Hi all (MP chat)

[Noir]

Yes that's true, i was lucky in that department. If i had plenty of shooters or weak swords it would have been really disastrous.

Thanks for the advice; in my view this is where instinctively knowing the match ups in every situation matters. To do promptly this kind of response i would need to be 100% tuned in with "this type of attack" as well as "the type of army" that i was playing.

This type of awareness is definitely linked to how much you need to manage at the same time at a particular phase of a battle and also on how concentrated you are i guess.

However it mostly relates to how much the gameplay has rubbed off on you IMO. As an example of this awareness i will say that in the previous session i was consciously snipping YC with SA at various games. In one game, i took down about 34 (with your help by CA) before they withdrew to safety and about 27 in another game (the occasions are completely different and the numbers included only for indication purposes). When i started diverting fire to one of CBR's YC with one of my teppo in the game we previously were discussing in order to do the same, he took them out of range as soon as the first of his cavalry man fell and had totally three casualties. This sort of "tuning" with match ups, that is knowing where to persist and where to avoid things and give way is a key element and needs practice, observation, conscious effort and time so as to be achieved IMO.

Noir

[Tomisama]

I would like to put forward something I am trying to work out for my self, let’s call it conceptual thinking for lack of any real title. It is really just specification driven imagination, developing a character idea for each unit type.

For example, the Samurai Archer’s range capabilities are not well employed against armor bearing units. The more armor, the less chance of making a kill, so looking at battle from the SA’s point of view, it is probably best to create target classifications.

First priority would be the light and unarmored swords, the No Dachi and Warrior Monks’s.

Next the light and medium armored, all other range units (SA, CA, PT, JT), and all spear units (YA, YS, YC).

And last, the heavily armored Naginata infantry and cavalry (NA, NC), and most of all the Heavy Cavalry, are best left to the Japanese Teppos for shooting (if at all).

I believe that the above is correct, but in any case you can see that personification of a particular unit type, and imagining things from their perspective, can be a way to understand match-up priorities.

For me this is very much a work in progress. I just though I would throw
It out there for whomever it might help

[TosaInu]

Hello,

That position doesn't leave great flanking options to either the defender or attacker. Sit still when you're shaved. My experience from STW classic and up is that immobile armies are tougher to beat than expected. Turn them on hold and be the anvil for your hammer allies.

[Noir]

It's interesting to know how to co-operate with allies in team games while taking into account the sort of army picked; for example i realised at some point that a Naginata heavy selection (with lots of cavalry to complement) has a natural anvil strength either for flanking with one's own cavalry or in a team manner (engaging enemy line and allowing the ally to act as the hammer). I often made the mistake to engage my monks or melee cavalry first (as they timely join melee), but the right thing to do is to engage the NA line and search for opportunities to flank or allow such opportunities to your allies(y).

Team coordination is essential and builds up slowly by reckognizing the allie's army selection, playstyle and dynamic conditions of the game at hand.

MP is a very different beast than SP altogether and takes the game to the limit; its really a shame that it doesn't get the attention it deserves in TW as the game has great potential.

I understand it though from a sales point of view; a really good MP game like STW for example could do with engine improvements ignoring incarnations but the appeal would be more difficult to establish and elnarge in absolute terms compared with the graphical emphasis and variety that sells the SP game; few people have the nerve to endure the string of defeats and slaughters that is to be expected in the first few tens if not hundred battles. Most probably want a hostorical/war "escapade" on their own terms and time.

Its also difficult in the interpersonal level as without a group that makes you feel at home and allow you to slowly improve, its easy to feel lost.

However i have to say that once you "taste blood" its hard to go back; MP battles are many times more interesting, satisfying and fun even to watch than SP battles that are repetitive and limited to the AI's capabilities. Bugs and misbalances though hurt the MP game badly as does an innapropriate pace.

[Puzz3D]

Team coordination is essential and builds up slowly by reckognizing the allie's army selection, playstyle and dynamic conditions of the game at hand.

Teams games bring an additional strategic layer to the gameplay. At the highest level, army composition and playing style become subject to the strategic plan, and players can be assigned starting positions that allow them to make good use of their individual skills in the execution of the battleplan. However, players must master basic tactics before the teamgames can be played at this strategic level. The strategic plan will likely fail if the team members haven't mastered basic tactical play, and at the very least, tactical errors on either side rob a battle of theoretical value when evaluating a particular strategy.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Puzz3D
However, players must master basic tactics before the teamgames can be played at this strategic level. The strategic plan will likely fail if the team members haven't mastered basic tactical play, and at the very least, tactical errors on either side rob a battle of theoretical value when evaluating a particular strategy.

Very true