How to always win a 4v4 using ALL or LATE era.

[ElmarkOFear]

I have recently noticed something interesting of late while playing online: In several 4v4 games, I have seen my opponent's team (who's teammate just so happens to be hosting) taking certain factions each time they play. This has been done by several different teams, but I thought it odd that they would all pick the following teams in when playing in the ALL and LATE era:

Spain
Portugal
Milan
Venice

I did a bit of research and noticed these are the only 4 factions with musketeers (which have a long range and cost 540, or is it 570?, florins.) There are other factions which have musketeers, but they are much more expensive. The other curious thing about the above factions is they all have some very nice spear units to help stop mostly-cav armies, plus they all have the most powerful cav knight units available.

The above combination wouldn't be so bad, but when each team member takes one of the above in a 4v4, the opposing team, will not have access to the long-range musket units, nor the good spear with great cav units.

I never worry about if I will win or not, since I enjoy playing unusual, experimental armies, but I am a bit dissappointed in what I am seeing repeatedly. It makes for boring gameplay.

I think, to be honorable, a 4-man team should at least leave one of the above factions open for the opposing team to use if they like in LATE and ALL era games. The long-range of the muskets and their killing rate, forces opponents (without such units) to rush or be shot to death. Rushing in a 4v4 game is almost always suicidal (Unless you have an experienced team familiar with the correct techniques), given the charge power and maneuverability of the knight units, and the good holding ability of the best spear units in the game.

Your typical army for the above factions normally consist of:

4 to 6 knight units
4 to 6 musket units
4 spear or pikemen units
4 dismounted knight units
with sometimes a cheaper cav unit or two included

I don't have a problem with the army mix. My problem is with the fact that a few teams are denying the same mix to their opponents by each taking one of the above factions. In 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 games it isn't a problem, since there is one of the above factions left open for the other team to all use. It is only a problem in LATE or ALL era 4v4 games.

I just thought I would bring this to everyone's attention to see what they think and to give them something to watch for. Ever since MTW, unit selection has become more significant in deciding the winner of an online battle and denying your opponents the same type of army as yours is an unfair advantage (at least to me it seems to be).

So what do you guys think? Pay attention next time you play online and see which and how many teams are using the above factions. Let me know if you see it happening more than once. :)

***ELMO ROUTS OUT OF THE FORUM***

[shogun888]

isnt it possible to play using the same faction?

[Puzz3D]

isnt it possible to play using the same faction?

Opponents cannot choose the same faction which is one more reason why the old engine is better for multiplayer than the new engine.

[x-dANGEr]

Doh.. This is like "pointless". I mean, in tourneys and so, you won't just pick all your factions then the other team.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Tourney games are less than 1% of all games. I don't play for tournaments, I play for nice, fun and balanced games all the time.

Louis,

[x-dANGEr]

Imagine then what is the percent of 4 on 4's with those setups nowadays.. No, imagine what's the percent of 4 on 4's, then the percent of 4 on 4's with this "dilemma" of 4 on 4's. You'll probably have fun at least 90% of the time then, not bad.

[Dionysus9]

Yes, you are correct thats a big problem Elmo. It affects tourney and non-tourney games alike. That being said, this is more an issue of sportsmanship and/or ignorance to me. We are stuck with the game as patched, so we must work within that framework.

The easy way to "fix" this problem is for people on the same team who want these types of armies (which I agree are "the best", [which is actually nice because its a balanced army with teeth]) to take the same factions. For example, on team 1, have 2 spain and 2 portugal. On team 2, have 2 milan and 2 venice.

My guess is that if you asked the teams taking the "big 4 factions" to accomodate you by taking a double-faction (rather than hogging all 4 of the best factions) then they would do the "right" thing and even things out.

This may be unintentional on their part, because I tend to avoid duplicating a faction taken by anyone (even a team member) yet I also tend to pick a good faction if possible. In the future I will consider duplicating a faction already selected by my team so that the other team can have some good units too, if its an issue. I also guess that most new players dont have a clue what factions (letr alone units) are/arent good and so don't complain-- compounding the problem.

BTW, you are right, Janny Musks and cossak Musks are EXPENSIVE and die just like everyone else when they are shot by a musket bullet.

[Dionysus9]

oh yes, and its bugging me that in the CCS (tourney) duplicating factions is outlawed. So that some people are guaranteed to get stuck with sub-par factions. Brilliant!

[Andejar]

Russia also has very good spearmen, knights, and the best muskets in the game. Just have one team be all russia if the other picks "the big 4"

[ElmarkOFear]

As I stated earlier, it only happens when you have a big 4v4 game in LATE or ALL era. So as a percentage of overall games, it will occur rarely, but I have noticed a few teams already using this to gain an advantage. I mentioned it here because I wanted everyone to be aware.

I believe Dionysus is right: If you ask such teams to allow your team to have one of those factions, I am sure they will do so. However, if you were not aware of such, you wouldn't know to ask. :)

One thing I have noticed since the old STW/MTW days is a lot of MP players appear to think it is "ok" to use any advantage the game gives you. They will take those advantages each game unless they are specifically asked not to. I guess their reasoning is, if they don't take these advantages their opponents will. Though by worrying about winning in the present, they are actually contributing to the reduction of the fun and variety of play in the future.

I would wager, if you took a close look at what factions are played the most online, you would find that the 4 above are at the top of the list. Also, if you could check, you would probably find there is a reason for this: In late or ALL era games you more than likely will find those factions win more than any other.

I would guess the way around this is for hosts to make the following rules when playing in Late and ALL era games: No gunpowder units and a limit of 4 cav units.

One other thing: I know how much most MP players dislike artillery, but having artillery in the game might lessen the impact of the above musket armies. You could limit the gunpowder units per player to 4, then those factions which don't have muskets, could buy artillery gunpowder units instead. I think it would even the playing field when playing against those factions.

The biggest thing CA could do to get around all of this is to allow hosts to manually take out/or limit the number of whatever units they don't want in their games. This would allow the community to balance games without having to wait on a patch. A lot of shooter games such as Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon etc . have this, so it IS possible. It's a matter of CA just not wanting to do it.

[ElmarkOFear]

Andejar: Russian muskets cost a lot more than those 4 factions' muskets and I am not sure about the range of their muskets either. It isn't a real good solution, given the cost difference. I will check out this faction more closely to see what the exact cost differences would be though. Thanks for mentioning them. :) BTW: I like your "Big 4" label and will use it from now on when referring to those 4 factions. hehe

*****Just looked again: Russian Cossack Muskets cost 950 florins (those other factions muskets cost 540) If you took 4 Russian Cossack Muskets and your opponent took 4 regular musket units, you would be at a 1,640 florin cost disadvantage when buying the rest of your army. In a 10,000 florin game you are talking about an approx. 16% cost disadvantage. Now spread this out over a 4-man team and your "team" is at a whopping 6,560 florin disadvantage in a 10k per player game. That would almost be like having an extra army on the field.

So my statement still stands: Taking all 4 of those factions in a 4v4 LATE OR ALL era game gives a big advantage to that team.*****

Before anyone mentions Egypt and the Moors as possible counters: These units cost slightly more than the "Big 4" muskets, but have much less range than the big 4. So not only do you have a slight cost disadvantage, you also have a much shorter range, so you will be shot and killed before getting close enough to take your first volley.

Lastly: The Turkish Janissary Muskets cost 830 florins. This is a lower cost disadvantage than the Russian Cossack muskets, but it still amounts to a big difference. Plus, anyone who has played the Turks knows how much more expensive their units are, so this musket cost disadvantage multiplies when you purchase the rest of your Turk army. Plus, there are no real good cost-effective spear units like you find in the "Big 4".

[pike master]

simple fix

have ca allow both teams to choose any faction they want. whether they are the same faction or not. problem solved.

[x-dANGEr]

Andejar: Russian muskets cost a lot more than those 4 factions' muskets and I am not sure about the range of their muskets either. It isn't a real good solution, given the cost difference. I will check out this faction more closely to see what the exact cost differences would be though. Thanks for mentioning them. :) BTW: I like your "Big 4" label and will use it from now on when referring to those 4 factions. hehe

*****Just looked again: Russian Cossack Muskets cost 950 florins (those other factions muskets cost 540) If you took 4 Russian Cossack Muskets and your opponent took 4 regular musket units, you would be at a 1,640 florin cost disadvantage when buying the rest of your army. In a 10,000 florin game you are talking about an approx. 16% cost disadvantage. Now spread this out over a 4-man team and your "team" is at a whopping 6,560 florin disadvantage in a 10k per player game. That would almost be like having an extra army on the field.

So my statement still stands: Taking all 4 of those factions in a 4v4 LATE OR ALL era game gives a big advantage to that team.*****

Before anyone mentions Egypt and the Moors as possible counters: These units cost slightly more than the "Big 4" muskets, but have much less range than the big 4. So not only do you have a slight cost disadvantage, you also have a much shorter range, so you will be shot and killed before getting close enough to take your first volley.

Lastly: The Turkish Janissary Muskets cost 830 florins. This is a lower cost disadvantage than the Russian Cossack muskets, but it still amounts to a big difference. Plus, anyone who has played the Turks knows how much more expensive their units are, so this musket cost disadvantage multiplies when you purchase the rest of your Turk army. Plus, there are no real good cost-effective spear units like you find in the "Big 4".

It seems like Price Balance thing honestly.. As in: My musks shouldn't be more expensive and have a shorter range! Pricing oy yaeh!

Anyway, is it only the musks? (I believe, there is a thing with knights as well. I mean, you can simply spam knights, take France and deprive your opponets of Pikes, with Pikes being the only effective anti-cavalry unit.

[Aelwyn]

One thing I have noticed since the old STW/MTW days is a lot of MP players appear to think it is "ok" to use any advantage the game gives you. They will take those advantages each game unless they are specifically asked not to. I guess their reasoning is, if they don't take these advantages their opponents will. Though by worrying about winning in the present, they are actually contributing to the reduction of the fun and variety of play in the future.

This made me think of something that I used to try with Marco. Well many people have, but anyways...we could combine armies to rather good effect, allowing one of us to take the Mongols (as an example) in MTW, and not be worried about facing pavs, as the other teammate had enough for the two. Granted I know its a hard thing to coordinate in a 4v4 pickup game, but you could at least incorporate the same type of tactic if you got someone on your side willing to take a few extra missle units. See if you could gang up on someone, and in that way the imbalance could possibly be worked out. True its not a straightforward balancing of the stats, but could be a workaround.

GL with your anti army Elmo. Might I suggest the old Longbow-bait tactic? Wouldn't work to the same effect in this incantation of Medieval...but could be fun.

I'd join you, but I don't own the game.

[RtkBedivere]

oh yes, and its bugging me that in the CCS (tourney) duplicating factions is outlawed. So that some people are guaranteed to get stuck with sub-par factions. Brilliant!

You cant get stuck with sub par factions as faction picking is alternating. Attacking team picks one then defender picks one then attacker, dfender and so on. You only get stuck with crappy factions if you pick crappy factions. Also the reason for not duplicating is so that you cant have ridiculous spam build. I dont know about you but i dont want to play against 3 timurd cav spams+eles+rockets or a line of stakes from 3 englands that stretches the entier field. The community voted on it so...

Anyway back on topic i think the easiest solution is confront them. Say you stole all the musket factions Most players when confronted will be willing to switch. If some dont then simply say well then we will play a 4v4 with someone else and leave. Or pray for rain

[Monarch]

You cant get stuck with sub par factions as faction picking is alternating. Attacking team picks one then defender picks one then attacker, dfender and so on. You only get stuck with crappy factions if you pick crappy factions. Also the reason for not duplicating is so that you cant have ridiculous spam build. I dont know about you but i dont want to play against 3 timurd cav spams+eles+rockets or a line of stakes from 3 englands that stretches the entier field. The community voted on it so...

Urm ye soxy right. But also Bachus please remember this conversation is about late era...where muskets rule so ye spain/portugal etc do own. But high era, in a 3v3 at least (where aztecs lack of cav isnt as easily exploited if you have good team work) IMO every faction can hold its ground.

I didn't read all these posts but my advice is just to play high, its the most balanced