Feedback on the official patch 1.02.

[Kobal2fr]

Vices and virtues are vastly improved. Most inconsistencies and typoes have been addressed, more positive trait triggers have been added (as compared to vanilla where a large percentage of positive traits could only be gained at birth), princess traits and triggers have been expanded, and many triggers revised. It is easier to get traits such as Just and Upright (previously incredibly rare) from the presence of 'moral' buildings (churches etc), which will block out most of the negative traits. On the whole, the system makes much more sense now as compared to the relentless moral corrosion in vanilla. A few bugs/typoes remain but I applaud whohever revised the VnVs for v1.2. The only issue I might have is that the three 'corruption' triggers were not altered, which heavily punish a player for being too successful/rich, but the system as a whole is tremendously more consistent and thus fun.

Hey there !
Do you know if they fixed the antitrait code ? Don't know if you remember me, since I abruptly quit playing (and coming here) around the time we noticed them not working as intended at all, and we were planning to duplicate all triggers to work around the fact that gaining a point in an antitrait made the opposite trait go back to zero at once instead of getting -1.

[Whacker]

Hey there !
Do you know if they fixed the antitrait code ? Don't know if you remember me, since I abruptly quit playing (and coming here) around the time we noticed them not working as intended at all, and we were planning to duplicate all triggers to work around the fact that gaining a point in an antitrait made the opposite trait go back to zero at once instead of getting -1.

There you are. 'Bout time you showed back up! The v1.2 patch is getting closer to what's ideal, if you want my personal opinion, and you know how ... vocal I can be somtimes. The VnVs/Ancils could still use some of your magic, some of the triggers and traits feel a bit off.

[Kobal2fr]

Meh. A dog which stops defecating in your bed, but still does it on the rug is "closer to what's ideal", if you take my meaning :). I see you're still raving and ranting about units scattering all over the place. Ooooh yes, I see you. I'm watching you... all. the. time. MUAHAHAHAHAHA !

Kidding aside, I agree that what I've been reading so far has been absurdly positive so I just might sit through 3 hours of install and 3 more to dl that huge patch when I'm done kicking Macedonian butt, hastati-style.

Of course, those CA bastards just HAD to go and change all their VnV triggers so I'd have to read them all up. Again. And introduce three typoes for each bug found and fixed. Again. And spending more time tweaking this and testing that actually playing. Again.

I swear, who in the world goes out and just *fix* things ?! Uncaring is what they are.

Still, I'd really like to know wether that peculiar bug got squashed before I really get my hopes up. It was the smallest of things, but I couldn't stop obsessing about it and getting angry when I noticed its effects... anal retention at its best .

[Deus Le Volt!]

I'm not sure if this is new or not, but I noticed when the cpu's stationary units reform (due to losses from missile fire), they tend to clump together in the middle of the formation before they spread back out.

Not an altogether bad thing, as I've been able to land some lucky catapult rounds right in the scrum. It just seems to me that if they were reforming, the units on the right would stay on the right side, the left on the left, and so forth.

But after a week of playing with the new patch, I have to say again it's a vast improvement.

On a history note, someone (I forget who, but thanks!) posted a picture of the battle of bannockburn here last week, and I had to look it up:

http://www.braveheart.co.uk/macbrave...uce/banseq.htm

An interesting story about the effectiveness of pikes in these types of battles.

I also noticed how much the terrain factored in. Has there ever been any exploration into types of terrain causing units to fight differently? (I mean, besides mountains making it impossible to fight a proper battle.) The scots dug pits around their lines to keep cavalry from flaking them.

[Tamur]

hi Kobal2fr,

Namecalling isn't going to help too much. Please keep the comments aimed at the game, not the individuals.

[Foz]

Kobal2fr:

Yes, yes, YES! It if fixed!!! Antitraits correctly decrement the appropriate trait now instead of destroying it to 0 every time. It's amazing how big a difference it makes, too. That plus the addition of some actual ways to get positive traits means the VnV system is much improved in 1.2. Spies are rebalanced, many of the bad triggers are fixed... it is a relative paradise, all things considered.

[Kobal2fr]

I'm afraid I went and ruined a perfectly decent pair of boxers. That's settled, then. In the immortal words of Jesus Christ : I'll be back.

@Tamur : what, isn't dark sarcasm taught in the classrooms anymore ? Was I being like raiiiiin on a wedding day again ? And is there no song in the whole world about antiphrase ?
Now, English isn't my primary language, but I do believe I was praising our esteemed coders for, you know, actually listening to players, fixing stuff, making things work better etc, all kinds of things which in some extreme and far-fetched cases might be construed as a positive.
Oops, I did it again .

[Shahed]

LOL ! Tros adulte, c'st pas genial non plus mon PETIT !

Welcome back.. now get to work ! :p

[FactionHeir]

OK, I'm going to have to say that the official 1.02 patch simply sucks.
Why?
Because I cannot even get it to run.
What I did today:
Deinstalled my medieval2, deleted medieval folder, removed all reg entires associated with "sega" or "medieval", rebooted, reinstalled fresh, rebooted.
Then patched 1.1, rebooted, then patched 1.2 (noting that the updater tells me that even though I got 1.1 installed that my version is 1.0)
Patching took ~30 mins (better than the 10 mins I had when the patch first came out) and rebooted.
Instead of running the game, I unpack the traits file to check the actual version, and its a 1.1 trait file.
Great, didn't patch.

So....I uninstalled again, deleted the folder, deleted the same reg entries and reinstalled.
This time after reinstall I rebooted and patched to 1.2 right away instead of to 1.1 first.
Rebooted after 1.2 was installed (took 30 mins again) and checked traits file. This time the traits file was a 1.0.

So what does that tell me? Medieval2 is still unpatched with only a few 1.2 files thrown in (the ones that were included in the patch, i.e. the exe and the launcher)

Right. Rant stop. Still, I can't play 1.2 because the patcher won't let me. That in itself is a big let down if you bring out a patch that does not work even if all instructions are followed. Are you checking for something else when patching that I'm not aware of, CA/SEGA, that keeps breaking the patching for me?

[Skott]

This is a post I made earlier of how it went for me...

I live in FL and I used the East Coast server on Gamershell. At the time it had a 72% usuage at the time but I didnt have a problem. Took a bit less than 30 minutes to DL it all. This was about 9:00 AM EST Yesterday(Wednesday 5/9/07).

I was running the LtC mod prior to the new patching (was using patch 1.1) so I did a clean reinstall back to M2TW 1.0 to play it safe (took maybe 12-15 minutes) before DLing the patch and applying it. I went straight from clean 1.0 to patch 1.2 without a problem and everything is working good so far.


Okay I been playing a English campaign just to test things out and to use the game to unlock the other factions like CA intended. So far two things to gripe about.

1)I dont think the cavalry charges are much better than patch 1.1. Knights are still walking up to the enemy instead of charging and their pathing is still sucky on the battle map. When I was using the LtC Mod the charges were working much much better.

2)I learned long ago to keep my generals outside of cities/forts to keep the bad traits from happening. I'm doing it this time as well just because its a forced habit now. Problem is that the beginning of every turn I keep getting a trait decrease message for my generals. In the past it was just once in a while but with 1.2 its happening every single turn. Very odd.

Anyway those are my two biggest gripes so far but I need to test it alot more first. After I finish this English campaign I'll probably go back to Lusted's LtC Mod. I really like it and I want to see how it well it works with 1.2.

[Lusted]

Make sure you get 2.3 as its designed to work with the new patch.

[Skott]

Yeah, I will. I just want to go through this one campaign first to see how Vanilla 1.2 is compared to vanilla 1.1. Been awhile since I played a vanilla campaign and I can tell you one thing. I sure do miss LtC Mod! Superior to Vanilla 1.1 and 1.2 IMHO. Cant wait to try the new LtC 2.3

[Miles Sueborum]

Hm - is it just me or are dismounted feudal knights now even more powerfull than before? I can be wrong, but if I remember right following Units were able to beat them under equal conditions: dismounted Huskarls (chance seemed to be 50:50), Obudshaer, Swordstaffmilitia, German Two handed Swordsmen, Viking Raiders when fully armored...
None of them is able to that any more...
So there is for many catholic factions no real reason to upgrade their infantrybuildings anymore since dismounted feudal knights are the best heavy infantry they'll ever get...

[dopp]

This is due to the shield bug being fixed, making them a little OP. They have a solid attack, fast swing animation, good armor, a massive 6 shield bonus (they are much more heavily armored than any cavalry unit in the game) and can still dance around the enemy with 8 defense skill (all sword units get +3 'parry' bonus).

I usually nerf them with -2 attack, -3 defense, -2 shield (to match their mounted stats). For what is essentially a makeshift unit (note that it's 'dismounted knights' and not 'foot knights'), they pwn dedicated heavy infantry many tiers and eras beyond them, including pikemen, zweihanders, halberdiers, sword and buckler men and billmen.

[econ21]

So there is for many catholic factions no real reason to upgrade their infantrybuildings anymore since dismounted feudal knights are the best heavy infantry they'll ever get...

Yes, this screams out to you from the stats and tech tree, doesn't it? Ever since the stats were first leaked, it has been obvious that DFKs are incredibly powerful (just looking at the att + def as a crude measure of power). Moving from militia to DFKs is a massive upgrade in power, but then there are no more infantry upgrades.

I am not sure it is that much better for cav. The mailed => feudal upgrade is very questionable, given the loss of speed. And some of the later heavy cavalry suffers from losing their shields.

I would hope CA look at this issue across the board for 1.3 (there are issues with the Byz getting their Vards so early). If you are going to have a tech tree, you need to give an incentive to climb it.

[Jambo]

Yes, this screams out to you from the stats and tech tree, doesn't it? Ever since the stats were first leaked, it has been obvious that DFKs are incredibly powerful (just looking at the att + def as a crude measure of power). Moving from militia to DFKs is a massive upgrade in power, but then there are no more infantry upgrades.

I am not sure it is that much better for cav. The mailed => feudal upgrade is very questionable, given the loss of speed. And some of the later heavy cavalry suffers from losing their shields.

I would hope CA look at this issue across the board for 1.3 (there are issues with the Byz getting their Vards so early). If you are going to have a tech tree, you need to give an incentive to climb it.

Indeed. DFKs straight out the box rule the roost and there's absolutely no need to build expensive upgrades to reach the later DCKs or Armoured/Noble Swordsmen. The later units only have one better armour and by that time in the game many of your DFKs will be coming out with upgraded armour anyway.

Not only that, but as you so rightly surmised, the combat difference between DFKs and everything that's come before is the complete opposite. Almost single-handedly they render all previous infantry units redundant and the gulf between them and non-christian equivalents is also rather enormous. So far, what I've done to balance things out a little is reduce the attack of DFKs by 3 and the defence by 1, but it's also true to say that all S&S infantry have rather bloated stats.

[Kobal2fr]

Maybe some tweaking could be done about that shield bonus, now that we know it actually works ? What I mean is : all troop types that have shield get +6 out of it, from Armored Sergeants (with large kite shields) to Sword&Buckler Inf (with, well, bucklers, obviously)... Maybe giving all pavises +8, all kites & similar +6, all small kites (like the ones DFKs have) +4 and bucklers +2 would change things a bit ?

Of course, it wouldn't do a lick of difference for underpowered 2handers, but it might un-über dismounted knights a bit.

[Didz]

Just had my first post 1.02 crash to desktop.

I was zoomed in tight watching my cannon crew return to their guns ready to fire into the last of the English Knights clustered in the centre of the town square of Leon when the screen just went black and I got the dreaded 'fatal exception' message.

Not sure if this is a game problem or a graphic's issue as for some time now I have been getting scrobing graphic effects flashing across my desktop when I log out of either MTW2 or RTW. I usually manage to get rid of them just by switching my screen resolution down to 1024 and then back up to 1280 again.

Not sure if there is any link but you never know. Graphic Card is an NVIDIA GeForce FX5600 driver is version 6.14.10.9371 dated 22/10/2006. Which I think is the latest one thats MS certified.

[crpcarrot]

playing at muslim factins i quite enjoy the challenege of beating uber DFK's. when u see them coming at u u know u need to do soemthing special to beat them. its a noce feeling to see them run :D

an earlier poster mentioned getting negative traits all the time. its something u r doing in your game amte maybe they are feeling un appreciated cos now every time u are leading an army into battle gives a town etc u get the appreciated trait so maybe them wandering around in the wilderness is doing the opposite.

and the crash bugs are probably to do with system specs or bad downloads u cant blame the patch or CA for that.

the only bad thing i see since 1.2 my pc seems to tske a long time to recover from M2TW. ( being a nontechie i dont know how else to put it) everything seems to slow down for a while after i quit the game which didnt happen before 1.2.

there still are problems but i am loving the patch.

[Slaists]

Indeed. DFKs straight out the box rule the roost and there's absolutely no need to build expensive upgrades to reach the later DCKs or Armoured/Noble Swordsmen. The later units only have one better armour and by that time in the game many of your DFKs will be coming out with upgraded armour anyway.

Not only that, but as you so rightly surmised, the combat difference between DFKs and everything that's come before is the complete opposite. Almost single-handedly they render all previous infantry units redundant and the gulf between them and non-christian equivalents is also rather enormous. So far, what I've done to balance things out a little is reduce the attack of DFKs by 3 and the defence by 1, but it's also true to say that all S&S infantry have rather bloated stats.

Note that 1) shield protection is supposed to work only from the left side and partially from the front: so, the total defense we see for DFK's tells just part of the picture. the later better armored, but shield-less units might have better all-around protection than DFK's. 2) DFK's have higher upkeep than armored swordsmen; thus, at least in this department armored swordsmen appear to be a professional natural replacement for DFK's.

[econ21]

Note that 1) shield protection is supposed to work only from the left side and partially from the front: so, the total defense we see for DFK's tells just part of the picture. the later better armored, but shield-less units might have better all-around protection than DFK's.

IIRC, brandybarrel of FAUST fame was pretty emphatic that the shield benefiting the left/front thing was true in RTW but not M2TW.

2) DFK's have higher upkeep than armored swordsmen; thus, at least in this department armored swordsmen appear to be a professional natural replacement for DFK's.

I think we are including armored swords alongside DFKs as rather overpowered S&S units. Armored swords are essentially DFKs at a lower upkeep, but you get them at the same stage of the tech tree (and I think are England only).

[Foz]

I think we are including armored swords alongside DFKs as rather overpowered S&S units. Armored swords are essentially DFKs at a lower upkeep, but you get them at the same stage of the tech tree (and I think are England only).

Yes, England only. The Armored Swordsmen ATM make England absolutely ridiculous as soon as you get a fortress. You crank out the barracks upgrade, and presto: oodles of dismounted knights everywhere. As you mention, they have a cheap 150 upkeep, which just ensures you'll be able to keep spamming them and rarely have to worry about paying for them. I think the idea is supposed to be that England pays for this feature by sacrificing any sort of reasonable spear unit, but DFK-type units currently stand up to cavalry too well for the lack of a good anti-cav unit to really be a significant enough drawback to provide balance.

This is due to the shield bug being fixed, making them a little OP. They have a solid attack, fast swing animation, good armor, a massive 6 shield bonus (they are much more heavily armored than any cavalry unit in the game) and can still dance around the enemy with 8 defense skill (all sword units get +3 'parry' bonus).

Do you mean the parry bonus is figured into their stats, or that it's applied by the engine? Either way I don't think I've heard that tidbit previously. What other cool stuff do you know about the stats system, Dopp?

[speedofsound]

The game has problems if you install 1.2 on top of a 1.1 patched game. Uninstall the game and reinstall a fresh copy, then apply patch 1.2 on top of it; there is no need for patch 1.1. Your saved games should still work (just make sure they don't get deleted in the uninstall!)

Ah, wonderful! Many thanks, m'man.

[Caelus]

Well, I just got it working today, and decided to play a game as France (a combined-arms faction in my view) to test it out.

I’m very impressed with the effect the fixed shield bug has on the tactical game play. Spearmen can actually stop a cavalry charge now! I’ve also noticed that now that cavalry have their own shields, they actually hold up longer. This is good since I would get annoyed taking huge casualties when charging a unit from behind, or some other not-high-casualty-producing activity. Today I charged an enemy force (consisting of mostly spear militia and crossbowmen) from behind in a city square, with a unit of 40 general’s bodyguard. After two charges the enemy was destroyed, and I only lost 3 cavalrymen! That is what’s supposed to happen under circumstances like that, instead of huge losses to my cavalry which was the common result in version 1.1.

The AI does certainly seem to be improved. I actually lost 2 battles in a row tonight! An event I don’t think has happened since STW. The computer sallied three (maybe it was four) times when they were not on their last turn (they were not about to starve). This indicates to me that the computer will now sally if it thinks it has a good chance at winning, instead of waiting till the last minute when they are horribly weakened. The computer would sally immediately before, but only when it had a huge numerical advantage. When it sallied tonight, I had sizable forces present.

In addition I’ve noticed a definite improvement in the computer’s overall handling of battle. It was attempting flanking and rear attacks. It was also more prudent in its use of cavalry, ruining my plan to skewer their horses with my spearmen.

[dopp]

Do you mean the parry bonus is figured into their stats, or that it's applied by the engine? Either way I don't think I've heard that tidbit previously. What other cool stuff do you know about the stats system, Dopp?

In their stats. If you run through the Faust and Fusil list you'll see that almost every sword-armed infantry unit has very high defense skill (notable exception is Trebizond Archers). This includes archers but not pikemen. By 'sword' I mean A) has a sword graphic as a primary or secondary attack, B) has an attack of around 11-13, and C) has a charge bonus of 2-3. It's very consistent. Every sword-armed infantry unit has +3 defense skill more than equivalent units carrying other weapons.

Take Longbows, for instance. Most longbow units carry AP maces and hammers to brain armored numbskulls. They have 1-3 defense skill. But Retinue Longbows buck the trend by carrying swords and have 6 defense skill. Now look at DFK vs DEK. DFK have insane 8 defense skill because they carry swords. DEK are numbskulls, carry big slow 2handers and have defense 5.

Look at the defense skill of foot units across the board. Green milita have 1 defense skill. Decent troops have 3 skill. Hardened professionals have 5. Elites have 6. Sword units buck the trend. They START at 6-7, then go on up to 8 or even 9. That's a really high number for what is normally considered a secondary weapon, and swords are such good weapons already (fast animation, high attack, leaves one hand free for a shield, free duck under spear walls).

I went through and laboriously dropped all sword units by 3 defense skill. Now my (buffed) halberdiers can actually maintain equal kill rates against armored swordsmen.

[Vladimir]

Overall I'm liking the improvements on the battlefield. The passive AI bug from MTW (yes, the first one!) is gone an I cannot exploit the AI stupidity towards getting hit my missiles. The slow unit response time is annoying but good. I can no longer do a flight of the bumblebee with my cavalry, I have to be more careful how I use them and don't have so much of an unfair advantage.

[Skott]

I started a French Campaign with the LtC 2.3 mod now and I'm liking it very much. Certainly better than vanilla 1.2. Kudos to Lusted!

[alex9337]

I am still in the middle of playing my first 1.2 campaign as the English. The only mod I have done is change the turns to .5 years, matching the aging of my family tree.

I gotta tell you, I may not be much of a computer techno guy and I have never delved into the "guts" of the game, examing stats, etc, but I just love the fixes in this new patch.

I am being attacked by multiple factions with really good units, ie, chivalric knights, xbowmen, top-o'-the-line cavalry, etc. This is wonderful, makes it a real challenge!

thoroughly enjoying the working traits and the fixed spies and assassins too. Great job, CA!

[darsalon]

I am being attacked by multiple factions with really good units, ie, chivalric knights, xbowmen, top-o'-the-line cavalry, etc. This is wonderful, makes it a real challenge!

thoroughly enjoying the working traits and the fixed spies and assassins too. Great job, CA!

I posted earlier on this thread that I was finding it difficult to get started. Now I have and I'm impressed. Am playing as the Seljuk Turks and got to Constantinople by 1110 on the vanilla 1.2 game with the only game change being changing it to 0.5 years per turn and displaying the years. By 1120 I have had to withdraw from there as I've been hit by 4 crusades + 2 full stack armies of hungarians all arriving at pretty much the same time in the area. Second to that the Egyptians have decided to try and attack me near Jerusalem giving me a difficult 2 front war to deal with. Am leaking cash like a sieve and I'm finding feudal foot knights to be extremely tough to fight as well.

And you know what, that's great. The game is providing a good challenge and I'm having to reconsider my options for what to do. Not had that at all with the previous versions. Thumbs up from me

[Slaists]

IIRC, brandybarrel of FAUST fame was pretty emphatic that the shield benefiting the left/front thing was true in RTW but not M2TW.



I think we are including armored swords alongside DFKs as rather overpowered S&S units. Armored swords are essentially DFKs at a lower upkeep, but you get them at the same stage of the tech tree (and I think are England only).

Well, before 1.2 came out, there was a thread dealing with the shield bug (I think Carl and Foz were the starters of the thread. could not find it now). One of the fixes proposed to the shield bug was to dump all its value into armor while zeroing out the shield protection value. A suggestion from a CA person was to rather put half the shield value into armor, the other half into defense. This way the unit would get "average" armor defense of the shield (unfortunately, from all sides) counting the intended front/rear/side effects.

If I read the CA suggestion correctly, there is a built in difference between the shield defense received from front/side/rear.