Note on whinging

[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

[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.