First impressions on mp

[x-dANGEr]

Are you on the payroll of CA? If you are not interested in playing multiplayer, you shouldn't write in this (EDIT:)multiplayer forum.

I'd be grateful if you showed me where I stated that I am not interested in playing multiplayer.

[RomoR]

Ok guys I played since MTW and this is my first impresion after about 20 games.

For those who still don't know, allies can choose same factions.

I play with Portugal

factions seem balanced to me, played against all though mostly against France, England, Spain, Biz, Egypt ppl like those more so the first 3.

Art -doesn't seem to be overpowered anymore, unless u just stand there all bunched up, can't expect nothing else, I usually loose about 30-60 men (mostly cheap units) to 1-2 units of art, but I also don't stand around for long I admit.
had about 6 games where foe had 2 or more art, fine by me I say.

Eles-I only had 3 games with eles lost the first and won the next 2.
Eles are tough, must play against more to have a better opinion, they arn't that easy to root or run amok. one game took me 4 units of archer fire arrows and 2 of jav to counter them.
If you dont counter them early you toast for they will tear up your ranks with an experienced player, a bit like a gamble if you counter them you win if not you lose.
they cost 2400-2800 each unit and much more after the first.




Cav- well to tell the truth I only played against 1 al cav army, The mongol and got wiped big time has I mention below, my fault though. they dont seem uber to me. My men seem to do ok against cav if not flanked. Pikes wipe them out.
HH armies are a pain, only played one game and got wiped, can't say more because I noobishly went chasing after the mongol army, (I had 4 crappy peasant crossbows) and lost big time.


Archers- again seem to be fine if ure not bunched up for a long time. they arn't pants either, if u let them fire against the flanks they get some good kills. My 4 peasant crossbows units usually kill around 45-40 men each, nice for a 220 florin unit.

You cant ignore Gunpoweder units, they dangerous but not uber. I lost lots of men because at first I didnt target them with my mobile units and later regretted it, you will get shredded if you ignore them, on the other hand they seem fine if paid the right attention.

Inf.-Pikes-- very good when formed and braced. my aventuros stand against anything up front they can stand most of the entire foe's army if deeply ranked (I choose 5-6 units) and don't root straight away if flanked. levies do though.
they will let u fight the entire battle, flank the rest of the army and still beat any enemy up front.

Inf-Heavyinf-- cant say much about them for Portugal doesnt have much choice. played with dismounted portuguese knight and they seem blah. with an 24 attack you would seem they were uber but no, in the 4-5 games I chose them they killed like 10-25 men each, to few for the price.
maybe Im biased for my pikes but I think they pants.

Inf-Light- Great, very good to me, I sometimes play an all Skirmisher army with Portugal and do great. My 330 gold lusitanos kill around 35-40 men each (mostly Heavy troops and cav) and my Almuhgarves 40-45 same thing.
they seem to skirmish well too.

Moral- seem fine, men root when reasonable outnumbered or outclassed, u will get much more flanking time then in rome, (not those 3 sec roots that didnt even give you enough time to click your units card.) Just dont try to use levy or militia has pinners and You will be fine.

Speed -seems ok, walking and running speed could be a bit reduced, but on the other hand I played a lot of games that in the end i was glad the speed was a bit faster.

killing speed is just fine by me.

weather- doesnt seem to do much or enough to me. Rain doesnt seem to cause gunpowder or archer units much disadvantage. Fog is awsome u cant see anything 100m in front of you. never played in desert.

Fatigue- ok again. depends alot on the units stamina. my almogarves can fight a whole battle and be half tired while others get exausted. hills and mountains are evil for your mens stamina, they get pooped after running up one of those.

Game connection- in about 20 games I played 15-16 went through ok, the rest hanged, 1-1 battles never hanged.

Lag- all my 1-1 and 2-2 battles played out with little lag.
Some 3-3 played out with only a little lag, and 2 were lag fests.

WORK U STUPID AI, MOVE.--ok this for me is very bad, when a player drops the AI just stands there, he does'nt move, its like your just lost all your allies help. PLz Fix this CA.

Game options- A bit Gah for my taste, very few maps, no desert option, only winter or summer, maps could be 20% bigger too at lest we could have normal maps and big maps.
normal is ok for me in an 1-1 battle, but for 2-2 and 3-3 its a bit small
so every player teams up and its one big center map fight, doesnt offer any tactical movement options.

Community- mostly nice ppl, havent played against very skilled opponents yet, except for that mongol guy, (he seemed very good) but some are good enough to give a tough challenge, on the other hand I havent got a total noob yet either, Rome had tones of those, maybe because i just play 10K games.
Most ppl still ban ART and ELES, and in 2 games limit gunpowder to 1-2 units.

there arn't much players yet but you dont have to wait long to get a game going, the 3-3 games can take a wee bit longer, but nothing very frustating

I will end by saying it's still too early for a final verdict, like on unit balance, but so far its good, just FIX THE BRAINDEAD AI PLZ.

RomoR out :) its very late, have to go to work in 3 hours must sleeep.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

I'd be grateful if you showed me where I stated that I am not interested in playing multiplayer.

I really don't care if a battle ends with 20 men left or 300 men left, I really don't care if upgrades are in or not, I really don't care if a unit can move 140 m/sec instead of 139 m/sec.. And I'm sure, most of the community doesn't.

You criticized the discussion. But these points are important to have good multiplayer matches. There are many factors to make the battles interesting.

[econ21]

Very nice first impressions, RomoR. I'll link to it on the M2TW forum. It's good to hear pikemen are worth it. I'd be interested to hear more MPers go into details like that.

[Mars]

Shogun had like 12 units in the whole game, M2TW has over 100, factions with all different units. I think one man and his dog could balance the amount of units shogun has. You shouldn't be comparing M2 to Shogun because Shogun isn't even 100th of the scale that Medieval 2 is.

I'm not saying Shoguns not good, I never played it however I'm just saying its very unfair comparing to two. Also, I am one of those people who likes variety in their games, different factions, different units, different strategies, Shogun seems to not have much variation. I wouldn't usually say that because I've not played the game but since you're judging M2 without playing it I guess fairs fair.

"I expect CA to maintain the standard of play they set with the first game. It would be to the benefit of all the players if CA did that."

Please clarify this point, I don't really understand it properly

May i say bullshit?

If not, a mod may del it plz.

This kind of posts are the major problem. U can have ur opinion ofc, but after reading it, i had to worry abotu the future of our whole world...

Honestly, u didnt play shogun, but try to tell us, that u cant compare shogun and mtw... U have no idea about how hard it was to balance shogun.
At least it was possible to balance it, to balance m2 isnt possible, we will end like in MTW, that u host games where u dont allow certain units or have restrictions.

So its nice that u got tons of units, but after all its pretty useless as u wont use em.
I can tell u, that the majority of the armysetups was almost 90% the same, always. IF u want to win a game there are a must of 80% of units to get a strong army. this wont change.

And to come along to tell us, that someone can balance 100+ different units, which are many times same units but different names and look, isnt possible.

Point is, that puzz is without a doubt a very smart guy, he know his shit and apart a handfull player hes one of those i mostly agree about the analyzes of the TW games.



Anyway, its came like many of us did fear, eyecandy shit, major hardware stuff uneed and still u cant play 3v3. Not to mention that AMD seems to have major problems. We didnt even start to exploit some stuff.

There is a blog from some guy who work for CA and as hes an "old" player, he stated there that we wont find any problems or any exploits!
Honestly, whats goin on there in the CA department?

They brainwash people?

Now come on and plz be honest to urself. CA surely got 8 standart computer, they test a 4v4 and to not realzie that u cant play it without heavy lag should be possible or not?

Nono, its obvious, once again they dont really care for MP.

I myself will read here, test in computershops and wait some time till the first and only patch arrive to even sort the major problems and make it playable.

Koc

[Massi]

just to drop a positive line here,

I have played since the first medieval. Rome was a drawback with respect to several issues, as other posters have remarked, there was the impression that CA wanted to replicate a standard RTS in many respects. It was a disappointment for me as well as for many vets.

Some things will never come back: the 10 units of Shogun, the idea of perfect balance, we all know that it will not come back.

But Medieval-II shows an inversion: it is MUCH closer to the first medieval than to Rome: marching/running velocity, killing velocity, even the starting 10k seems to offer (at first glance) a certain balance, massing troops is not working anymore and flanking gets its benefits.

In short, the CONCEPT of CA is, IMHO, changing back to the direction of the original TW games. The lag in the 3v3 and 4v4 might be solved by patching, yesterday there was Palamedes in the lobby asking around. There was Magy! and he did not look displeased of the game (well he did not say much honestly, this one is just an impression).

This game has potential. I say, lets look, lets wait, lets pinpoint the problems, lets be also harsh to CA, why not, I payed the price, 49 eur, because there is written MULTIPLAYER UP TO 8 PLAYERS, so I want that one too, I will SCREAM for that. But lets also recognize that there is a change.

And a tihng I would really love, is that they would find a way I can RECOGNIZE THE UNITS BETTER ON THE BATTLEFIELD. That would be sweet, sprites were much better, poligons could become some kind of sprites from far view, something I can see well, perhaps if I want to give up the "splendid eye candy" (eye candy is good, just, I don't care for it, I want to recognize the living from the death, mine from the enemies, arcers from heavy inf, and so on.

Sorry for the length,

Phoinix_Madmax

[RomoR]

I forgot to mention that it can get quite hard to recognize your troops so I am constantly using the faction button. This allows you to easily recognize your own men from foe. Your men are green, enemy is red and ally is blue.

[Puzz3D]

I forgot to mention that it can get quite hard to recognize your troops so I am constantly using the faction button. This allows you to easily recognize your own men from foe. Your men are green, enemy is red and ally is blue.

It doesn't work with the minimal_UI, and the colored circles don't stay illuminated. It's a good feature in view of the difficulty in distinguishing the units, but poorly implemented.

[t1master]

logged in last night and witnessed some of the usual suspects acting like halfwhit monkeys, but thats to be expected.

joined a game, it dysncyed, then the lobby froze. logged back in, played two games last night. one was a 3v3 with surprisingly little lag, especially since it rained the entire battle.

whilst it's obviously not the finished product, much like the rome mp was/is, the overall feel is better than rome and i see myself playing this game more than rome. more in tune with mtw imho, which is promising.

they need to give us control of the weather. summer/winter is not gonna cut it, fix the factions on opposite teams.

i like that my old gamespy accounts work!

[x-dANGEr]

You criticized the discussion. But these points are important to have good multiplayer matches. There are many factors to make the battles interesting.

Well, through my experience in RTW, and it's mods (Variation in speed here), I never really care about speed. Just give me a game and I will get used to it. You don't modify the mechanics to your taste, instead, you adapt to them. 139 m/s is really no different than 140 m/s. And to clear one more point, I do play RTW MP, and I play loads of it.

[Puzz3D]

Well found somethign that annoys me. Cavalry. Despite what people say it IS overpowerd. Most good cav costs around 800 each and most good inf around 650 each. Head on head the cavalry is winning. This is still the case even with spears.

Spears should cost about 1/3 of the cavalry it beats. Certainly they shouldn't cost more than 1/2. This is because cavalry has higher mobility which is of great value. Apparently, spears have to be stationary to have a chance of beating cav which means it's dangerous for them to move at all when cav is in the vicinity.

[Puzz3D]

And to clear one more point, I do play RTW MP, and I play loads of it.

You're satisfied with the worst TW multiplayer game; a game that many multiplayers say is awful. My whole clan won't play RTW multiplayer, and I know other clans that won't play it either.

[Monarch]

Honestly, u didnt play shogun, but try to tell us,

Me:

I wouldn't usually say that because I've not played the game but since you're judging M2 without playing it I guess fairs fair.

So its nice that u got tons of units, but after all its pretty useless as u wont use em.

I didn't so much mean units in a faction as factions themselves. In rome for instance you've got Greek, Egypt, Roman and Barbarian factions. Now Rome this was useless as they wern't balanced, but in m2 you've got easterns, christians, mongol type factions etc. Thats the variety I meant.

Point is, that puzz is without a doubt a very smart guy,

I know, and he's also a very, very good player. At first I thought he made some good points, but a gazillion anti-ca, anti-m2 posts later I got knida sick of it, even more so when you know he doesn't even have the game which he hates so much.

Anyway, its came like many of us did fear, eyecandy shit, major hardware stuff uneed and still u cant play 3v3

As someone on org has said before, Shogun when it was first released wasn't so great online either.

Nono, its obvious, once again they dont really care for MP.

I have no doubt sp is hugely more important to CA, the campaign, TBS side of the game is its major feature and selling point. Personally I prefer mp as do many others but the are nowhere near as many people compared to sp supporters. However I think they do care, the recruited palamedes for a start, and just generalyl on the forums/blogs have given mp more of the spotlight than I expected.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

Well, through my experience in RTW, and it's mods (Variation in speed here), I never really care about speed. Just give me a game and I will get used to it. You don't modify the mechanics to your taste, instead, you adapt to them. 139 m/s is really no different than 140 m/s. And to clear one more point, I do play RTW MP, and I play loads of it.

RTW MP is the worst game of the TW series regarding the multiplayer part. If you never played STW or MTW Vi - sorry - but then you don't know enough about TW to criticize game mechanic discussions. MTW isn't just a Command and Conquer or RTW. It has an own character and is much more tactical than these action games. Tactical games has to be balanced well.

[econ21]

Please, do we have to re-fight the RTW MP vs STW MP issue incessantly in this thread? Surely this thread should be devoted to new impressions of M2TW in MP? At present, I count only around half a dozen posts reporting on that, out of 75 posts in total. (I apologise in advance for not following my own advice - I've never tried MP.)

[x-dANGEr]

You're satisfied with the worst TW multiplayer game; a game that many multiplayers say is awful.

In your and their opinions.

My whole clan won't play RTW multiplayer, and I know other clans that won't play it either.

As I said, IMO, it is just that you (As in you and other clans, the so called "vets") are being too stiffed to actually try and adapt to RTW. Orda's complaints about RTW are mostly issues that only appear when facing newbies on it, so I guess he would've liked RTW a lot more if he had got to play with the right folks. Still, you guys keep talking about speed again and again, and I keep having this discussion. The buttom line always comes out at we both agreeing that the "delay" in responses is bad, and all other things samely disagreed upon.

RTW MP is the worst game of the TW series regarding the multiplayer part. If you never played STW or MTW Vi - sorry - but then you don't know enough about TW to criticize game mechanic discussions. MTW isn't just a Command and Conquer or RTW. It has an own character and is much more tactical than these action games. Tactical games has to be balanced well.

I appreciate your opinion, I do strongly disagree with it, though. Oh and, I have played MTW, but I have to admit, never played it on MP.

One more thing. The only reason you see me replying in such a strong tone is that your repetitive complaints and CA bashing is just.. annoying. For a game that thousands of people enjoy, it sounds strange, no, raging that a handful find it so disgusting, and want it modified to their taste. I don't really find trouble with that, though, I'd appreciate it if you speak for your own. Yes, that might apply to me as well, but for all I know, all those playing RTW and M2TW now share my view, or at least, a very big margin of them does.

Edit:

Oh and Simon, my last off-topic input here

[Puzz3D]

As I said, IMO, it is just that you (As in you and other clans, the so called "vets") are being too stiffed to actually try and adapt to RTW.

Don't tell me I didn't try to adapt to RTW. My whole clan tried, and 3 of us were on the RTW v1.2 beta team in hopes of getting the gamplay back up to at least the level of MTW. That was 3 months of hard work to end up with a game that we all quit playing online. All the time was spent tracking down bugs such as the multiplayer desync and disconnects, and a lot of SP problems.

After the first impressions posts on M2TW that I've seen so far, I wouldn't touch this game.

[x-dANGEr]

Most first impressions carry optimistic news, except the lag issue. Of course, there are people who just won't accept that it is good and will keep picking up issues.. Issues of such is the faction choosing scenario.. Wouldn't it be stupid if you wouldn't buy the game because of that?

Oh, and I respect your efforts in that, Puzz3D. You need to keep in mind that you always tried to fix RTW, or play it as if it was Shogun. Well, it isn't mate. It's a new game, with a new reference point of balance. With a new set of tactics, and a fascinating deep experience if you ask me. Except for the "blobbing" issue and the upgrades, RTW 1.5 was hell of a good game. Phalanx simply owned cavalry if used right, though, if a cavalry unit manages to get into a fight with an un-organised phalanx unit, it will decimate it. Wedge formation actually means something. Against a spear unit (Triarii), if you put wedge on, you can simply break the spear unit's formation head on with the right conditions, assuring you the kill. That is, your cavalry being fresh, the Triarii being exhausted, and of course, the Triarii unit not ready for the charge. The really beautiful feature in RTW (Which I'm not aware if it was in MTW/STW) is that what you see is what really matters. It is not about numbers. If you charge a unit of Cataphracts into like 3 units of Urban Cohorts, and in the process through them or "pin" them into a Levy Spearmen phalanx spear tips, those Urban Units will be toast, and so it goes..

[Puzz3D]

Oh, and I respect your efforts in that, Puzz3D. You need to keep in mind that you always tried to fix RTW, or play it as if it was Shogun.

No I didn't. I played MTW as it's own gamestyle, and RTW as its own gamestyle as well. My philosophy is to find out what works and use it. That doesn't mean these games were as good as STW. After I found out what worked in MTW and RTW it was clear that the gameplay wasn't as deep as STW. RTW and M2TW have an inferior battle engine, and there is no way to bring the level of the gameplay up to the previous games. That wasn't fully apparent to me during the RTW v1.2 beta.

Where do you draw the line that you won't go below. RTW is below that line for me, my whole clan and other clans as well. Right now in M2TW it might seem relatively balanced because players don't know what units are best. Once players start number crunching the stats that could change for the worse.

Most first impressions carry optimistic news, except the lag issue.

Sweetzero posted that he's been playing 4v4 with no lag. There may be nothing CA can do about it.

[tootee]

STW and MTW are more tactical, and thus more fun, for me. They are different from each other, but more or less their 4v4 are very enjoyable.

RTW.. you guys can argue whatever you want, but I know most MPs who started in STW or MTW, mostly played RTW much less, and moved on to other games. It lacks the tactical depth of its predecessors.. just can't keep me glued to the keyboard like STW or MTW.

But imo it is not right for us to judge M2TW now. I am seeing CA is making effort to engage the MP more pro-actively? I will get the game once its available here.

I would greatly appreciate CA could quickly issue a patch to improve the lag esp for 4v4 (if that is an issue)...

[tootee]

Hey goldfish, how are you mate? Nice to see you around.

Do you remember what you said to me after our first 3v3?

Well, news about MTW2 MP is that good to be honest, though I do not have the game as yet, so I cannot confirm or disprove anything.

Yoo Cheetah, i am good and how are you.

Its been a long time, years i should say, and my memory isnt as good as what it used to be

did we win that battle?

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

As I said, IMO, it is just that you (As in you and other clans, the so called "vets") are being too stiffed to actually try and adapt to RTW. Orda's complaints about RTW are mostly issues that only appear when facing newbies on it, so I guess he would've liked RTW a lot more if he had got to play with the right folks. Still, you guys keep talking about speed again and again, and I keep having this discussion. The buttom line always comes out at we both agreeing that the "delay" in responses is bad, and all other things samely disagreed upon.

I got no problem to try and adapt to new games. I play different games that I find fun in different ways. If I like them, I keep playing them, if I don't, I stop.

I have not found RTW interesting to play. Have I tryed hard? Well, I was also part of that exercise of frustration that was betaing RTW1.2. After that beta, I also gave a shot to some modding for MP purpose. I think that was around a couple of hundreds hours in 6 months. Probably more.
And I gave up. I don't find playing RTW interesting. If that's not enough, let me tell you that then it's probably too long for any player to adapt.

Sure, it's my own opinion... And you if you like RTW good for you. If MTW2 is like RTW, you'll be happy with it, and I won't. Then I won't buy it. That's why feedback matters for me here: I'll make a buying decision based on that, and it will also a few evenings that I might either waste, or find fun.

Some of the criteria I base my decision on are simple to assess:
- possibility to play lagless 4v4
- stability (no disc)
- no desync
- lobby interface design -> ability to keep ignore list, ability to have multiple private chat with ease.
So far, MTW2 does not seem to meet my criterias.

Others are a matter of taste, such as speed, kill rate, even balance is a bit in between (although, we'll see in a couple of months if the game ends up with more balanced army, or if "one type" army gets the upper hand).
So far, it does not look clear if it's good or not.

For a game that thousands of people enjoy, it sounds strange, no, raging that a handful find it so disgusting, and want it modified to their taste.

I don't really care about it getting modified, I lost hopes about CA changing the game to please MPer, about bug list or petition.

It's either to my taste, and I buy it, or not to my taste, and I don't.

So far, my purchase is on hold.

Louis,

[Mars]

well, no doubt about RTW, many if not most of the old clans stoped playing it.
Now u can go and find out why...

MY reason was the lack of style, tactics and the dumped down try of a "tactic" game it was once. When people can win a game by clicking somewhere a few time its already too late.


Adapt to games?

Well, yes ofc, but only till a certain degree, i accepted MTW as a step down already, but in the end it was playable and u could enjoy it.

I tried RTW 2 days, than never played it again, it was to easy to see all the problems in a short time.


Louis hit the nail on the head, i dont try to change a game, either it hit my expectations or not. If i dont like it i dont play, i dont try to learn to find something good.

Right now i will wait some time till they patch M2, when its done i will consider to buy it, but till that day i wont give CA any of my gold, they dissapointed me and many otehr many times already, now there is no need to pay once more for something which is a early beta but not a game which should be sold!


There is no doubt about the stage of this game, its not done and they brought it out with the full knowledge of the major bugs.


Positiv, well, i think that many are sure abotu that its better than RTW, once the bugs are solved and its playable, we maybe will find it entertaining again.

mars

[Mars]

I think that some people have major problems to understand the basic problem within TW.

First, this game doesn’t have the potential to get 10.000 or 100.000 player hugged and playing for months or years. This gamestyle doesn’t work like some other games.

Second, one real problem is the way CA see their own game, they don’t see MP as a big factor, but still the MP cause more problems than the SP. There were minor SP bug and many MP.

The point is, that in a campaign once u build some buildings, u got better units, this units ofc had to make u feel a difference to what u used before. This lead to an imbalance, this imbalance is made on purpose.

Sadly these imbalance cause problems in MP, that’s why we got 3 eras. Still the imbalances between units or counterparts are not feel able or not notice able if u play MP.

How much u care for spears compared to cav in a campaign, where u got 3 times better armies than ur opponent?

Third, the potential of this game is maybe around 3000-5000 people playing it online.
With a good system and an own server ( most important) CA could collect tons of info about structure of setups and change the prices or even stats after using the collected info.

U need a ladder, many people have epeen and want that other know about who is “best” or at least how good they are. We know that the laddersystem was not the best and that it got exploits, but anyway it was an indicator and people know what to fight for.

Forth, tourneys, clanwars….there is so much…


All in all, the last 7 years the TW gamestyle changed a lot and the problem is, that it didn’t change to the better. Grafix got better and we got more units, there are other improvements, but after watching some nice grafix u end with playing a game, if the game is bad the best grafix doesn’t help.

The gamestyle, the basic changed to worser stages, till RTW as we was the final cut and the community changed almost completely. Now with M2 we see a step in the right direction, if it really will bring back some real tactical gamefeeling we will see the next months.

Mars

[Orda Khan]

Orda's complaints about RTW are mostly issues that only appear when facing newbies on it, so I guess he would've liked RTW a lot more if he had got to play with the right folks.

Please explain.

My complaints about RTW are many. New players have always been around, even in STW. The gameplay, the lobby and even the maps and deployment zones are below the standard that the MP community were used to. You already said you did not play MTW online, so I presume that goes for STW as well. Given this fact I do not understand why you criticise players who did. Sure, you may well find negative posts about a game you enjoy to be annoying but you may be totally unaware of the amount of work these players put into the game. I am glad you enjoy RTW, there were plenty who did/do. I mentioned already that the vast majority of the MP community left after giving up on RTW. These were players who played all the games in the series. You do not see them post negatively because they do not post here any more, only the few survivors. Now I ask you a question. Do you honestly think all these players were wrong?

.....Orda

[Fenix7]

For my taste too much words was already spent on RTW. Not worth it. Atm the only reason why I still log in RTW lobbies is NapoleonicTW 2 mod made by the Lordz. Lobbies are still crowded with poeple who seems to play 1.5 (hardly anyone playing BI) regulary and I don't mind if they continue to play the game which I've left behind after few months of trying to get something of it (NTW 2 is exception - feel almost like a new game).

- possibility to play lagless 4v4
- no desync

Two minimums which needed to be fixed.*for the time being let's suppose that gameplay is ok - not too many exploits*

I've almost not seen anyone talking about any game exploits yet and this might be due lag issue which is main issue to be solved atm.

I've heard from someone (don't know if this is true or not) that lbows are very strong unit..in melee.

[Fenix7]

While we are discussing MP issue someone already made a ''mod'' for MTW 2 http://www.twcenter.net/ *sigh*

[x-dANGEr]

No I didn't. I played MTW as it's own gamestyle, and RTW as its own gamestyle as well. My philosophy is to find out what works and use it. That doesn't mean these games were as good as STW. After I found out what worked in MTW and RTW it was clear that the gameplay wasn't as deep as STW. RTW and M2TW have an inferior battle engine, and there is no way to bring the level of the gameplay up to the previous games. That wasn't fully apparent to me during the RTW v1.2 beta.

How do you define "deep" ?

Sweetzero posted that he's been playing 4v4 with no lag. There may be nothing CA can do about it.

Sooner or later the lag will be fixed, one way or another. I remember in RTW 1.3 I had horrible lag even in 1 on 1's, but then it got fixed magically one day.

STW and MTW are more tactical, and thus more fun, for me. They are different from each other, but more or less their 4v4 are very enjoyable.

Again, why do you see them more "tactical" ?

I got no problem to try and adapt to new games. I play different games that I find fun in different ways. If I like them, I keep playing them, if I don't, I stop.

I have not found RTW interesting to play. Have I tryed hard? Well, I was also part of that exercise of frustration that was betaing RTW1.2. After that beta, I also gave a shot to some modding for MP purpose. I think that was around a couple of hundreds hours in 6 months. Probably more.
And I gave up. I don't find playing RTW interesting. If that's not enough, let me tell you that then it's probably too long for any player to adapt.

Sure, it's my own opinion... And you if you like RTW good for you. If MTW2 is like RTW, you'll be happy with it, and I won't. Then I won't buy it. That's why feedback matters for me here: I'll make a buying decision based on that, and it will also a few evenings that I might either waste, or find fun.

Some of the criteria I base my decision on are simple to assess:
- possibility to play lagless 4v4
- stability (no disc)
- no desync
- lobby interface design -> ability to keep ignore list, ability to have multiple private chat with ease.
So far, MTW2 does not seem to meet my criterias.

Others are a matter of taste, such as speed, kill rate, even balance is a bit in between (although, we'll see in a couple of months if the game ends up with more balanced army, or if "one type" army gets the upper hand).
So far, it does not look clear if it's good or not.
I don't really care about it getting modified, I lost hopes about CA changing the game to please MPer, about bug list or petition.

It's either to my taste, and I buy it, or not to my taste, and I don't.

So far, my purchase is on hold.

Louis,

I respect your opinion. Though, I just want to comment on adapting. As I've been playing RTW at all versions on MP quite a lot, I can tell you that RTW 1.5 is a game that has nothing to do with either 1.2 or 1.1. I admit the 1.2 and 1.1 were all about exploits, but I can tell you that 1.5 is just perfect. (Even with the Butt-Spike bug for phalanx.. It just makes things hotter IMO)

My complaints about RTW are many. New players have always been around, even in STW.

Well, it is a rough guess, but I believe in Shogun; due to the better lobby functions, and the diffficulty at which you could obtain an internet connection back then, I would guess there were more mature people.

The gameplay, the lobby and even the maps and deployment zones are below the standard that the MP community were used to.

Sure they all were different, but not importantly worse. Gameplay.. I can't judge that, but I can say RTW's is good. The lobby, well I agree it is poorly-designed, but I don't enter the game to chat anyway, even though I do that a lot in it, and I don't seem to face trouble. The maps, well, there are like more than 90 maps in map-packs ready for you to pick what you like (If you're talking about their size.. Well, that's another thing. Though, the current map size is enough for a HA army to move good without having any trouble. I can't see why would you need more space). Deployment zones.. I can't judge it as well, but I can't see what's wrong with the current one. And if any, not a game sabotaging thing for sure.

Given this fact I do not understand why you criticise players who did. Sure, you may well find negative posts about a game you enjoy to be annoying but you may be totally unaware of the amount of work these players put into the game.

The amount of work they put into it is simply irrelevant. I didn't like A: TW at all, do you see me "criticising" it everyday? The problem is, sometimes they're simply bashing. Heck, sometimes they're bashing a game they don't even own!

Do you honestly think all these players were wrong?

No, I don't. The majority of them left at the earlier versions of RTW, the really imbalanced ones. So imbalanced that they didn't allow for the tactical depth of the game to be realized, because simply, with Cataphracts having a tremendous charge attack, and spears phalanx not working, no matter how deep tactics are, the Cataphracts will kill the phalanx.. Sure, you might say an all HA army is just powerful, but it can be countered with the right army.. Oh, not another spam army btw

[Puzz3D]

How do you define "deep" ?

Three rock, paper, scissors systems operating simultaneously that worked because the units were well balanced resulting in combined arms tactics. Optimal moral level and fatigue rates. Standard money level which was consistently used. Gamespeed that allowed individual control of all 16 units at the height of a battle which is necessary to make use of the combined arms tactics. Seemingly infinite variety of army formations designed to counter particular enemy army formations. No "best" units because all units were useful and cost effective which lead to variety in army composition. No army purchase rules. No max 4 unit type tax. You had to account for every single enemy unit because leaving even a single unit unaccounted for would cost you the battle. Variety of weather effects which had a significant affect on the units and on visibility conditions. Significantly superior battle engine (squeezed too tight melee penalty calculated for individual men, deep formation ranged unit penalty, individual man line of sight and distance calculation for shooters). Large number of events used to resolve unit combat which gives a reasonable level of statistical uncertainty. Proper ratio of cav speed to infantry speed. Well selected reload times for ranged units. Well paced battles which mostly lasting between 20 to 30 minutes. Highly distinguishable units from each other and from the ground textures. Fatigue indicator on the unit icons which provides quick assessment of all the units fatigue level. Definable subgroups within groups. Independent toggles for hold position and hold formation.

There were some slight playbalance issues, but nothing even remotely comparable to the playbalance issues of the later games.

Sooner or later the lag will be fixed, one way or another.

Not if it's caused by people playing with inadequate machines.

[x-dANGEr]

Not if it's caused by people playing with inadequate machines.

You can't expect CA to hang back on the Graphics side just to let more people be able to play the game.. "Technology moves on." People eventually will get to upgrade. I can almost guarantee in a period of 6 months to have rare lag issues.

About the "deep" gameplay point, I will reply later since I have no time now..