Factions balance

[Lavos]

CA said they toned down several effects for the benefit of the newbies.

Which effects?

[Stig]

M2TW has unbalanced factions, unbalanced units and the RPS doesn't work.

yeah, luckely you can tell us, since we never played the game and you did, phew

[ElmarkOFear]

I can vouch for some of them, since I am familiar with the old game and have played the current one for a short amount of time:

Terrain effects have been lessened from STW/MTW. The bonuses/penalties for certain units don't effect their fighting ability as much.

Fatigue: Units do not fatigue as quickly as in STW, but I DO like the fact that they can recover unlike from the STW days. Now THAT was a good idea. Micromanaging your fatigue was vital in STW, not so much in M2TW because units do not tire as quickly, and they can now recover.

Weather: Muskets can now shoot in rain, whereas in STW/MTW they could not.

Temperature: I haven't seen as great of an effect for heat on desert maps for armored units. Before, if you took an armored army to a desert battle your units would fatigue fairly quickly when compared to the unarmored muslim factions. This actually evened up the score between the two sides. Desert maps were fun to play and made the muslim factions viable. M2TW does not.

Height: Though this is bugged currently with the advantage being to the unit fighting uphill instead of downhill, so it is hard to tell if it is a reduced effect or just a product of the bug. In STW/MTW1 you arrow units were much more effective at killing when up high, and they are not in M2TW, but then again, archer units as a whole are not as good as in STW/MTW1 so it is hard to tell if it is a product of lessened height effects or the weakened archers.

Morale: In STW/MTW1 you saw many more chain routs than you see today, because the effects of flanking, shooting, losing, crowding, being outnumbered all had a known and specific effect on a unit or army. M2TW doesn't have it to the amount of STW/MTW1, which can be seen by the reduced number of massive chain routs you see during battle. Though many like this reduced chain rout effect.

Rout Recovery: Units recover much more easily in M2TW.

These may not be all, but they are probably a good portion of the reduced effects. Not that in some cases it is a bad thing, but it has been reduced.

Hope this helps a bit.

[Lavos]

Ah your talking about mtw to rome engine, thought this is about rome to mtw2.

Btw, europeans were superb in desert you just needed to have mounted and militia seargents. ;)

[ElmarkOFear]

Oh Sorry Lavos, you may be right. DOH! I keep forgetting there was an RTW. hehe I will let Puzz answer the questions then.

[Zeph]

Elmark i disagree about chain routs, i've seen plenty in mtw2 and they are just as easy to create as in mtw1. Though i would say that units not engaged in combat and have units rout through/past them don't/not as easily as in mtw2. Otherwise spot on from what i've seen.

[Lavos]

Problem with routs is that all units stop routing even without general using his horn.

ps. and no need mentioning that R word anymore...

[ElmarkOFear]

Yup Zeph. You may be right. I have only played a few games online due to work so it may be just odds that I haven't seen a massive chain rout like in MTW.

I HAVE noticed that routed units appear to recover more quickly than in MTW1. That's not necessarily a bad thing though, since I always hated the fact that a unit of 5 archers could chase 100 of your routing sword/spear units off the map in MTW1. hehe

[Monarch]

I played over 5000 multiplayer battles in MTW. .

And how many multiplayer battles have you played on M2TW, since I dunno but I have this crazy idea that if maybe a comment such as "the mp games unbalanced" would be more credible if it came from an actual player of the game

Edit: @ Elmo mate, if you want armies more prone to routing up the "difficulty level". Higher the difficulty the more likely armies route.

[Puzz3D]

And how many multiplayer battles have you played on M2TW, since I dunno but I have this crazy idea that if maybe a comment such as "the mp games unbalanced" would be more credible if it came from an actual player of the game

The point I was making is that I know how unbalance affects multiplayer battles based on my experience playing MTW. That M2TW is unbalanced is no secret. The players will figure out which are the best factions and best units, and once that happens that's what they'll use.

[ElmarkOFear]

I have had it on the hardest setting since I installed the game Monarch. :) But like I said, I haven't really played that many games, considering how long I have it installed.

[-Silent-Someguy]

Its almost impossible for one person to say based on their experiences that the game is balanced, you could be playing noobs with a crappy faction and then thing "omg this faction owns" when if fact the guy u beat just sucked, and you could lose to someone alot better than you when ur using a good faction and think that ur faction sux. Some factions sucking is obvious, and I know that if I was playing myself as one of these factions against a good faction id lose every time.

Some people wont be happy until its like STW where every faction has the exact same units, yer it would be balanced but it would be terribly boring. Its always fun to play the "weaker" factions and try and make them better.

[Puzz3D]

Its almost impossible for one person to say based on their experiences that the game is balanced, you could be playing noobs with a crappy faction and then thing "omg this faction owns" when if fact the guy u beat just sucked, and you could lose to someone alot better than you when ur using a good faction and think that ur faction sux.

Imbalance means you could play better than someone and loose. That's why the factions should be balanced. The full depth of the tactical play comes out when the units are balanced. In general, imbalance is detrimental to gameplay.

Some people wont be happy until its like STW where every faction has the exact same units, yer it would be balanced but it would be terribly boring. Its always fun to play the "weaker" factions and try and make them better.

Balanced sides isn't boring. Where is this idea coming from? Balanced sides is fair because it means you have to play better to win. If I play better than my opponent, I should win not loose because my faction is weaker. It's no fun to go up against better players when they take the better factions (I saw that done a lot in MTW), and it's not fair to take the better faction and beat up on weaker players either (I saw a lot of that in MTW as well). It's also not possible to set up a fair tournament unless the sides are balanced.

[Zeph]

The factions aren't ballanced, but neither should be as they all bring something different to the table. In team games when certain factions are combined they can bringing out very good results, but in 1v1 they are pretty much useless. The only way to make the game exactly balanced is to have all the same units and that's just boring.

[Puzz3D]

The only way to make the game exactly balanced is to have all the same units and that's just boring.

Both sides with the same units is not boring.

[Stig]

Both sides with the same units is not boring.

Shall we poll it?

imo it's boring ... hence why I never bothered with BI
according to some others it isn't boring ... hence why they're playing BI

[LuNaR]

Puzz3d doesn't even own the game so his opinions on balance arent relevant at all. He makes lots of claims about what "CA said" but there is never any links to these comments.

[Stig]

Puzz3d doesn't even own the game so his opinions on balance arent relevant at all. He makes lots of claims about what "CA said" but there is never any links to these comments.

Puzz knows loads about STW, MTW and even quite a bit about RTW, he just never played MTW2.

And most of these claims by him are right, as CA said loads of things, just as for BI ... but this time they made quite a good game

[CBR]

The only way to make the game exactly balanced is to have all the same units and that's just boring.

Why should it be boring? You are assuming that just because players can buy same units then all armies will be the same.

The less balanced the units and factions are, the more you will see faction/unit selection centered on few factions and units. Now that will be boring and that is certainly what we have seen with earlier TW games. Mods like Community mod, Dux mod and Samurai Wars achieves a lot more varied gameplay for the MTW/VI engine than the vanilla game ever did.

And although Stig is gonna hate me for mentioning Samurai Wars the fact is that armies are more varied while still balanced using just 14 units than MTW using 100+ units.

But having different factions and more units can certainly be made balanced too as both the Community mod and Dux mod is proof of. It just takes a lot of work to get the balance right. But having big numbers of different units and factions just isnt enough. After a while most people have found the best stuff to select and the rest just becomes meaningless filler.

Sure its "fun" to try and win with the weaker factions but weak factions wont be seen in competitive games nor used much by players who also likes to have a chance of winning in ordinary games.


CBR

[Stig]

Sure its "fun" to try and win with the weaker factions but weak factions wont be seen in competitive games nor used much by players who also likes to have a chance of winning in ordinary games.

That depends on it

In most tourneys and clan games people choose 10k and High Era, which means certain factions are good and certain aren't.

When I host I set it too All Era and 5k, this means that you can bring an all cav army, but that means you can only bring 6 units. I've done tests and just the number of 20 units of low quality units (peasants, archers and pikemen) can beat that with ease. So with 5k you need to bring a proper army. And you can bring everything. Due to the fact you only have 5k the Russian Woodsmen suddenly become interesting. While otherwise you wouldn't bring them. All overpowered units (Musketeers for example) are now too expensive as it means you can only bring about 8 units (which is about 8x80=640 men), if I choose to make a big army I can bring about 15 units (which is 15x80=1200 men). That is about double yours, and that means all those uber units are taken away, since they are heavely outnumbered.

If you have the game try it once, pretty interesting

[CBR]

And that is the best way to ensure that factions which doesnt have the uber cavalry or infantry are still balanced.

Its the same considerations done for the MTW/VI mods i mentioned above, along with proper costs for each unit to make them worth their money.

I really cannot speak for M2TW as I have little interest in it(as to why would be off topic). But M2TW certainly is on the right track with the way they have approached the balance by focusing on a certain money level and more or less removing the upgrades.

But 10K might still be too much for all factions to be competitive. And we are still waiting for a patch to fix some unit types of course.

What factions do you consider to be weaker at 10k?


CBR

[Stig]

What factions do you consider to be weaker at 10k?

Depends on what you're good at.

I suck with cav, which means I'm nothing with factions like Russia, Poland and all Mongol like factions. I like keeping a strong line of infantry so I prefer factions that have good infantry. Others however are strong with cav so they consider Russia stronger.
But of all factions I would say that Spain, Milan and Venice are strong due to the fact they have good cav, good inf and and above all musketeers. And I would say that weaker factions are all horse heavy factions.

[x-dANGEr]

I think what raises the picture "boring" in clone factions, is the fact that then, if any of the units is imbalanced, the game will turn into a.. mirror battle. In other words, it will mean that there will be a dominant army, that's played exactly the same by everyone.. So it will be another RTS with a rush tactic started, developed and executed the same way from the 2 players, and it will only come down to luck to decide who wins.

Think RTW.. At some period, we had all Rome vs Rome 1 on 1's with an army basically consisting of 9 cavalry..

[Fenix7]

Think RTW.. At some period, we had all Rome vs Rome 1 on 1's with an army basically consisting of 9 cavalry..

Easily beaten by Seleucids. You just need 5 catas (with upgreads), 2 chariots 3 phalanx units (those for 730 ) 2 or 3 legion units and 2 or 3 archer units. Of course this is a rush army but if you know how to use it you were able to beat any player out there who was playing Romans with the army setup you have in mind.

Not to mention that Britons were able to destroy romans in few seconds. Head hurlers rememebr?

I think what raises the picture "boring" in clone factions, is the fact that then, if any of the units is imbalanced, the game will turn into a.. mirror battle. In other words, it will mean that there will be a dominant army, that's played exactly the same by everyone.. So it will be another RTS with a rush tactic started, developed and executed the same way from the 2 players, and it will only come down to luck to decide who wins.

Think of a perfect TW serie. I don't mind if they have same units or not but both factions have a unit to counter opponent one. Not just picking best possible army setup like 80% or 90% of your army consisted out of a cavalry.

Secondly rush army must not be able to win the match! I know many dislike this statement but personaly I don't find rush as an example of great skills. For rush you need to know game mechanics, good army setup based on your mechanical knowledge, fast clicking and good coordination like in first person shooters. From my point of view strategy and tactic play very small role here.

[CBR]

I think what raises the picture "boring" in clone factions, is the fact that then, if any of the units is imbalanced, the game will turn into a.. mirror battle..

Yes if things arent balanced, the whole game becomes centered not only on one or a few factions but also just on a few units. It is utterly boring and a total waste of all the factions and units in the game. And if a player in a big game cant even pick one of the good factions he is basically screwed.

I can understand why some would then conclude that identical factions would make for a boring game. But they are basing that from the experience of playing unbalanced TW games.

I basically had one standard army in MTW/VI. Anything else were weaker setups for when I was bored. And then I can compare with the variety when playing mods (and that goes for both diverse faction mods to an identical faction mod like Samwars) It was incredible to see how little actually had to be changed to get such a big difference in gameplay and balance. But nevermind that.


CBR

[buujin]

Im with CBR on this one.

I think a variety of different factions is great but even when all of them have the same units that doesnt mean mirror armies. If theres good balance then almost any different combination of troop types can win the right situation.

M2TW does have potential. The reduction of upgrades one can afford at 10k means the game is much easier to balance in the long run and once the tweaks and glitches have been taken care of it could be very good indeed.

[Realturka]

I find that happens a lot in my games . . . . it couldn't have been anything I did that made them rout so quickly! hehe

Maybe it's because you're ugly

lol

[Realturka]

by the way, Muslim factions are way too weak... No pikemen, no swordsmen, useless cavalry, weak armour etc.

[x-dANGEr]

Easily beaten by Seleucids. You just need 5 catas (with upgreads), 2 chariots 3 phalanx units (those for 730 ) 2 or 3 legion units and 2 or 3 archer units. Of course this is a rush army but if you know how to use it you were able to beat any player out there who was playing Romans with the army setup you have in mind.

Exactly why I said in "some" period.

[-Silent-Someotherguy]

Puzz3d if u are going to make claims about what "ca said" put a link to said claim, or otherwise it just looks like you making it up to give your own opinions more cred.

Realturka, 3 out of 5 muslim factions (including mong/tim) have swordsmen.