Obsession with Rock-Paper-Scissors

[grinningman]

Ok, this is a bit of a rant. Why are people constantly talking about a Rock-Paper-Scissors balance between spearmen/cavalry/swordsmen like it's a magic cure? All other things being equal, RPS gives the minimum amount of diversity that will create non-boring tactics. I think that's why it's used in a lot of RTS games. It's an easy way to create a tactical situation that's reasonably interesting.

The Total War games have much more complexity than this. For one thing, the cav/spear/sword RPS ignores missile troops altogether. Then there is terrain, unit facing, experience, speed and morale - all as important or more important than any RPS dynamic in melee combat. I think this is a very good thing.

Of course every unit should have strengths and weaknesses, otherwise people will always or never use certain units. And if people think spearmen are underpowered, boosting their strength vs cavalry might be the answer to make them more useful. But increasing their anti-cav abilities isn't the only way - one of the most useful abilities of spearmen in MTW was that rear ranks could also fight and multiple ranks gave a defensive bonus. I'm not sure how important these abilities are in M2TW, but maybe adjusting them is another way to improve the usefulness of spearmen.

There seems to be an idea floating around that if only we can get a good cav/spear/sword RPS system then combat will be balanced. I think people should keep in mind that if a RPS system becomes the most important factor in unit match-ups, overshadowing the other factors above, Total War battles will become much less interesting, and all armies will end up having a similar composition.

[Booga]

I have to agree with grin here. Real-world battles are not governed by rock/paper/scissors, and there's enough games out there that worship it that I'd rather M2TW blaze its own path. Sure, you can say that some part is unbalanced. Some things are undeniably buggy, like the shields and the 2h units. Beyond that I think it's way too fuzzy to know for sure.

Personally I think the game is far from unplayable - to the contrary, I enjoy it immensely. I think more basic issues with imperfect AI are far more important than whether my town militia got beat up by some peasants. My own thoughts on that whole mess - aren't town militia just peasants with an anti-cavalry weapon and a shield? They're not even a step up on the ladder, just another brand of crap. So I don't find it so hard to stomach.

[Goofball]

There seems to be an idea floating around that if only we can get a good cav/spear/sword RPS system then combat will be balanced. I think people should keep in mind that if a RPS system becomes the most important factor in unit match-ups, overshadowing the other factors above, Total War battles will become much less interesting, and all armies will end up having a similar composition.

But the opposite can also be said to be true. If some sort of RPS system isn't used, then you will certainly have armies compased of the same unit all the time.

Best example of this is STW. I don't know why everybody always waxes so fondly and poetic about this game. As soon as I realised that all I had to do was build a full stack army of Warrior Monks and I would be able to cut through anything thrown against me like a hot knife through butter, I completely lost interest in the game.

Every other TW game since STW has been better than STW, and it's precisely because of the variation of units and complexity that you are talking about.

So I mostly agree with what you are saying.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think a RPS system would limit the use of tactics in TW games. Its pretty historically accurate. Its easier to fight a man on a big warhorse when you have a big spear to poke him with. At the same time, if you break a spearman units line (long spears only, not Town Militia type), then you would find things easier in such close quarters with a sword. If your on a big horse, its easy to cut down men with short weapons such as swords below you.

I think the best system in terms of tactics would be to have a RPS system as the backbone. Then add special functions for every type of unit, to give them a real sense of purpose, something I think units lack in M2TW, although I still love the game. Use long spears or pikes to hold a defensive line or choke points, and defend against cavalry charges. Use two-handed weapons to charge at an enemy line and break it up, then withdraw them as their charge bonus wears off. Try to use halbers, billmen, axes etc as anti-armour specialists. Swordsmen and shortspearmen will form the backbone of an army, and be part of the RPS system in terms of their tactics. Cavalry are used to counter non-spear infantry, and break enemy formations with deadly charges, before withdrawing as the lose their charge bonus, perhaps repeat the process. Lighter cavalry are good for chasing away missile units and catching routers. Archers would be basic support troops. Crossbowmen and javelinmen should be short range anti-armour specialists.

If this sort of system could be implemented, it would really add a whole new depth to M2TW battlefield tactics. In fact, I plan on making a basic mod to do this as far as possible.

[grinningman]

If you equate 'RPS system' with 'there shouldn't be a single strongest unit', then of course all balancing should aim for a RPS system. I just wanted to point out that a sword-beats-spear-beats-cavalry-beats-sword system is not the only balance aspect going on, and it's not required or even desirable for an interesting, balanced combat system.

Out of interest, does anyone know if spear units do get a defence bonus in M2TW based on ranks as they did in MTW? I haven't noticed. In MTW it was important to keep your spear units in hold formation mode for this reason.

[Carl]

No they don't. they just get 2 attack bonus vs. cav and an attack pealty vs infantry, (the penalty being part of the same thing that gives spears 1 of the attack bounses against cav), and also a charge resistance bonus vs cav too, again this is tied to the same thing that kils their infantry killing powor.

[Lusted]

Rock, paper, scissor balance is not a magical cure, but it is a great backbone on which to build unit balance. There will be exceptions to the rule, and unit types that do not fit the rule, but a rock, papaer, scissor approach gives each units its purporse and leads for more challenging battles, without reducing all armeis to the same composition because of the variety around a rock, paper, scissor approach.

[grinningman]

No they don't. they just get 2 attack bonus vs. cav and an attack pealty vs infantry, (the penalty being part of the same thing that gives spears 1 of the attack bounses against cav), and also a charge resistance bonus vs cav too, again this is tied to the same thing that kils their infantry killing powor.

Ok, thanks. I guess this has been the case since RTW, as I don't remember ranks giving a defensive bonus there either. It's a shame though, that was an interesting ability for spearmen. I suppose the multiple ranks fighting from MTW has been accounted for by spears in M2TW having a longer range.

[Bijo]

Best example of this is STW. I don't know why everybody always waxes so fondly and poetic about this game. [......

...]Every other TW game since STW has been better than STW, and it's precisely because of the variation of units and complexity that you are talking about.

Welll, I don't entirely agree with the Every other TW game since STW has been better than STW, ..., since I know M2TW isn't as immersing as STW, even when I've checked it out first time recently, STW. And immersion is a great factor to consider, something M2TW lacks.


But I do agree with the battle complexity of units whereof you've all spoken. I think the currently incorporated complexity's good enough, but there's always room to improve, which is what I hope they'll do.

[econ21]

But the opposite can also be said to be true. If some sort of RPS system isn't used, then you will certainly have armies compased of the same unit all the time.

That's a danger, especially in SP where the budget constraint typically does not stop you maxing out on elites. Some mods, or just self-discipline, can overcome it, however.

But I am not sure RPS is necessary to obtain variety of army composition, or interesting tactics. If you think about real military operations, they are not necessarily RPS. For example, for a long time, a tank was the best way to kill another tank. The best way to get air superiority is to have better or more fighter aircraft etc. But you don't see armies composed just of tanks or fighter aircraft. It's not that different arms behave in an RPS way, but they have different comparative advantages or functions.

For example, in the TW period it's not that missiles were good against spears per se (as one RPS interpretation of STW implies: archers beat spears, spears beat cav, cav beat archers). Rather it is just they were useful for softening up an enemy and lowering morale so that your melee units can win with less loss. The STW tutorial, with an archer unit against an attacking spear unit illustrated the edge from a little preparatory missile fire rather vividly. But in general, missiles were pretty useless at holding ground.

Cavalry was good for flanking, due to its speed; for pursuit; for scouting; and for fighting other cavalry. And for shock combat against inferior infantry.

Heavy infantry was good for holding ground and taking well defended ground. In the Medieval period lower quality infantry (spears in TW) might only be useful for defense; higher quality stuff (swords in TW) might be necessary for taking the offense.

I don't think any of the above is RPS per se. I guess it's combined arms - typically having all three arms would generate synergies. Most of it, probably all of it, is pretty well captured by TW - which is why, despite its broader appeal, it attracts fans of historical wargamers like me.