Multiplayer blog is up

[Puzz3D]

It sounds great. That's an interesting solution to the gamespeed issue that retains the fast gameplay for those that want it. If the fatigue and morale levels are well chosen, I would expect many former multiplayers to return to online play.

[Tamur]

This is done through mechanics not combat modifiers...

Not only a solution but a realistic one! Excellent, this is hopeful news.

[Basileus]

Goods news, i wont get my hopes up though need to try it first.

[x-dANGEr]

Anxious.. TOo damn anxious..

Though, am worried about the unit size thing..

[CBR]

Well, they certainly have worked and thought more about MP for M2TW so that is good. The added max unit stuff is something I dont like though as its not needed for the 10K that they have balanced the game for.

With the unit sizes I have seen in screenshots, large and huge setting is gonna be off limit for 4v4 games anyway: huge will be impossible and large only for uber high end pc's.


CBR

[ChewieTobbacca]

The added amx unit stuff is good though to prevent people who like to spam certain units that are very powerful if money isn't an issue

[CBR]

Yes but if money isnt the issue the game isnt going to be balanced anyway. Some faction will always have the most powerful unit, leaving the other factions with upgrading weaker units. Max 4 did not save MTW from being unbalanced because of that. Having no max just makes the unbalance more obvious but its still there.


CBR

[Nobunaga]

happy days

[Sun of Chersonesos]

Anxious.. TOo damn anxious..

Though, am worried about the unit size thing..

i agree, it said that something like the small size was a bit larger than RTW's medium, in which case it's not necessarily small and i cant imagine what these huge will be like.

[CeltiberoMordred]

If half of this stuff is true, it will be worth coming back to multiplayer :).

I miss they don't tell anything about max. number of players (6/8), nor if we can play against same faction (French Vs French).

I will wait for those fatigue and morale modifiers, but overall they are very good news.

[Guillaume le Batard]

"This is done through mechanics not combat modifiers... "

Not only a solution but a realistic one! Excellent, this is hopeful news.

Can anyone help me out, and explain to me what the difference between mechanics and modifiers is, and why this is a good thing?

Guillaume

[CBR]

Can anyone help me out, and explain to me what the difference between mechanics and modifiers is, and why this is a good thing?

Guillaume

I guess he means that by modifier its done in an artificial way by giving units a a negative combat modifier. By mechanic its done by say making soldiers move out and not fight at all or something similar. The modifier is a direct (but more abstract) way of doing it and the mechanic is an indirect way trying to achieve the same result and in this case he sees the mechanic as the best way.


CBR

[DukeofSerbia]

Elephants for Timurids look good.

Cavalry Balance: No longer is there a need to cap cavalry, they kill on the charge but when they stop they are easy targets. Like infantry they cannot be selected and moved as an indestructible mass ”blob”. If you find your cavalry surrounded by enemy units and try and get out of there - bad luck, you are just too big to be missed, even peasants will thrust at your mount. Best of all missiles love cavalry, such big juicy targets, how can you miss.

Peasants/Serfs can't beat knights in any situation in open battle (except if is not in marche).

[Orb]

Atrocious punctuation from CA. "era's" indeed.

That said, I'm optimistic about most of the things.

[Bob the Insane]

Peasants/Serfs can't beat knights in any situation in open battle (except if is not in marche).

I am sure the the lone knight surrounded by a 100 or so angry peasants with pitch forks would not be too quick to agree with you there...

I think it would be only right that the best unit used poorly would/should be vunerable to even the worst unit used correctly...

[CeltiberoMordred]

A standing horse is easy to kill as well...

[Monarch]

Dam, I was thinking I'd get this on mid range settings, but I now I know small unit size is same as normal on rome, I guess that just dropped to low :/

Apart from that, this blog has made my day. Especially info abou maknig the annoying game unbalancing upgrades less useful.

[econ21]

That's an interesting solution to the gamespeed issue that retains the fast gameplay for those that want it.

Crikey, I don't want to rain on your parade when you are making a rare upbeat post, but are you sure there is a solution to the gamespeed issue in the blog? I totally missed it on the first reading, read your post and went back - all I can find is a reference to four unit size settings, with the larger ones taking longer to play. But it's by no means obvious that a larger a unit size will be associated with slower movement speeds or kill rates. A larger unit size will lead to a longer game just because there is more to kill.

Or am I missing something here?

[screwtype]

Crikey, I don't want to rain on your parade when you are making a rare upbeat post, but are you sure there is a solution to the gamespeed issue in the blog? I totally missed it on the first reading, read your post and went back - all I can find is a reference to four unit size settings, with the larger ones taking longer to play. But it's by no means obvious that a larger a unit size will be associated with slower movement speeds or kill rates. A larger unit size will lead to a longer game just because there is more to kill.

Or am I missing something here?

Yes, it's hard to interpret what that paragraph means. Actually, I'm rather concerned that it says the "RTW speed" will be in there at all - because the standard RTW speed is a farce in my view. And if the only thing that is there to give you more time to react is more soldiers to kill, this sounds like very bad news indeed.

And even if combat *is* slower with larger unit sizes - which seems doubtful when I think about it - then it's still no consolation for people with lower spec machines who can't play using the bigger unit sizes.

[CBR]

I remember one CA dev (in early RTW days) telling people just to use larger unit size if they thought killing speed was too high. I guess that opinion has not changed.


CBR

[screwtype]

I remember one CA dev (in early RTW days) telling people just to use larger unit size if they thought killing speed was too high. I guess that opinion has not changed.


CBR

I'm afraid you're right. After all the hype, it sounds from this blog as though they have well and truly abandoned their original fanbase in favour of the RTS paradigm.

I hope that's not the case, but that's what this sounds like to me.

Which means that once again we would have to rely on the modders to try and find kludgy fixes to the ridiculous game speed. If that's how things turn out, I may finally have to part company with the TW series.

[Bob the Insane]

I think the kill speed will have slowed down, at least a little. Otherwise there would be no time to complete those fancy new animations and kill moves...

[Puzz3D]

Units Size & Game Pace: In M2TW we have set 4 playable unit sizes so that all types of game speeds can be realized. On small you will have a unit size slightly bigger than RTW’s normal that will play very similar, fast and furious. On normal you will get a unit size similar to MTW’s normal, that plays fast but gives you a little more time to incorporate more tactics. On large and huge you will still get games with a nice pace but they will be a tactical extravaganza showcasing lots of death and destruction.

Crikey, I don't want to rain on your parade when you are making a rare upbeat post, but are you sure there is a solution to the gamespeed issue in the blog? I totally missed it on the first reading, read your post and went back - all I can find is a reference to four unit size settings, with the larger ones taking longer to play. But it's by no means obvious that a larger a unit size will be associated with slower movement speeds or kill rates. A larger unit size will lead to a longer game just because there is more to kill.

Or am I missing something here?

I interpreted "game speed" to be both movement and fighting speed. The adjustable speed setting affects everything including momement, and all CA has to do is link the unit size selected to a speed setting. I'm assuming here that they have made reasonable walk/run speed ratios.

Even if it isn't the case, we know the movement speeds have been slowed to some extent from the reports and brief video of the preview in Germany. It's also clear that the unit size doesn't change by a factor of 2 on each step as it did in RTW because small is larger than RTW normal and normal is similar to MTW normal. In RTW, going from normal (40) to large (80) skipped over MTW's normal (60). So I'm thinking that M2TW large will be around 80.

Palamedes has played MTW online. I don't see how he can say large unit size will be a "tactical extravaganza" if it doesn't approach that of MTW. He was supposedly hired by CA to help them bring back the tactical gameplay that was lost in RTW. Since they are addressing things such as overlapping units and worrying about upgrades unbalancing the game, I can't imagine them sabotaging that effort by not providing a game speed that allows for substantial tactical thinking during a battle.

[econ21]

Well, Puzz3D, no disrespect, but the world has turned upside down when you are more optimistic about M2TW than I. But in the text you quote there is no clear reference to their being settings for game speed - the main text only talks about adjusting unit size. I agree that an "adjustable speed setting" would be the easy and obvious solution to the debate about whether RTW was too fast (let the players pick the speed they are prefer). But do you have any information such a setting is in the game? What you quote does not convince me it is.

I am more open to the idea that M2TW will play slower anyway, without an adjustable setting, but I'd need to play the demo to be sure.

[Puzz3D]

Well, Puzz3D, no disrespect, but the world has turned upside down when you are more optimistic about M2TW than I. But in the text you quote there is no clear reference to their being settings for game speed - the main text only talks about adjusting unit size. I agree that an "adjustable speed setting" would be the easy and obvious solution to the debate about whether RTW was too fast (let the players pick the speed they are prefer). But do you have any information such a setting is in the game? What you quote does not convince me it is.

I am more open to the idea that M2TW will play slower anyway, without an adjustable setting, but I'd need to play the demo to be sure.

There was a big difference between normal and huge init size in RTW. GilJaysmith suggesed playing on huge in answer to players saying the gameplay was too fast. It didn't work. It was still too fast. Palamedes knows this. How can he be claiming that battles with large unit size in M2TW are a tactical extravaganza? His paragraph indicates that both types of players will be satisfied, by choosing the appropriate unit size. I think there has to be something to this other than simply larger unit size because that solution didn't work in RTW.

I can see a gamespeed setting in the pictures. So, there is a gamespeed setting. I suspect it cannot be set below 1.0 by the player, but the game could do it based on the unit size selected. Palamedes is using the term "gamespeed". I hope he isn't making a new definition for this term for his blog.

[CBR]

How can he be claiming that battles with large unit size in M2TW are a tactical extravaganza?

If one sets the standards low enough, even slower killing/routing will mean wonders to tactics

I really doubt its something advanced as different movement setting, just because of different unit size. I think its pretty simple: the more men per unit the more ranks and the longer it takes before a units gets killed off. And that certainly works in RTW and was IIRC what GilJaysmith was thinking about when he recommended increasing unit size.

Some of us hardcore people thinks in terms of movement rate AND kill rate, but I guess some people just put that together into one term like battlespeed, gamespeed or whatever.


CBR

[Martok]

Strangely, I find myself agreeing with Puzz (I say "strangely" because I've not been terribly optimistic person in regards to the game either). I also took Palamedes to mean that the actual battle speeds has been reduced, and not that the pace would be slower simply because units are larger. Were it otherwise, I'm quite certain Palamedes would've said so.

As econ and others have pointed out, however, playing the demo should give us a pretty good idea one way or the other.

[Hunter KIng George]

Well overall seems like terrific news! I am estastic with the news of their efforts to solve some of the issues surrounding MP! I will remain optimistic and hope for the best!

[screwtype]

I also took Palamedes to mean that the actual battle speeds has been reduced, and not that the pace would be slower simply because units are larger. Were it otherwise, I'm quite certain Palamedes would've said so.

I honestly think you guys are kidding yourselves. I cannot see CA taking the time to create different game speeds for different unit sizes. They've already told us a dozen times that kill speeds and so on are synchronized to soldier animations. How could they program different kill speeds in such circumstances? It would be a nightmare.

Nope. This is just about larger unit sizes taking longer to defeat in my opinion. And I'm sceptical that this will lead to a "tactical extravaganza" for the simple reason that while there are more soldiers to kill, there also more soldiers to do the killing. So I can't see that larger unit sizes will have that much of an effect on the game.

Which means in turn that the game is still going to be much too fast for the average tactical gamer. Naturally I'm hoping this is not the case, but it seems to be the logical conclusion from what's been said in this blog.

Anyhow, as others have said, the demo will clear up a lot of these questions one way or another. Hopefully it's not too far away now...