardless.

[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.

[Myrddraal]

To be honest, I've never noticed the overlapping units problem.

This is because I've never overlapped my units, and neither has the AI.

Apart from it being a stupid situation to have that many units tucked into such a small space, what are the tactical repercussions. Are overlapping units very hard to beat or something?

FYI, when I said I think it represents the style of fighting of the era, I'm speaking of RTW in particular the 'barbarian' factions, where the distiction between individual units is very blurred, and not to the amount of men per square feet. However, the quote does raise an interesting point.

In many cases, that is how battles were fought. Shield walls, both in the Roman sense and in the later saxon and early medieval sense, were compact formations where individual flexibility is sacrificed for greater saftey. In 'shield wall battles' battles were often prolonged with few casualties until one side decided enough was enough.

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.

[Lord Adherbal]

But Cataphracts were created to fight pike phalanxes and not suffer huge casualties.

who told you such nonsense??

FYI, when I said I think it represents the style of fighting of the era, I'm speaking of RTW in particular the 'barbarian' factions, where the distiction between individual units is very blurred, and not to the amount of men per square feet. However, the quote does raise an interesting point.

barbarians fought in much loser formations then the romans, which was one of their weaknesses. They needed more room to swing their swords.

In many cases, that is how battles were fought. Shield walls, both in the Roman sense and in the later saxon and early medieval sense, were compact formations where individual flexibility is sacrificed for greater saftey. In 'shield wall battles' battles were often prolonged with few casualties until one side decided enough was enough.

shield walls are dense organised units, not mobs of men compressed into a tiny square uncapable of even moving their arms. And shields walls - and pike phalanxes - would be highly vulnerable to flanking attacks exactly because they could not easily turn around to face in another direction.

I can't believe how you don't see how important a serious combat penalty for overlapping units is. The only times this happened in history is when the losing side was being pushed back into a massive blob were no one could move, men would be trampled by their own allies and panic and confusion would spread in no time (ex: Cannae).

In RTW you place 10 cataphract units on top of eachother, hardly taking up any more space then if it was a single unit. Then charge the enemy head on, watch the horses jump over eachother in an endless wave with a continuous charge bonus, and victory is yours. Now explain to me how such a situation is anywere near realistic.

[Myrddraal]

I can't believe how you don't see how important a serious combat penalty for overlapping units is. The only times this happened in history is when the losing side was being pushed back into a massive blob were no one could move, men would be trampled by their own allies and panic and confusion would spread in no time (ex: Cannae).

In RTW you place 10 cataphract units on top of eachother, hardly taking up any more space then if it was a single unit. Then charge the enemy head on, watch the horses jump over eachother in an endless wave with a continuous charge bonus, and victory is yours. Now explain to me how such a situation is anywere near realistic.

...

Like I said, I haven't seen it affect gameplay myself, because I don't do it, and neither does the AI, so I was asking, not telling.

what are the tactical repercussions. Are overlapping units very hard to beat or something?

--------------

The historical note was an aside...

this is irrelevant since it isn't represented in the TW system.

--------------

Now explain to me how such a situation is anywere near realistic.

You present a ridiculous situation, ask me to justify it, when I have no desire to do so, in response to a question...............

--------------

I must say I'm getting tired of this thread. This is meant to be a discussion forum. Not a place to list woes. If I can't even ask a question on the gameplay without Adherbal of all people jumping down my throat, then I see that discussion is not wanted.

This place resembles the backroom, with several groups of people, listing opinions, hardly reading what others post before re-stating the same oppinions again. I don't post in the backroom.

No offence to backroom posters, I'm sure there is a lot of good content in there (somewhere )

[econ21]

I've not noticed overlapping units being a problem either. I can see it could be a potentially big issue in multiplayer where competitive players will seize on anything to get an edge. (I've read of ahistorical tactics like phalanx "squares" and all-elephant armies that make me glad I've never tried MP.) But in SP, as Myddraal says, it does not arise much. It would be nice, I guess, but it's not a biggie IMO. I only remember it really kicking in MTW and STW with bridges.

Even if it is missing from bridges (which I am not sure it is - my boys seem able to hold the end of a bridge rather well), I am not sure it is a big deal. Bridges are still extremely advantageous to the human defender - players in an on-going PBM are wracking up enormous kill rates over bridge and ford defences. So I don't really feel they need more of an edge there. The fact that you can concentrate your army on tearing up one unit at a time as they cross is a major advantage. BTW, I don't agree with an earlier poster who said peicemeal approaches across bridges are an AI flaw - to some extent, it's a logical corollary of a bridge (it's narrow, so only one unit can get across at a time).

On a separate point the RTW AI seems rather less good at defending bridges than in MTW or, shudder, STW. They seem to let you get across unmolested a lot of the time. I don't attack across bridges a lot though, so I am not sure how accurate that observation is.

[Kraxis]

...

Like I said, I haven't seen it affect gameplay myself, because I don't do it, and neither does the AI, so I was asking, not telling.


--------------

The historical note was an aside...


--------------


You present a ridiculous situation, ask me to justify it, when I have no desire to do so, in response to a question...............

--------------

I must say I'm getting tired of this thread. This is meant to be a discussion forum. Not a place to list woes. If I can't even ask a question on the gameplay without Adherbal of all people jumping down my throat, then I see that discussion is not wanted.

Well, to be honest you do fall right into a battle here. A person claims that under no circumstances should overlapping be included. Then a number of reason for this comes up. Accidentally you post your question just when the 'overlappers' feel they have presented their view with clarity.
Result: A belief that your are attacking that stance. And the response is somewhat more unpleasant than it should be.

It is about the timing really.

In RTW you can be lucky and press the enemy together, or fight him in a congested space (city square in a few places) and you can literally see unit upon unit upon unit fighting you, but you can't do anything about it as as soon as your guys approach them thee-four guys attack them... freely. Your losses might even be higher than theirs as a result, when the situation should have been reversed in the extreme.
Cannae is a good example of this, but so is a number of other instances where forces got congested and subsequently butchered. For isntance Watling Street in one such case where a hugely outnumbered Roman force managed to get the Celts to bunch up, then proceed to cut them down. And such instances can in fact be recreated in RTW. On bridges, in cities and a few times through tactics. That is more than enough for me to complain about.

[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.

[Lord Adherbal]

If I can't even ask a question on the gameplay without Adherbal of all people jumping down my throat, then I see that discussion is not wanted.

whoa I'm not attacking you at all. I just don't understand why you say a penalty would not be necessary just because you don't use it and see it in SP. A lot of people stick to specific rules in SP to make the game more realistic and challenging but I'm sure we agree that it shouldn't be necessary to restrict one's creativity? Finding ways to beat the enemy is what makes a game fun. But if those methods are blatent unrealistic exploits it becomes plain annoying. Regardless of whether you use it or not, it's an exploit that needs fixing.

[Puzz3D]

This is meant to be a discussion forum. Not a place to list woes.

I disagree.

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

Are we not glutten for punishment as we continue to purchase a product from a corporation that could careless about its fan base?

Admittly, I yet again (as being an optimist) and wanting for punishment in spin marketing and corporate denial of poor game play issues will buy MIITW in hopes CA has made a full redemption or not.....

I have a certain sympathy for this sort of point of view, although I wouldn't have expressed it in quite this way. I bought BI even though I told myself I shouldn't and might well buy M2TW in spite of the fact that I don't have much (I have some) hope that the nature of the gameplay will be considerably improved, because of past experience of the series.

I do however understand Captain Fishpants' frustration. CA does in fact listen to its fans (wait for the explanation!), it simply doesn't view its games in quite the same way that its fanbase generally does, and has different ideas of what makes a good game. That I think is the problem with which the community and the developers struggle.

My reason for stating this is as follows. In the Total War: Eras pack there is a bonus materials disc in which a CA spokesman (I cannot remember which one offhand) discusses the history of the series. He comments on the fact that the games have a rather "vociferous" fanbase with strong ideas about what they want, and states that CA does not always agree that the fans really want what they say they want even if they (CA) were to do it. I am paraphrasing a little here because I am writing from memory, so the words are not verbatim, but this is what was said.

Now, regardless of whether one agrees with this spokesman's view (and for the record I don't - most fans in my experience know exactly what they want and go to great pains to mod the games to achieve it!), this sort of statement does at least prove that CA are aware of the frustration of their fanbase, but have their own ideas about where the series should go.

I think that I agree with the earlier comment that people will be less inclined to but M2TW if the demo does not meet expectations than they were with RTW. Personally I am looking at the upcoming XIII Century game with a great deal of interest, and might seriously consider investing in it rather than M2TW, in spite of its obvious graphical inferiority to M2TW, if I have had a more favourable experience of its gameplay from the demo. This would be a shame, because I have been a loyal customer of CA's since Shogun, but there is little else that one can do.

If I were to give CA one piece of friendly constructive advice, it would be to make less the content of their future games hardcoded and more of it mod-able, so that people could adjust as much of the game to suit themselves as possible, and resolve as many of what they feel are issues as possible. This seems to me to be all that they can really do to bridge the gulf between what they feel is a good game and what the fanbase feel is a good game, and dispel some of the tension between the two.

Sorry for rambling on like this, but I feel that "whinging", (which the right of any customer after all!), is something that we all (fans and developers alike) have to deal with on the forums. Since it causes a lot of intense feeling on all sides and this thread it devoted to the topic, I thought I might as well put my two pence in!

[Lord Adherbal]

IMO RTW is VERY moddable. Maybe not easy to do so, but you can change almost everything. The only obvious thing you can't mod is AI.

But modding is no solution for those who are interested in MP. As mensioned many times before, it is not possible to convince a majority of players that a certain mod is "the best" and make them play it.

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

IMO RTW is VERY moddable. Maybe not easy to do so, but you can change almost everything. The only obvious thing you can't mod is AI.

But modding is no solution for those who are interested in MP. As mensioned many times before, it is not possible to convince a majority of players that a certain mod is "the best" and make them play it.

I though you couldn't mod individual unit movement speeds, for example, only increase or decrease them for all units as RTR does? Also what about modding the CA phalanx mode for example? Many people would love to make it charge, or otherwise change it!

In respect of MP you might be right, but this is ultimately a fanbase problem not a CA one. You're never going to get everyone to agree on which mod is the best, but you're not going to get everyone asking CA to make exactly the same kind of multiplayer experience from the word go either.

I don't really see why it is necessary to get a majority of players playing the same mod in MP anyway. Like I said, I don't see a way other than modding to bridge the gap between what CA thinks is good and what individual groups of fans want. Sad but true! I'd love to hear another solution though...

[Puzz3D]

IMO RTW is VERY moddable. Maybe not easy to do so, but you can change almost everything. The only obvious thing you can't mod is AI.

Modding cannot fix deficiencies in the battle engine or the combat penalty the player gets in the auto-resolve or parameters that are not saved in a savegame.

[Myrddraal]

I though you couldn't mod individual unit movement speeds

You can, it just involves making different animation speeds for them. It's harder work than an across the board reduction in speed.

I disagree.

I have a question: is my contribution here wanted? As I understood it I was attempting to discuss the importance of issues raised, and from my own knowledge of programming discuss possible solutions.

It seems that genuine questions are not wanted (in fact they anger people). If these kinds of discussions are not wanted, then I'll leave you to increasing the length of your list.

[Lord Adherbal]

Modding cannot fix deficiencies in the battle engine or the combat penalty the player gets in the auto-resolve or parameters that are not saved in a savegame.

no, but unless a developer releases an SDK (which is very rare) there are always such restrictions. You can hardly say RTW isn't highly moddable because some things are still hardcoded. Unless you can give me another (RTS) game that is more moddable.

[hellenes]

no, but unless a developer releases an SDK (which is very rare) there are always such restrictions. You can hardly say RTW isn't highly moddable because some things are still hardcoded. Unless you can give me another (RTS) game that is more moddable.

Rome total war is not an "RTS"...
Its a TBS RTT hybrid, it has no real time strategy just tactics no basebuidling recource collecting clickfests....
Just a correction

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

To be honest, I've never noticed the overlapping units problem.

This is because I've never overlapped my units, and neither has the AI.

Apart from it being a stupid situation to have that many units tucked into such a small space, what are the tactical repercussions. Are overlapping units very hard to beat or something?

I'll try to answer less agressivly...

AI is coded not to overlap. Although sometimes it does, or at least it used to do in MTW (remember the Hord all in 1 square?). In MTW there were a pretty big nast negative modifier for stacking units on top of each other.

In RTW, I' ve seen MP battles with ridiculous tactic: you buy 20 cavalry units, stack them on top of each other, and charge whatever unit you face. It does not really matter. The power of your stacked unit will instantly rout that unit, you move to the next one, already scarred because 1: it faces 20 units, 2: there is nearby unit routing, and you rince and repeat.

Whether you resist that charge or not, the game is over in 2 min over a stupid gimmick attack.

If, when playing MP, you face that a bit too often, along with other silly gimmick formation (although, to be fair the all phalanx square you mentionned is really not a problem at all to defeat or even for gameplay), then honestly, the fun is gone.

I saw that a few times in MTW too, but it did not work at all, so after trying it, people gave up on it. It works in RTW, so you keep seeing it.

FYI, when I said I think it represents the style of fighting of the era, I'm speaking of RTW in particular the 'barbarian' factions, where the distiction between individual units is very blurred, and not to the amount of men per square feet. However, the quote does raise an interesting point.

In many cases, that is how battles were fought. Shield walls, both in the Roman sense and in the later saxon and early medieval sense, were compact formations where individual flexibility is sacrificed for greater saftey. In 'shield wall battles' battles were often prolonged with few casualties until one side decided enough was enough.

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.

I got to say I can't care less whether it's historic or not. Seriously you got to see once, and it's pretty clear it's not

But even if it were, there is really no fun in playing a game where someone would buy 20 cav, charge right away with all units stacked on one point and hope for the best.

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I agree with almost all of Puzz's list, with a few exceptions, and a few elaborations, and a few questions for Puzz, which I've added below. I've also taken the liberty of removing or rearranging some of the points so that they aren't too repetitive.


Battle Speed

Make the battlespeed slow enough that you can coordinate 20 units
- Basically reduce movement speeds across the board, reduce kill rates, and increase morale. It would seem that the current style of play is to get into battle as quickly as possible. Once battle has started, it isn't very long before one side breaks, and this tends to leave no time for maneuvering, before or during battle. This (for me and I think for a lot of players) is at least half, if not much more than half, the fun.

( Make the infantry running speed 1.66x the walk speed
Make the cavalry run speed 2x the infantry run speed
Make sure that units fight long enough so that hammer and anvil tactics work ) - are all included in the above, there's no need to repeat them.

It's a bit trickier than that.

Right after 1.2 was out, FF gave a last ditch effort into trying to mod this game along with CeltiberoMordred. We knew it was unlikely to succeed because of MPer reluctance to play mod... But well, it was that or giving up.
(and eventually, gave up we did)

It's a bit tougher than that. When you slow down the game, you also create unbalance in the fatigue rate; if speed is slowed, units walks more, they get tired more, they get penalty more, and actually rout FASTER...

If you change the kill rate, at the end of the 1st melee, everybody is very tired.

In MP, in most games you have to defeat more than one army... It's a team game, so there is definitly a post melee phase where army get together and go another assault (at which point it's usually final... they're really too tired). When game is slowed down, and melee duration increased, basically, it's fully exhausted unit vs fully exhausted unit...
It's pretty tough to scale. Of course you can make all units very hardy, but then you make rushing more viable, so it migth also increase game speed.

Also, as part of the test made back then, what was stricking was not the speed itself, but the randomness of the breakpoint.
What I mean is; you fight 1v1 for test purpose, it's fine. You test again, it's fine... But once in 10 times, single unit will rout very early.
When you are playing 1v1 unit for mod testing purpose, it does not matter, but on a battlefied with up to 80 units on each side, one early break up is VERY LIKELY to happen... And then it all trickle down, one unit gone, one line/army gone, and the battle is done.

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

Fix the group movement commands so they work so that you don't have to use drag all the time
- I can't really comment because I'm not sure what the problem is, if you're talking about the fact that selecting a group and telling it to move will sometimes make the formation end up facing the wrong way, then

I am not going to answer on point 1. Again.

I used to test group control during beta 1.2.
The major issue and complain back then was that, if you used specific formation, and that the AI thought about it as messy, then AI would rearrange it into a nice line. Or any other formation AI would see fit.
Of course if you stick with standard formation, you'll never notice it, but if you make odd line make up, then AI will correct it, whether you like it or not.

There were a few other oddities like running/ not running as a group when on a bridge or not. Minor stuff.

Reduce the uncertainty in combat results to the level it was in STW
- It is true that in RTW, individual unit combat is too predicatable. Unit x will always beat unit y. If combat is more uncertain, problems occur, and dealing with these problems was part of the challenge and part of the fun.

I think you got it wrong, Puzz wrote REDUCE the uncertainty. I don't know what Yuuki meant, and he'll correct me if I am wrong, but it's a pointer to what I explained before; uncertain combat, and uncertain combat duration with 1 unit may not matter, but with the butterfly effect, in a 4v4 / 80 units *2 battle, odd results and fast rout is bound to happen...
I sure wish I was more certain the fight would be longer...

Louis,

[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]

I have a question: is my contribution here wanted? As I understood it I was attempting to discuss the importance of issues raised, and from my own knowledge of programming discuss possible solutions.

Creative Assembly knows how to correct the gameplay, and how to correct every item on my list. There is no point of discussing a solution to a perceived problem if CA doesn't consider it to be a problem.

It seems that genuine questions are not wanted (in fact they anger people). If these kinds of discussions are not wanted, then I'll leave you to increasing the length of your list.

That list is my list, and there are a few things missing. Those are the things that bother me about the gameplay. I'm not inclined to shorten my list because you say some of the things are redundant or not important. Some of the things like exploding rocks and traits not working are there as indicators of what I see as generic problems in the games development such as too much emphasis on unrealistic effects and lack of program debugging.

[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,

[L'Impresario]

Honestly, I can't name more than a handful of clans that continued from VI to MTW, and even if they continued I guess they had a revamped player list.

Surely some had enough of the TW series after so many years, but I think the majority didn't.
I remember in the first weeks (maybe a month or two for some) quite a few people from the older eras would come out and state that the game was good and that unwillingness to adapt or try something different (or even lack of sufficient RTW games) was why there wasn't a higher turnout of past players.
I was seriously thinking this for a tenday or two, and maybe winning was preserving some of the belief that would become a general conviction: the game wasn't good for those that played the past versions. Saw an alarmingly large number of persons that went through the same process, the vast majority with the same results.

[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

[The Spartan (Returns)]

well i like CA. they made one of the best RTS games (imo the best) and always improved it. (dunno know from STW to MTW though)
but it would be nice if TW was more accurate or listened to our proposals. just look at EB or RTR........

[Myrddraal]

Only got a second to post so before I reply in more detail:

Thank you Louis, your posts are a breath of fresh air, and very useful to an MP newb who's never seen 10 cavalry units grouped as one.

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

I'll drink to that

[TosaInu]

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

The Nagashino battle, the one in Akira Kurosawa's movie Kagemusha, was not a 10 minutes bam bam boem. Guns did something there, but there was fierce hand to hand combat that lasted for hours (no, there was no break for tea). It might be true that individual combat between two men is over in a few minutes, but not the clash between two armies on a field (added to that is time for manoeuvring).

(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

He comments on the fact that the games have a rather "vociferous" fanbase with strong ideas about what they want, and states that CA does not always agree that the fans really want what they say they want even if they (CA) were to do it.

That's true Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe. I may read it wrong what was said AmbrosiusAurelianus. It looks to me that it's (also?) said that fans do not know what they ask for. When we look at the spears in MTW, there was first a MP voice that they were too strong and when they were fixed in a patch, the same voice said they were too weak. A sort of yo-yo effect.

Spears in MTW 1.0 were quite a force, and that was strongly noticed by many MP players. Proposals were made in the forum about how to fix it, but afaik/iirc/imho CA did not like any of the ideas. So, new ideas were proposed as we felt the problem.

The patch did fix the spears. But now many fixes were stacked on top of each other, which was oversteering. Old problems were still left in (battlefield upgrades), pushback added (?) and a new bug was introduced (swiping iirc, or was that VI 1.0?). Thus spears became obsolete for many players (note: not all and everyone, of course there are exceptions).

It's an unfair suggestion that fans do not really know what they want (sure, some change their mind every now and then , I'm not dutch enough to understand some demands requests either, and different people want different things). It's also unfair to state that CA does not listen, not tries to fix.

One key is communication, that's a 2-way (two, at least more than one). The other is allowing others their own type of fun. I have the impression that not everyone understands that.

In respect of MP you might be right, but this is ultimately a fanbase problem not a CA one.

You have a point, I agree. However, there's a seller and a buyer. It's unrealistic to have CA fix all problems for MP (just compare the marketshares),
but CA can reach a helping hand. And that can be done by introducing sliders and extensive stats (it doesn't have to be opened with an SDK, hardcoded AI routines can be manipulated by reading a parameter file). Proper CRC will prevent cheating.

Too complex for new players? No, doesn't have to. Put it in an advanced tab. New players just load a factory default. As easy as always.

Too many options for the others -> no agreement -> MP falls apart. Perhaps, it will when everyone sticks to his/her gun and enhances his/her dislike for people who wants something different (about everyone else). But now, many people who don't like the game as is, just quit too.

I have to learn the game again everytime I join one, because the settings will always be different. When, after a few months, a majority of MP players reach an agreement on how to play (I'm sure there are still people who can and will work together), CA could distribute such a stat/AI/slider setting as an official (cheatproof) plugin. There may be more than one: but what's the alternative? Forcing people to play what they don't like at all? More options means attracting more people and keeping them interested. I think this will counterbalance the splitting. I also think, that a few 'stats' will become mainstream. It takes two to tango: it may not be 100% your tango, but it is a nice tango.

New players happy as it's still factory simple. Hardcore MP players happy as they have their game. Modders happy as they can create even more. Me happy as I can play however I want and change as often as I like.

Needless to say that TW games have a strategical and a tactical part. Both deserve more flexibility to suit the needs of gamers.

[caravel]

I agree. There was a time when I wanted nothing less than a risk style map and mtw/stw style gameplay, though I've gotten over that. If the game is very customisable with many options for turning on and off features that people want/don't want, with many variables, there will be few complaints and a game to suit all. It's all about compromise. Personally I don't play multiplayer but I think it's important to the TW genre as a whole that solid multiplayer functionality is implimented without the problems of RTW being carried over.