The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - initial impressions from an English campaign

[AussieGiant]

Hi Econ,

Ok good to know about your feelings about the kill rates. I am worried about the slow fire rates of Longbowmen though.

I'm keenly interested in your start because I'll be playing English as my first faction when I get the game.

In general I just get the impression that everyone would best be served by being a little patient right now. There is so much of this game to work out, that it will really take time. Some very smart people have spent years programming this so there is a ton of material and thinking to observe and learn.

My comment about capping is that it might become more of a limit later in the game. Now that you have more money and relatively cheap units it is not an issue. As the later period "expensive" units and upgrade become available then the capping will keep your army roster balanced.

How much money do you have?

[econ21]

I'm happy with the longbowmen's rate of fire now, too. But that may be because I am encountering the passive AI bug more and more. I usually seem to be able to shoot the AI to death. Maybe I'm just hitting my stride, but the battles are starting to resemble RTWs more now. I'm even starting to get some 10:1 casuality ratios. Then again, the AI has always struggled against missiles and missiles is what the English do well.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Just teched up enough to get Dismounted English Knights-these guys are very, very good-the ace in the hole of the English, I'd say. You're going to be relying on these guys more than anything else, as you don't really get any late period infantry.

[AussieGiant]

They sound good BKS.

How many can you pump out? Is the capping working?

Econ,

Ahhh...if the Day 0 patch is going to solve passive battle AI, then...it will be over soon

what has changed about the "rate of fire" issue then?

[Furious Mental]

Didn't the developers say that if it's being out classed by enemy archers the AI should charge? If there's a bug stopping this happening I can imagine it would make the AI alot more vulnerable.

[AussieGiant]

Didn't the developers say that if it's being out classed by enemy archers the AI should charge? If there's a bug stopping this happening I can imagine it would make the AI alot more vulnerable.

That's what I read too Furious.

There seems to be a problem but it has been ID'd and is apparently going to resolved in the Day 0 patch release.

Day 0 should mean on the last official release date which is still a week away I think.

[econ21]

what has changed about the "rate of fire" issue then?

Not sure - maybe early on, I was not so in control of things (the shock of the new and all that). I was a little freaked by the seemingly slow rate of fire, but did not take care to observe the effects. Now it reminds me of arbalests in MTW. Slow and deliberate, but rather nasty to receive. Feudal knights fall fairly easily to archery if exposed to it for long enough (as kats did to arbalests in MTW).

Also, my early fights seemed to be scrappy, bloody things where everything was a little hectic. I probably did not have enough of a shield of melee troops to protect my archers. The mid-game fights are more like the classic set piece battles and the AI seems to behave more passively, allowing itself to get shot to pieces.

[Maizel]

Heres my good, bad, ugly

Good

1. Castles and cities gives very interesting strategic implications. If you take a settlement far away with heavy units you will have difficulties retraining G

Just to add to that.

Have you guys noticed that you can't prepare for a siege when you're sieged im a settlement?

[Spendius]

You can if you have a general

[AussieGiant]

Not sure - maybe early on, I was not so in control of things (the shock of the new and all that). I was a little freaked by the seemingly slow rate of fire, but did not take care to observe the effects. Now it reminds me of arbalests in MTW. Slow and deliberate, but rather nasty to receive. Feudal knights fall fairly easily to archery if exposed to it for long enough (as kats did to arbalests in MTW).

Also, my early fights seemed to be scrappy, bloody things where everything was a little hectic. I probably did not have enough of a shield of melee troops to protect my archers. The mid-game fights are more like the classic set piece battles and the AI seems to behave more passively, allowing itself to get shot to pieces.

Hi Econ,

Ok thanks for the continued analysis. AI sitting around getting shot to pieces doesn't sound promising though. What happens when that is potentially solved in a 0 Day Patch?

[econ21]

AI sitting around getting shot to pieces doesn't sound promising though. What happens when that is potentially solved in a 0 Day Patch?

Cheap answer - we will get a better game. I'd be more worried about what will happen if it is not fixed. Slightly more thoughtful answer: I'm pretty relaxed about missiles now - they are fine, IMO. Ditto cavalry. Both take a little getting used to, but have their role and it is not at the expense of other arms.

Some unrelated observations on AI siege assaults as I lost my first settlement (Antwerp) to an AI assault:

In RTW/BI, the AI often does very badly at siege assaults - however big the horde, it usually brings only a ram, a tower and some ladders, so you can often set their equipment on fire - rams being the main target - and/or hold them off with a couple of decent heavy infantry (e.g. comitatenses) on the walls.

In my M2TW game, the Danes had two rams, one tower and a set of ladders. The two rams were curious, but then I realised that it might be smart, as both rams and towers are very flammable (as I'd learned the few times I've tried a siege assault). The AI kept the second ram behind the first almost like a backup - a tactic I might copy.

I knew as was in trouble as the AI had a lot of dismounted feudal knights and I'd been outmaneouvred on the campaign map, so the town had only 4 spear militia, 3 longbows and a general. I used the longbows to shoot fire arrows at the ram and tower. The tower caught fire just as it was touching the walls, but the ram did not. I just about contained the FKs coming up the ladders, but those coming through the game barrelled through my spears and general. The longbows on the walls (and the towers next to them) did ok, but without a melee shield, they were eventually routed.

One nice change I might have observed - as the AI took the town square and the 3 minute countdown started, I snuck a lone knight onto the square, hoping to reset the timer (an exploit I learnt from RTW). It did not reset and I promptly lost. Kudos to CA if they have stopped this exploit.

The lesson from all this is that you really need elite infantry (dismounted FKs etc) to either resist a siege assault or indeed carry one off effectively. I guess I already new this from RTW (when I said I needed a couple of decent heavy infantry). Relying on a city's free militia won't cut it - as indeed it should not. A better test of the AI will be if they attack a properly defended city - that would be fun.

[TinCow]

I have been playing as the English as well and here are my initial impressions:

The Good:

AI – Much better all around. The battle map AI is better than any I have seen before. I still win almost all the time (playing on VH) but I need a proper army, proper tactics, and proper preparation beforehand. You can win consistently, but you have to earn them with skill. I have also had my butt handed to me twice by intelligent AI rather than stupid player. This has never happened to me before. Brief descriptions of the losses:

The first was a combination of the second and third battles of the game, during which I expected to completely eliminate Scotland. They attacked me with two small armies to relieve the siege of Edinburgh. Even combined they were smaller than me and I had a good defensive position on a hilltop so I put my main line facing the army I thought would arrive first and put two spears to hold the other army until the first was done. Unfortunately, the AI coordinated the armies and struck at the exact same moment. On top of that the main army broke half my line in the initial charge. I eventually rallied and won, but lost half my army in the process. Still on the AI turn, Scotland moved a 3/4 stack into the attack. I could have held it off with my full army, but with the huge losses from before it was hopeless. I lost my entire northern army and it took me about 10-15 more turns to finish Scotland.

The second was assaulting rebel held Bruge. I assaulted with 5 siege towers and a ram with about 10-12 units of spears ready to climb the walls. Unfortunately, the rebels had 4-5 very decent infantry units on the walls along with crossbowmen. They burned 2 siege towers and the ram, leaving me with only 3 assault points on the walls. They moved their heavy infantry to those spots and proceeded to assault my units on the walls from both sides. I kept feeding new spears into the fight (siege tower climbing is not slow anymore) but with heavy infantry on both sides of the assault points, it was a losing battle of attrition. I eventually withdrew with 2/3 of my army dead.

Diplomacy/Pope – Playing on H campaign, the diplomacy is very reasonable. Enemies know when they are beaten and offer truces and even pay for a ceasefire when they need it desperately. Allies do not betray you without cause (so far at least). The Pope is easy to figure out and the College of Cardinals is excellent! With proper planning, you can stack the College with your own countrymen, guaranteeing the next Pope will be from your nation or at least friendly to you.

Castle/City System – Works beautifully and requires you to think hard about what you want to do with a settlement. It is very costly to switch a well-developed Castle to a City, and tough luck if you suddenly need a castle in a region, but only have large cities which cannot be turned into them.

Missions – The huge variety of missions is wonderful. You can get missions from your Council of Nobles, from the Pope, and even from your allies. They can be very creative too, such as the Nobles asking you to increase the number of defensive units on a hostile border. The best one I have had so far was the heir to the throne of the HRE (my ally) asking me to assassinate his father for him so that he could become Emperor!

Castle Sieges – These are the most impressive things I have ever seen in a game, visually and tactically. The AI properly defends castles and multi-ring castles can be a major pain to take down. Once the AI loses one ring of wall, it will always retreat to the next ring, making you do it all over again. With the 3 ring citadel, this can make for an extremely costly attack. The only citadel I have managed to take by force so far required a full stack with 3 trebuchet units (6 trebuchets) and even then I barely had enough stones to make all the necessary breaches, forcing me to leave most of the towers intact. The days of the baggage train are back… any army that is going to be assaulting a Castle, Fortress, or Citadel absolutely must be carrying siege engines. Towers and ladders work on cities, but the game will not even let you bother trying to take a fortress without some kind of catapult or cannon. You cannot even begin the assault. Oh, and the sight of trebuchets slinging stones at a fortress is possibly the most graphically impressive part of the game IMO.

Settlement Development – Massive number of buildings to construct. The days of having perfect settlements are gone.

Movies – The assassin, spy, heresy, wedding movies are great. The assassin and spy movies in particular are lovely as they are incredibly varied and you never know whether you are going to succeed or not until about halfway through the movie. Even after 3 days of constant playing, I do not think I have seen them all yet.

Animations – Kill moves and more varied combat animations make watching the fighting close up actually interesting. It looks like an actual war now close up as well as from afar.

The Bad

Turns/Date – The lack of a date on the campaign map is annoying. I do not care that it is the 68th turn, I want to know the year. Why do I have to look elsewhere for that? Also, 2 years per turn? What happened to 2 turns per year?!

Crusades – They take a long time to get anywhere if you are in Western/Northern Europe. Even with the extra movement, your army will get stuck from the zone of control issue and lose all movement several times along the way. Given 2 years per turn, it takes a crusade 20 years to get anywhere, possibly 30 to get the job done. I have also seen French and Spanish crusades taking boats from the Atlantic coast, sailing to the North Sea, and then landing and embarking each turn until the Crusade finishes, at which point they walk home.

Campaign map movement – I agree with others, seems way too slow given some of the distances between settlements and considering that each turn is 2 years.

Delayed death reporting – The game does not count a man as dead until after his death animation is finished. Some death animations can take 4-5 seconds, which can make you scratch your head in frustration wondering why your massive cavalry charge did not kill anyone. This will probably be ok once I get used to it though… just remember that man count on units represent approximately 5 seconds ago, not the present situation.

Deployment in streets – You now cannot deploy in the area outside the roads, even if it looks clear. Again, this will probably just take getting used to, but for now it causes some aggravation in setup and when attacking settlement.

The Ugly

Passive AI – When it happens, it sucks and brings back memories of incompetent Rome AI. Let us hope the patch is out soon.

Attack reluctance – Sometimes, for reasons I cannot figure out, men will dribble into an attack rather than move as a group. Unit responsiveness also seems to be decreased sometimes.

Heir – You cannot pick your heir! My current heir is a wrathful slob who does not deserve a crown, but I cannot pick his intelligent and chivalrous brother over him. Given time, I might shift this to the “Good” category if it increases difficulty (and realism) but for now, I hate it.

Traits – Maybe it is just me, but the trait and ability system is a lot less colorful and informative than in previous games. With a few exceptions I do not feel like I have gotten many family members with personalities.


Overall – Best TW game I have ever played (I have never played STW). The idea of what this game will be with mods on top of the excellent base is exciting beyond belief.

[ezoons]

Heir – You cannot pick your heir! My current heir is a wrathful slob who does not deserve a crown, but I cannot pick his intelligent and chivalrous brother over him. Given time, I might shift this to the “Good” category if it increases difficulty (and realism) but for now, I hate it.

Ehm...
I haven't played RTW (PC couldn't handle it and now that I've upgraded I'll skip it for MTW2), but in MTW all you need to do to "pick" your heir is find a bunch of suitably powerful rebels. I don't get your point here. Can't you do this in MTW2?

[TinCow]

True, I suppose you can, but it's a step backwards from RTW which did allow you to pick the heir. Considering how ridiculous we all thought it was in MTW to have to suicide an idiot prince into a Mongol horde, it seems similarly ridiculous to remove the feature that fixed this annoyance.

[Bob the Insane]

ITowers and ladders work on cities, but the game will not even let you bother trying to take a fortress without some kind of catapult or cannon. You cannot even begin the assault.

Turns/Date – The lack of a date on the campaign map is annoying. I do not care that it is the 68th turn, I want to know the year. Why do I have to look elsewhere for that? Also, 2 years per turn? What happened to 2 turns per year?!

I think the first is due to inner walls... Ladders, towers and such are only good for the outer walls (or only wall in the case of a city). It is the same as if you run out of Siege engine ammo before all the rings are breached (in which case it is battle over, you lose)... Or so I have read on this forum...

There is already a way to mod this back to 2 turns a year if you can handle the thought of nearly 1000 turns! And the debate is raging as to whether or not to simple increase the build times by x4 in this case...

Thanks for your review by the way, it was very encouraging for those of us picking it up tomorrow...

[SigniferOne]

Why can't you save spare ladder units (or drop ladders and return to pick them up), to climb up inner walls?

[Bob the Insane]

Why can't you save spare ladder units (or drop ladders and return to pick them up), to climb up inner walls?

Well, mine was a guess...

but maybe the game simply does not allow you to manouver them through the gates or breaches...

[SigniferOne]

Could someone test this out? Historically I can't think of any sieges of massive castles that were done by ladders alone, but if we could have an option in this regard, it'd be better.

[TinCow]

As far as I can tell, no siege equipment of any kind can get through a gate. I haven't tried a wall breach, but I assume it's the same. Essentially you need trebuchets or long range gunpowder artillery in order to be able to hit the third wall of a citadel. I found 3 units of trebuchets were just barely enough to breach all 3 walls before running out of ammo. 4-5 would be necessary if you wanted more than a single breach in each wall plus disabled towers. Perhaps gunpowder units are more effective, but I have yet to try them.

[General_Sun]

You know there's a difference between light cavalry and heavy cavalry. Light cavalry are not chargers, that's not their intention. If youse them to break front ranks... Well they won't. Think of them as skirmishers that don't use javelins. In fact, use them as yo uwould use a military cavalry.

[Freedom Onanist]

My two penneth worth.

The English

Longbows - They still seem to be a little underpowered and slow to me to start with anyway. Later on I get the feeling they get too strong as infantry. I have got Retinue Longbowmen and they are nearly as good as any unit as infantry. I know they charged in at Agincourt and all that, but that was in very partcular circumstances. I would've prefered slightly more powerful bows and more fragile bowmen, that would've made you think harder about your deployments. To achieve their best results fire arrows seem to be best. Not becasue they kill more but because they seem to have greater morale effect than in RTW - at least for several units of longbows.

Infantry- forget about them in the early game, they have strong attack values but very low armour ones. Considering these are the blokes that are supposed to have fought it out with the French that got through the arrows they are seriously underpowered. THe ones in the game just can't stand still and take an attack. Attacking with them still results in very heavy casualties becassue of their low armour values. Later in the game they are available as free upkeep troops in cities and they aren't too shabby. The only infantry worth diddly-squat tot he English are the dismounted knights/armoured swordsmen etc.. available later on. But then I think everyone else gets these so nothing unique there.

The English don't seem to get anything that can stand up to cavalry per se. The billment no longer have that attribute. The only unit you have is are the militia spearmen armour upgraded.

Crusades - Can be difficult for England (and other N Europeans) when called randomly by the Pope. As someone has pointed out getting to the target is a major obstacle. However, the solution is to influence the Pope yourself and ask for a crusade against an opponent that suits you at a time that suits. So, send some ships with load of troops into the Med and then call on the Pope to declare a crusade.

Pope - Really does help if you can get on his good side. The best way to do this is to consider all the religious buildings and send your priests off to be missionaries. For the English send them to Russia. Preaching in non catholic lands really puts the piety quotients up, which in turn makes your priests eligible for promotion to cardinal and on to pope.

Campaign map - Not the prettiest, specially when zoomed out - it looks a bit "grainy". Zoomed in it's OK, though the casstles look silly.

AI- Seems to be improved and battles deinitely take longer than in RTW. Siege equipment seems to work better as well, towers and ladders are much quicker to use. Also, there doesn't seem to be the option to have a gatling gun fitted to the top of your towers to clear the walls anymore as in RTW.

Overall, I 'd say it is excellent but he English are not the most interesting faction.

[anders]

I have only played custom battles with the english, but I really find the billmen and crossbowmen disapointing. especialy compared to other factions similar units.

I mean, billmen fail miserably against knights, while (hre) halberd militia in spearwal chops them to pieces, even one on one.

likewise, longbows seem to have no edge on most crossbows, and get decimated pretty quickly by all gunners and al the "special" crossbows like the milanese. the ongbows real-life advantage over these units, the ability to crate a huge volum of fire in a short time, seems to be nonexistent. also, their misslie attack rating is no larger tha that of other archers above peasant level.

its not that i expect the english infantry to be unbeatable, but they should be better than this.

[bones58]

Ditto on troops "reluctantly" charging. It really is fustrating seeing dribbles of 150 spearmen attact a flank with so many standing at the back doing nothing. I also seem to find that unless troops are formed into a well organised formation, they will simply run into enemy troops without even raising their weapons or shields. It does look pretty awkward. Also I agree concerning the Pope's impossible Crusade demands. Otherwise a fine addition to TW Franchise

[frogbeastegg]

True, I suppose you can, but it's a step backwards from RTW which did allow you to pick the heir.

It's historically accurate

The Romans selected, sometimes even adopted, their heirs. Most cultures during the middle ages determined inheritance by bloodlines. Most Western areas used Salic law (no female inheritance, and all land to go to the eldest son) or semi-Salic (all land goes to the eldest son, or if he is dead to his eldest surviving son. If there is no continuation of the eldest son's bloodline then it passes to his next eldest brother, then that brother's sons in order of age, and so on until you run out of males, at which point the female who is the closest heir (e.g. daughter of the deceased) inherited).

So RTW was accurate for its time, and M2TW for its. I like that.

[TinCow]

It\'s historically accurate

The Romans selected, sometimes even adopted, their heirs. Most cultures during the middle ages determined inheritance by bloodlines. Most Western areas used Salic law (no female inheritance, and all land to go to the eldest son) or semi-Salic (all land goes to the eldest son, or if he is dead to his eldest surviving son. If there is no continuation of the eldest son\'s bloodline then it passes to his next eldest brother, then that brother\'s sons in order of age, and so on until you run out of males, at which point the female who is the closest heir (e.g. daughter of the deceased) inherited).

So RTW was accurate for its time, and M2TW for its. I like that.

It is historically accurate for the heir to be chosen based on hereditary ranking by the computer immediately upon the crowning of a new King. It is NOT historically accurate for this to be unchangable. There were many situations in which hereditary rules were tossed out the window at the convenience of various nations. The War of Spanish Succession and the Glorious Revolution spring immediately to mind. If you want to be historically accurate, give a major loyalty drop to the disinherited family member and perhaps even an increase in unrest in all settlement and a decrease in relations with foreign powers. However, simply forbidding the choice altogether is NOT historically accurate.

If you want concrete proof of why it is not, consider the following:

King Postmortem dies at a relatively youthful age due to Chronic Sword Through Heart Syndrome. His heir, Prince Flacid, inherits, but is not yet married and does not have a son. The game automatically makes the now King Flacid\'s eldest brother, Prince Windfall the heir. King Flacid then marries the foreign Princess Viagratia and they produce a son, Prince Thoughtunlikely. The game will now prevent Prince Thoughtunlikely from inheriting his rightful throne and his uncle Prince Windfall will become the next king, even though he would have been instantly removed as heir in any medieval European monarchy.

All in all, the option should be there in some form.

[Biggus Diccus]

Ditto on troops "reluctantly" charging. It really is fustrating seeing dribbles of 150 spearmen attact a flank with so many standing at the back doing nothing. I also seem to find that unless troops are formed into a well organised formation, they will simply run into enemy troops without even raising their weapons or shields. It does look pretty awkward. Also I agree concerning the Pope's impossible Crusade demands. Otherwise a fine addition to TW Franchise

I have started to order my unit to run behind the enemy unit I want to attack, ordering to attack when most of the men are on top of the enemy unit. A little messy, but it is the only way to have the men engage properly. Cavalry is another story of course.....

[ezoons]

King Postmortem dies at a relatively youthful age due to Chronic Sword Through Heart Syndrome.

Ehm, in all probability his ailment would've been acute rather than chronic :)

[gardibolt]

It's historically accurate

The Romans selected, sometimes even adopted, their heirs. Most cultures during the middle ages determined inheritance by bloodlines. Most Western areas used Salic law (no female inheritance, and all land to go to the eldest son) or semi-Salic (all land goes to the eldest son, or if he is dead to his eldest surviving son. If there is no continuation of the eldest son's bloodline then it passes to his next eldest brother, then that brother's sons in order of age, and so on until you run out of males, at which point the female who is the closest heir (e.g. daughter of the deceased) inherited).

So RTW was accurate for its time, and M2TW for its. I like that.

So, how long do we have to wait for the frogbeastegg guide?

[Bob the Insane]

King Postmortem dies at a relatively youthful age due to Chronic Sword Through Heart Syndrome. His heir, Prince Flacid, inherits, but is not yet married and does not have a son. The game automatically makes the now King Flacid\'s eldest brother, Prince Windfall the heir. King Flacid then marries the foreign Princess Viagratia and they produce a son, Prince Thoughtunlikely. The game will now prevent Prince Thoughtunlikely from inheriting his rightful throne and his uncle Prince Windfall will become the next king, even though he would have been instantly removed as heir in any medieval European monarchy.
.

As someone who works in software suport this is not a word I use lightly but... bug?

I liked Froggy's explaination but think that in the circumstances you stated that the heir should autochange to the eldest son when he is old enough to be a general...

Thinking futher, Faction Heir is a trait is it not? Perhapes this will be modable if CA elect to not change it...

[econ21]

Just updated my guide to England with the unit stats:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...09&postcount=7

Still work in progress though.