First impressions on mp

[Puzz3D]

Also, there were many battles in MTW which ended in a war of attrition dozens of tired men slugging out in a true last man standing situation. I even remember that once we had to chase out one, yes one man that was still fighting in a 4v4 to get victory!!!

That was caused by battlefield upgrades, and using too many upgrades on high morale swords. We got LongJohn to remove the battlefield upgrades in MTW/VI v2.01, but swords still had too much upgrading and the discount on ranged unit upgrades allowed too much upgrading on those units as well. MTW is not the standard of comparision that I would use. In Samurai Wars for MTW/VI v2.01, we don't have units fighting to the last man except perhaps the hatamoto and ninja which are small high honor units. AMP and Swoosh helped identify a problem with small cav units being too effective at the end of a battle in Samurai Wars, and we corrected that problem.

Battlefield upgrades are back in M2TW. Their effect might not be as strong as in MTW, but if the overall morale level has been raised, then even weaker battlefield upgrades could easily be too much towards the end of the battle. The battle engine only operates well over a relatively small range of morale.

[Tera]

I agree with Tootee and Yuuki on this issue, but of course we should adapt a larger view.

Shogun was perhaps, a paradox. From the outside, it only had very few units and all the factions were the same. The graphics were not stellar, and during its period PCs had advanced in a way that made 3v3/4v4 hardly an issue. But this had its distinct advantages in multiplayer combat:

- Battles were largely lag-free (post 1.12) and there was even a way to recover most battles which seemed lost due to connection problems (TTTTTT ;))

- 3v3/4v4 were very popular, epic battles

- All the factions were the same, and there were few units. Easier to balance. Spears. Swords. Cavalry. Missiles. All had a role - sometimes they were not 100% balanced but overall the gameplay was very good, and it was ultimately perfected by 1.03 +. STW 1.12 and MI 1.03 were the best Total War I ever had.

So maybe Shogun's external simplicity contributed to having a more enjoyable and balanced multiplayer. Which in return created a very hardcore and serious community, and combat - although seemingly simpler by MTW/RTW standards - actually got very technical and complicated.

Lastly, the theme was special. Samurai..honour...clans. All that is gone, and the Medieval/Roman setting is different.

--------

MTW was overall good. Like most Shogun veterans, I did not enjoy the first versions of Medieval, but later patches - especially Viking Invasion - fixed many issues. I enjoyed Viking Invasion very much, although it had flaws - for example, Spears really lost their role. Swords, Cavalry and Missiles were the only relevant unit types. Also, the battles - especially on Steppes - tended to become tedious "hold-the-line" wars of attrition, rather than the fast-paced devastating offensive assaults of Shogun. But that is understandable - European Medieval combat was meant to feel different than Japanese one.

- The gameplay was different, but it felt still very enjoyable! You just had to accept the different style and adapt. Steppes on High with the standard European factions was admittedly tedious. But the combos you could make with different maps, eras, factions (Friendly, Late, Mongols, Muslim factions etc) was VERY fun !!! And I do have fond memories of some battles.

- The engine was basically the same as STW.

- Like STW, 3v3/4v4 were popular and enjoyable.

So that was it.

--------------

Rome killed all that. Different engine altogether, which I didn't like at all. Pitiful tactical overview of the battles, and awesome 3-d zooming action which serves no use to the multiplayer experience. The Roman theme filled the community with new people which just didn't match with the previous community. Unit balance, pace of battles, conduct of multiplayer...was all different. Big games impossible...

------------

And I'm waiting for feedback for M2TW. However...

The impossibility of having same factions and the impossibility to play 3v3/4v4 already killed much of the hope. :(

However, if the unit balance and gameplay is good and it is similar to the feel of MTW: VI, then there is hope. Maybe some patches to improve multiplayer code and performance - I don't know.

Keep us updated

[Puzz3D]

So maybe Shogun's external simplicity contributed to having a more enjoyable and balanced multiplayer. Which in return created a very hardcore and serious community, and combat - although seemingly simpler by MTW/RTW standards - actually got very technical and complicated.

Nice to see someone who can articulate the fundamental principle. We played five 3v3 multiplayer battles (5500 men total) in Samurai Wars for MTW/VI v2.01 yesterday in a 2 and 1/2 hour playing session with no lag and no drops. We have a gameplay that's reminiscent of original STW v1.12, but with superior playbalance (no monk rush, etc).

So am I to assume even Shogun lagged before it was patched? Obviously theres hope for m2 then.

Yes, but the problem wasn't as severe. A network coding problem was corrected in the STW MI add-on which improved performance by 15%. Ironically, this degraded the gameplay because it made controlling all 16 units more difficult. It was already difficult enough in STW to control all 16 units. Units could turn and change direction quite fast in STW. This turning speed was slowed down a lot in MTW.

[Tera]

The 1.12 patch for Shogun, released in Late 2000, mostly fixed the multiplayer code. Before the patch even small battles gave problems. The game itself was not very demanding on the system. An improvement in the networking improved performance by a lot.

I believe the problem with MTW2 is the steep system requirements, apart from maybe a weak networking code. So probably your best bet is to play at minimum detail levels and with smaller unit sizes. However, this is not controllable..many or rather most players will not have tweaked the options, thinking that since they played single-player just fine, multiplayer will not be a problem. And the game runs at the pace of the slowest player. :(

To some extent, RTW/M2TW are defeated by their own success in terms of graphical detail etc.

About Weather: Can't you turn it off in Options?

[Puzz3D]

The 1.12 patch for Shogun, released in Late 2000, mostly fixed the multiplayer code. Before the patch even small battles gave problems. The game itself was not very demanding on the system. An improvement in the networking improved performance by a lot.

Oh I see. I didn't go online until after the v1.12 patch was released.

[Lusted]

I don't think CA will ever be able to make mp as balanced as it was in STW again, simply due to the much increased variety in units in every game since. STW with its identical factions, and small unit rosters was obviously much easier to balance than M2Tw with its 200 odd units.

[ArmaEtLorica_Mongoclint]

Well, obviously the 3v3 and 4v4 lag will have to be fixed quickly to make this a viable MP game, but it certainly seems (based on the developer blog page) that CA is willing to work with the community to iron out MP gripes. After the Rome fiasco, I just hope It doesn't take too long to patch the major issues that come up.

I hope Clan Heerban will give them a little time before they dispose of their games. :)

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

Well, obviously the 3v3 and 4v4 lag will have to be fixed quickly to make this a viable MP game, but it certainly seems (based on the developer blog page) that CA is willing to work with the community to iron out MP gripes. After the Rome fiasco, I just hope It doesn't take too long to patch the major issues that come up.

I hope Clan Heerban will give them a little time before they dispose of their games. :)

Hi Mongo Nice to see you here. Well as you say after Rome we are not very confident, that they solve them multiplayer problems. That would be very sad, because the battle system itself, seems to be okay.

[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.