Multiplayer blog is up

[t1master]

gareth and goedfry are still alive and well... gareth still plays ntw occasionally, and goedfry is busy filling the ranks of his castle with babies, ready to carry on his father's name :)

[Puzz3D]

Official statement from the SEGA site:

"Bigger and better battles. Improved combat choreography, larger armies, quicker pace, and spectacular finishing moves make this the most visceral and exciting Total War ever."

In light of this, I would now interpret Palamedes', "On small you will have a unit size slightly bigger than RTW’s normal that will play very similar, fast and furious.", to mean faster than RTW.

[Myrddraal]

Hmmm. Conflicting stuff...

[CeltiberoMordred]

Official statement from the SEGA site:

"Bigger and better battles. Improved combat choreography, larger armies, quicker pace, and spectacular finishing moves make this the most visceral and exciting Total War ever."

Quicker pace might means faster combat animations. In RTW most modders had to decrease the delay between strikes because they found it slow and not realistic or eye candy.

Just an idea.

[Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)]

I never played multi.player

[Puzz3D]

Quicker pace might means faster combat animations. In RTW most modders had to decrease the delay between strikes because they found it slow and not realistic or eye candy.

Just an idea.

Don't forget that SEGA will exert pressure on CA to change the game to how SEGA thinks it should be. Activision did the same thing and got changes, and they didn't even own CA. Some of the changes that Activision insisted on in MTW were removed by CA in a patch. Despite what Palamedes says and what the demo shows, the game could be changed due to pressure from SEGA, and it's clear that they want it to play faster than RTW.

[x-dANGEr]

How is it "clear"?

[Puzz3D]

Official SEGA site

Features:

* Bigger and better battles. Improved combat choreography, larger armies, quicker pace, and spectacular finishing moves make this the most visceral and exciting Total War ever.

[CBR]

So have faith, as I have, that MTW2 will be much different than rtw or bi, I hope even better than MTW.

so Simurgh you can preorder your copy, you too CBR and Yuuki

I lost my faith when playing RTW demo and nothing since then has given me a reason to change my mind. The M2TW demo did not show me any real improvement. New improved uber graphics just doesnt sucker me into buying it.


CBR

[screwtype]

Official SEGA site

Features:

* Bigger and better battles. Improved combat choreography, larger armies, quicker pace, and spectacular finishing moves make this the most visceral and exciting Total War ever.

"Quicker pace" could mean anything though, from less provinces to conquer, less turns to play, better micromanagement tools, faster unit response to orders and so on. It could also be nothing more than a bit of empty marketing spiel.

[just4apetition]

hey ppl i got a petition link for a ME 2 multiplayer campaign,

http://www.petitiononline.com/2908jt01/petition.html, please sign it and spread

the word.

[Monarch]

Multiplayer campaign, how would you implement such a thing...what everyone would just sit theirt whilst two guys fought battles, whilst people took their turns.

Don't think so mate. CA have heard this all before too.

[Epistolary Richard]

I say the same thing here about the petition that I've said everywhere else you've spammed this around the forums:

I wonder if you 'petitioners' for a mulitplayer campaign have actually really thought about how it would work? 'Cos TW campaigns can last quite a long time, even taking a single turn for a single player can go upwards of an hour when his empire gets large. So, given that players aren't going to be online playing for several weeks continuously you're going to have to compromise on something. If you want to keep the camp map and not too bothered about the battles then we have a pretty servicable RTW multiplayer campaign mod already. If you want to keep the battles and are prepared to accept a more stylised campaign map then the Lordz are testing an online multiplayer campaign run through a website.

[Ulstan]

"Multiplayer campaign, how would you implement such a thing...what everyone would just sit theirt whilst two guys fought battles, whilst people took their turns"

Funny, there are lots of turn based strategy games with multiplayer. I guess it *is* possible to just sit there while the other guy is making his move.

Granted this won't have a particularly wide audience, and will be a huge time investment (an ongoing campaign would, I estimate, take weeks to complete rather than a quick field battle taking an evening) but that can be said of other games. (Civ, for example).

[x-dANGEr]

Official SEGA site

Features:

* Bigger and better battles. Improved combat choreography, larger armies, quicker pace, and spectacular finishing moves make this the most visceral and exciting Total War ever.

"Quicker pace" could mean anything though, from less provinces to conquer, less turns to play, better micromanagement tools, faster unit response to orders and so on. It could also be nothing more than a bit of empty marketing spiel.

Gah, I got all excited with the demo and so.. Though, screwtype has covered it I guess..

[Palamedes]

Ok I won’t blog this as it seems more of an issue for you guys than a concern for the general public,

The larger a unit is the more ranks deep the unit is when used. If you don’t believe me, and don’t worry you won’t be the first, play with the different unit sizes and check it out for yourself. This occurs due to the playable area staying the same size, no matter what unit size you use you will position the camera in the same position and the surrounding objects will remain the same size. This means when players drag and drop lines of units or move units around objects or through breaches the units end up thicker (more ranks) and thicker units means slower combat. Why slower; because a smaller percentage of the unit is involved in combat at any given time.

In addition game physics don’t change, these include: the size of a soldier; the speed it travels; and most importantly collision mass. If two small units with the same collision mass collide they inflict a larger proportion of casualties on first contact than if they were bigger units.

This is why the unit size counts. When units are larger combat speed is slowed and the influence of first contact is reduced, in my opinion it is the most important factor in establishing game pace. Start up RTW and play the same custom battle on both small unit size and huge. Try your best to make the huge game play as fast as the small. If you know how to enable PR camera you will get halfway there by raising the camera to the heavens and dragging thinner lines.

Competitive MP players look for a unit size that ensures the game runs fast and achieves the correct game pace. In my opinion RTW normal was too small (faster pace) and large was too large (slower pace) and small, well might as well Ctrl-A double click and toss a coin. In addition to RTW players using smaller unit sizes, the individual soldiers did not maintaining personal space allowing blobbing which resulted in an increased effect when colliding. The game became one of blobs with players ensuring they had enough mass for the first contact to try and cause mass casualties and chain routes.

Anyway I hope this gives you an insight into what was meant. Mechanics like blobbing have been fixed, collision masses have been reduced, combat stats have been scaled down, and most importantly you will have 4 unit sizes that allow for all types of game pace.

Jason

[econ21]

Thanks for the explanation and insights, Jason.

[Monarch]

Shouldn't palamedes now appear in "CA Staff" group? :D

PS. Thanks for the info mate :)

[Puzz3D]

Thanks for the clarification Palamedes. STW Total War multiplayer used to play fine with 60 man units. The fastest combat resolution was about 30 seconds (no-dachi vs no-dachi), and the slowest about 2.5 minutes (naginata vs naginata). Part of this was because in multiplayer you bought the units at honor = 2 which gave +4 morale to every unit. With MTW, units were purchased at valor = 0 and the +4 morale was lost resulting in easy routing. I had expected the +4 morale of STW to be included in the valor = 0 units of MTW. The only way to regain the lost morale in MTW was with upgrading. With VI, +2 morale was added, but multiplayer really needed the full +4 morale.

The 60 man unit size retains good maneuverability. Huge unit size (2x normal) reduces maneuverability considerably, and of course it means slower framerate. So, it would be nice if normal unit size gave a kind of gameplay where 2 weak units could defeat a unit 2x stronger by one of them engaging frontally in hold formation while the other executed a flanking maneuver to attack the rear of the strong unit. Of course, the cavalry units are smaller than the infantry and will retain good maneuverability even with infantry unit size larger than 60.

[Papewaio]

Interesting logical account Palamedes-san, as a player who doesn't use mods or plays online, I'm still very much concerned with battles being so quick that it resembles a shooter more then even a click fest RTS. I guess it is my old age (33).

I have gravitated to huge units for three reasons, after doing a metagamming min/max campaign with the Greeks.

1) It seemed like better gameplay. It 'felt' better and although I lost manouverability (which too me felt more realistic) I gained a slower pace of play in which my actions and reactions had an impact. When playing huge I feel like I am indeed a general and that my units are reacting to my commands (slowly just as if they had to be given via drums, horns and flags) and that my input was actually part of the gameplay rather then click and hope.

2) With phalanx armies larger units look so much better and wheel so slowly that they have that grandeur of mass, much like seeing a large ship comming into port.

3) On a strategic level larger units made it easier to manage cities. Lots of peasants/town watch guarding cities and sheer numbers helped.

4) Metagaming/cheating/population exodus. Playing the Greeks I really, really, absolutely wanted Spartans as soon as possible. Put the settings on huge units, made peasant units in all my non-critical cities ,with fertility temples (particularly rebellious ones), and marched the peasant units to Sparta where they were disbanded. Sparta had a population growth each turn of one to two thousand. This netted myself the Spartan warriors very early and caused the revelations of points 1 to 3.

[Wandarah]

Wow. All hail Palamedes.

[Cheetah]

Hi Pala, nice to see you here.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I don't know why... that post really failed to cheer me up as far as MTW2 being superior to RTW for MP purpose.

The larger a unit is the more ranks deep the unit is when used. If you don’t believe me, and don’t worry you won’t be the first, play with the different unit sizes and check it out for yourself. This occurs due to the playable area staying the same size, no matter what unit size you use you will position the camera in the same position and the surrounding objects will remain the same size. This means when players drag and drop lines of units or move units around objects or through breaches the units end up thicker (more ranks) and thicker units means slower combat. Why slower; because a smaller percentage of the unit is involved in combat at any given time.

...

This is why the unit size counts. When units are larger combat speed is slowed and the influence of first contact is reduced, in my opinion it is the most important factor in establishing game pace. Start up RTW and play the same custom battle on both small unit size and huge. Try your best to make the huge game play as fast as the small. If you know how to enable PR camera you will get halfway there by raising the camera to the heavens and dragging thinner lines.

I agree with the mechanics: there is a reason why FFer, while we played RTW did it using large or huge setting. When we tried to mod the game, we pushed the unit size in between large and huge to provide for better gameplay.
So it's really nothing new at all.

The main issues with this are:
- Can you get a 4v4 large/huge size battle to run?
- Will the MP consensus move in that direction: the standard in RTW is NOT using large unit size, although it would help... why? Because most players stick with "default" mode, and because ... of my first point.

So, yes size matters, but no, it won't be MP saving grace...

Competitive MP players look for a unit size that ensures the game runs fast and achieves the correct game pace. In my opinion RTW normal was too small (faster pace) and large was too large (slower pace) and small, well might as well Ctrl-A double click and toss a coin.

If large was too large and gave you too slow a pace, I fear we do not have the same understanding of what slow pace/ fast pace is.
RTW large is still way too random, way too fast.

In addition to RTW players using smaller unit sizes, the individual soldiers did not maintaining personal space allowing blobbing which resulted in an increased effect when colliding. The game became one of blobs with players ensuring they had enough mass for the first contact to try and cause mass casualties and chain routes.

Pretty much the only good news. At least there is some chance that blob tactic won't work.

which does not mean tactic would work at all...

Anyway I hope this gives you an insight into what was meant. Mechanics like blobbing have been fixed, collision masses have been reduced, combat stats have been scaled down, and most importantly you will have 4 unit sizes that allow for all types of game pace.

Jason

Thanks for the insight,but I really don't believe that the different unit size to control game pace is going to be enough to make me happy. My main concern is that the slowest pace, which is probably the one that would please me most (and even then... if large is too slow for you, I can only hope), that pace is likely to be unplayable in 4v4.
Large was not good enough for me in BI, and that was not playable in 4v4.

Louis,

[Kalle]

So, it would be nice if normal unit size gave a kind of gameplay where 2 weak units could defeat a unit 2x stronger by one of them engaging frontally in hold formation while the other executed a flanking maneuver to attack the rear of the strong unit.

As very often Yuuki hits the spot. This is the key and it should be possible to do at any unitsize, as indeed it is in MTW-VI.

In fact I think it is crucial that it is possible at lower unit settings as the larger unit settings in massive games will most likely be laggy if you have not got a new machine.

So saying that increasing unitsize is the way to slow down the battle and get more tactics is not very satisfying for, I would think, most multiplayerveterans.

I doubt RTK Paul - the strongest RTK there ever was in MTW IMO - would agree on that it is good to let unitsize determine if the game is tactical or not, to fast or not.

Kalle

[Tempiic]

Large Louis, we played atlarge. ;)

[CBR]

I liked large too in RTW MP

But anyway, thanks for the clarification Palamedes. Are we to expect our machines can handle more soldiers than with the RTW engine? In RTW unit size settings were x 1/2, 1, 2 and 4. Is that different in M2TW?


CBR

[Duke John]

I don't get this:

The larger a unit is the more ranks deep the unit is when used. If you don’t believe me, and don’t worry you won’t be the first, play with the different unit sizes and check it out for yourself. This occurs due to the playable area staying the same size, no matter what unit size you use you will position the camera in the same position and the surrounding objects will remain the same size. This means when players drag and drop lines of units or move units around objects or through breaches the units end up thicker (more ranks) and thicker units means slower combat.

In R:TW you also had the same playable area and that didn't stop anyone (as far as I know) to put units in 3-5 ranks regardless of unitsize setting. Or are unit depths now fixed (meaning that you can't drag out an unit to set depth)?

If this means huge/large would be more tactical and more slower just because of units being deployed deeper, then what has changed from R:TW? You could do exactly the same with R:TW. That is nothing new or an improvement, just trying to sell old news in a new jacket.

[Mount Suribachi]

I do agree with the different unit sizes affecting gameplay. When I upgraded my PC, on MTW I went from default to huge unit sizes and battles fought very differently. Trying to manuever a unit of 200 infantry round the flank ain't easy I agree with Pape's comments about the mass of unwieldy troops and how good it felt

But the concerns about who can play 4v4 MP on huge unit sizes seem valid. But I don't do MP, so what do I care? :lol:

[CBR]

After getting a new pc I started using huge units in the campaign and it felt great. Huge units is not gonna be used at all in big MP games. That would mean armies of about 3.5K men on average and 28K total for a 4v4. Even half that size would mean most PC's are gonna choke. Of course for smaller 1v1 and 2v2 it might be possible

Unless something has changed with the engine that is.

Maybe this SSE2 issue is an indication of machines being able to handle more than what we saw in RTW...


CBR

[sunsmountain]

In R:TW you also had the same playable area and that didn't stop anyone (as far as I know) to put units in 3-5 ranks regardless of unitsize setting. Or are unit depths now fixed (meaning that you can't drag out an unit to set depth)?

If this means huge/large would be more tactical and more slower just because of units being deployed deeper, then what has changed from R:TW? You could do exactly the same with R:TW. That is nothing new or an improvement, just trying to sell old news in a new jacket.

Exactly, Palamedes, if you're still checking this thread we are glad that you guys solved blobbing and are seeing relations between unit size and battle speed, but let's talk specifics:

- infantry/cavalry marching/running speeds
Your answer about physics implies that this won't change once it is chosen. Let us hope you guys choose it exactly right, since we can't mod it, right? Early demo measurements imply that both have gone down, but that the ratio between infantry and cavalry (ie, infantry being too fast still) is unsolved as yet...

- number of attempts to hit
with the new combos this must have gone up, which is good.

- probability to hit
while this one must have gone down, also good.

When we talk about "we want slower battles with more control", these are important factors to enable that. But if you take current RTW multiplayer gamers as your yardstick, we shudder:

Competitive MP players look for a unit size that ensures the game runs fast and achieves the correct game pace. In my opinion RTW normal was too small (faster pace) and large was too large (slower pace) and small, well might as well Ctrl-A double click and toss a coin. In addition to RTW players using smaller unit sizes, <cut>.

since a certain number of STW/MTW multiplayer gamers have left the scene. Reproducability of results is the most important thing for a game if you want to encourage strategy/tactics.