CA please read MP solution

[Puzz3D]

There will be several european factions that are similar to each other, and allowing limited repetitive representations of these factions in a MP game might be easier solution to pursue than a general balance between all avaliable factions.

LongJohn said that he considered 25% imbalance acceptable. Well I saw what good players could do with the warrior monks of STW, and they were only 15% out of balance. I don't think 25% imbalance is acceptable for competitive play. Possibly, several factions will be similar enough in M2TW that they will be automatically balanced, but that I think it's unlikely there will be 8 such factions.

Map conditions is an entirely different concept. My opinions here are strictly limited to the more usual european flat terrains. Players don't always think alike. While most probably are confined to the 'traditional' styles of playing, some are better suited to 'unorthodox' arrangement and maneuvers. Any unique quality of a faction can have very diverse impacts in different hands, and to categorize them as deficiencies or compensations would be unfair for some.

You're assuming that the factions are balanced, so that it's only a matter of learning how to use the faction properly. I'm talking about faction deficiencies that can only be compensated for by superior skill. RTW/BI has such deficiencies, and MTW/VI had them as well.

Rome's control is dull, or handicaped if you like, but that's not the main reason for players' departures. Many of us thought it was unfair to eliminate the advantages we've accumulated from refining works done on our controls through the STW -> VI period. There was room to tame the RTW system, just that we weren't willing enough.
I'm not a modders, unwilling to play scenarios unsupported by publishers, I went experiencing other games like many of my friends. 2 years gone by, and you know what, we didn't find a better game. SImply put, Totalwar serie are the only games gave us the adrenaline rush we had so longed for. So we're willing to relearn the controls and play medieval2 MP, hopefully you and your friends are willing to join us, yuuki.

It's not simply a matter of the controls. You have players stacking units to make super units and using them to smashing players who don't stack. You also have the problem of things happening too fast to allow controlling 20 units individually. I can play RTW/BI if I only use 3 or 4 groups. Why should I play that game when I can play a better game such as Samurai Wars?

I've had enough of my time wasted by RTW/BI. Creative Assembly set the standard for Total War multiplayer gameplay with their first game, and they haven't maintained it notwithstanding the marketing rhetoric which is constantly calling it "improved".

[rios]

[QUOTE=Puzz3D]LongJohn said that he considered 25% imbalance acceptable. Well I saw what good players could do with the warrior monks of STW, and they were only 15% out of balance. I don't think 25% imbalance is acceptable for competitive play. Possibly, several factions will be similar enough in M2TW that they will be automatically balanced, but that I think it's unlikely there will be 8 such factions.[QUOTE/]

Monks pwn cause they use Naginatas Seriously though, they were overpowered because they give moral penalty, and they have high starting moral which makes them more cost effective since you don't need H3 or H4 . Their combat stats weren't better than nodachi or naginata cavalry, and shooters eat them up.

You're assuming that the factions are balanced, so that it's only a matter of learning how to use the faction properly. I'm talking about faction deficiencies that can only be compensated for by superior skill. RTW/BI has such deficiencies, and MTW/VI had them as well.
It's not simply a matter of the controls. You have players stacking units to make super units and using them to smashing players who don't stack. You also have the problem of things happening too fast to allow controlling 20 units individually. I can play RTW/BI if I only use 3 or 4 groups. Why should I play that game when I can play a better game such as Samurai Wars?
I've had enough of my time wasted by RTW/BI. Creative Assembly set the standard for Total War multiplayer gameplay with their first game, and they haven't maintained it notwithstanding the marketing rhetoric which is constantly calling it "improved".

Ergonomics of the controls is part of the balancing process. Different styles call for different statistical balance between units, but at top level game mechanics determines which styles are suitable.
For example, RTW engine disallows free and redundant unit hotkeying or free cameral rotations with the mouse. These seemly little changes forced more actions per order, and slowed down the rate at which orders could be issued. Coupled with the faster run speeds and unchanged threshold distances made rome less forgiving when issuing orders, and dramatically altered effectiveness of some the playing styles. The new set of favorable styles then call for a different balance compared to STW and MTW.

They can bring more commitment to balancing than does Creative Assembly. I chose to build Samurai Wars around the MTW engine because it's better than the RTW engine, and it provides a modder with control over all the parameters necessary to balance the tactical battles except for fatigue rate.
Samurai Wars didn't remove any gameplay options except upgrades which damage the playbalance. Also, we understand the math of the STW/MTW battle engine very well. Samurai Wars is based on the STW unit parameters as developed by LongJohn who designed the tactical engine. It's a refinement of the balance of the original STW stat with changes kept to a minimum. In that sense, it is an evolution of the balance of the original stat which is something that Creative Assembly has never succeeded in doing. Creative Assembly has oscillated around the playbalance solution in every game since original STW because they don't go though enough iterative balancing steps after doing the initial analytical calculations. They wouldn't even allow the STW/MI beta team to go through another iteration of the v1.02 rebalance stat to improve their game eventhough we were willing to do that for free. That's the kind of commitment to playbalance that Creative Assembly exhibits. You're not going to convince me that Creative Assembly is going to do a great job balancing M2TW with their attitude toward balancing.

What about the choice between altering playstyles to suit the game mechanics or improving speed to make the accustomed playstyles more adaptable. In a STW, MTW modded game only the later option can be excercised since the suitable playstyles is already fixed from the long period of player evolution and the fact modded games offers little room to introduce new styles as the balancing is already done strictly for the sorted after sets. Not to mention, playing MTW, STW mods also means unable to take advantage of the new graphical engines. Don't you get bored repeating the same battle plan over and over while not much eye candy to look at?

[Nobunaga]

actually monks didn't give a moral penalty and they were more affective in 1.12
i.e. original STW

[rios]

actually monks didn't give a moral penalty and they were more affective in 1.12
i.e. original STW

they did give moral penalty in SP, I can't recall if same carried for MP, it's been a while. But if we ignore that issue, here's what I have.
monks at 5/2 4 charge while nodachi 5/-2 8 charge. if 4 charge = 1 combat then it's 8:5 ratio. monks cost 500 while nodachi cost 300, so without upgrades they are 24:25 nodachi. Almost equal cost-effectiveness.
However this didn't take into account of battlefield upgrades. Nodachi can get as much battlefield upgrades as monks, but their lower defense meant they would suffer more moral penalty from casaulty%. By rushing with monks and not giving time for the opponents to properly carry out their charges further allowed monks to sustain unit sizes, thus after battlefield upgrades they become more powerful than nodachi. This I believe is source of the "15% unbalanced".
In MI, monk cost were raised by 10%, making them 10% less cost effective. I don't know if 10% would of effectively conpensaded their after battle capabilities but the fact naginata cavarly with almost same combat stats, faster and only 450 in cost made monks obsolete anyway.