Can you explain...Cavalry Vs Spearmen

[Puzz3D]

There actually people that can enjoy a game, because they don't need every detail ... and certainly no mod for MTW.

Those people have low standards. I post for people who have higher standards than that, and who don't want to buy a game that has significant flaws. M2TW has significant flaws, and a plethora of minor flaws which do add up. It's obvious now that CA is unable to match the standard of gameplay they had in the original game. They haven't been able to balance a simple thing like spears since the original game. It's unbelievable that here we are 7 years after the original release still talking about cavalry/spearmen imbalance.

[Paolai]

Those people have low standards. I post for people who have higher standards than that, and who don't want to buy a game that has significant flaws. M2TW has significant flaws, and a plethora of minor flaws which do add up. It's obvious now that CA is unable to match the standard of gameplay they had in the original game. They haven't been able to balance a simple thing like spears since the original game. It's unbelievable that here we are 7 years after the original release still talking about cavalry/spearmen imbalance.

agreed.

[Stig]

If you don't like it, then just don't mention it. You come up with all sorts of flaws and things, but you haven't even played it.

Me calls that trolling

[Paolai]

but you haven't even played it.

How you assume that I have not played the game Sir Stig?
FYI I am the multyplayer mod for the Italian community, and as far as I know I played about 300 MTW2 games. Plz next time you wanna write somethings, try to be sure you are saying somethings near the truth.


you have your opinions, I have mine. Respect them as I am trying to respect yours.

Thx in advance Sir Stig.

[Stig]

How you assume that I have not played the game Sir Stig?

I don't care who you are, I'm talking to Puzz

[Paolai]

Now you know who I am then, and FYI Puzz is right. You shoud learn somethings from him, and read with more attention his posts, they are surely much more intresting than yours.


I call your posts "trolling". If you are not agreed with him, explain why, or do not ansewr at his posts at all.

[Puzz3D]

If you don't like it, then just don't mention it. You come up with all sorts of flaws and things, but you haven't even played it.

Since when can you only post if you like something? The flaws are there, and they should be prominently posted so that people don't buy the game by mistake because CA isn't going to mention them. Not everyone is as unaffected by game flaws as you, and I'm going to continue bringing attention to flaws and things that represent degraded gameplay. It's not all subjective. Some things are actually better or worse than other things. CA is no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the faith that the problems will be fixed. They have demonstrated with RTW that they are willing to end of life a game with significant bugs still present. They set unrealistic deadlines for what they are trying to produce. Not only do their games now have a plethora of problems upon release, but they can't even fix them all given the patching schedule.

I'm well aware of the M2TW engine because it's essentially the same one used in RTW/BI which I have played, and I was on the RTW v1.2 beta team. I could see back in November when Lusted posted some M2TW battle results that the attrition is too high, and now other players are saying the same thing. I don't have to own the game to know that. I can see the "wait your turn" fighting by the men in the M2TW demo and videos, and I'm appalled that they incorporated such a battle mechanic when what they had before was much better. It doesn't represent an improvement to the game, and I don't have to buy the game to see that it isn't.

BTW, getting details right is good engineering. Reverse a detail like a + sign and you get the shield bug which is a significant problem. That it affects all players doesn't make it less significant because it's having an adverse affect on the gameplay.

[ElmarkOFear]

I can understand why both Stig and Puzz have been posting the way they have lately.

Puzz has every right to be totally and irreversibly angry/disappointed at CA since he has given more time and effort (than anybody I know) into pointing out what changes need to be made to the TW engines and then testing/re-testing to make sure possible solutions didn't have adverse effects on other aspects of the game . . . . . . . and then having CA go ahead and do something counter to the patch team's suggestions and totally screwing everything up in the process. This happened not once, not twice, not even three times . . . if my tally is correct Puzz gave CA the benefit of the doubt over 6 times before reaching the point where he appears to be bitter about the current TW engine and TWs future in general. I too feel that the aspects which the veterans held so dear, will never make another appearance in a future TW game. Luckily, I had less patience than Puzz and left before CA could irrevocably piss me off. Puzz and I really don't agree on many things concerning gameplay and balance issues, but I have always respected him and his opinions, even if he now sometimes comes across as a TW curmudgeon.

Stig also has a reason for his antagonism towards Puzz's criticisms of the current game and his negative attitude towards the new TW engine. I have known Stig for quite awhile and he is a very nice person (sorry Stig, I know I promised I wouldn't tell anyone you were an "ok" guy! ), but he has been a regular patron over at the .com forum and has had to read through all the continual nonsensical criticisms found there. He has tired of such things and he came here thinking it a place where more non-critical discussions would take place. He sees Puzz, with nothing good to say about the current state of M2TW, then hears Puzz doesn't hasn't bought the game, and not knowing Puzz (or his past involvement with patch-testing the current engine and his intimate knowledge of the mechanics behind the game) and assumes that here is another .com-like whacko who doesn't know what he is talking about.

So now I have explained things a bit, I hope both of you can understand each other's past behavior a bit better and realize there is no reason to continue antagonizing each other. You are both friends of mine, whom I respect and whom I know both want to improve the M2TW experience.

Now I had a question to ask, which I have temporarily forgotten . . . . .

Oh I remember: Puzz: You said you tested RTW and are familiar with the game's engine. I never played RTW except for one week before selling it back, so I have little knowledge of it. My question is: Did RTWs engine attach other battle stats to the animation besides just running speed? I know M2TWs engine has running speed, attacking speed, special abilities, and enemy acquirement attached to each individual man in a unit. Did RTW do this as well or is this what CA has added to the engine? I believe the underlying problems are more to do with the things tied in with the animations than with the stats or cost factors.

I think CA got in over its head, when it tried to make the game more life-like or "Real". This probably explains why they attached so much to the individual animations themself instead of the stats file: So it would look more fluid and life-like. As I have always stated, the move to 3D creates more problems than a 2D game, and makes it even more time-consuming and difficult to correct and test. Pretty graphics take a toll on gameplay and balance, not necessarily in a direct sense, but in many small ways which, when put together lead to much bigger and sometimes unsolvable ways. Even if it is within CA's capability to make changes, I can see where these changes are more time-consuming to where CA isn't willing to put the resources into correcting them.

[Stig]

explain why

I did, Puzz doesn't have the game ... how can he know what's wrong if he doesn't know what's wrong?
Others tell him? Well why believe them, why not look with your own eyes first?

I know Puzz is experienced and such, and I respect him for that. I however don't respect them for critising something he doesn't know anything about.

and not knowing Puzz (or his past involvement with patch-testing the current engine and his intimate knowledge of the mechanics behind the game)

Oh I knew that alright, but still does it matter?

[pike master]

this might have a lot to do with infantry being wrapped but according to frog the roman front and sides of a unit were all part of a curved facing and the rear was the other facing so a unit could be wrapped and even charged from the flank without a devestating morale penalty and would deploy troops to cover the flank.

now it seems that i have noticed that units now have very vulnerable flanks. this has a lot to do with a deep spear formations ability to withstand a cav charge. if the ranks are too thin to contain a wrap then most of the formation will be gone when charged. if its deep and narrow the flanks are wrapped so they get defeated too.

i could be wrong but it does seem that you are dealing with a different mechanics in unit facing if im wrong correct me i wont be offended.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

Those people have low standards. I post for people who have higher standards than that, and who don't want to buy a game that has significant flaws. M2TW has significant flaws, and a plethora of minor flaws which do add up. It's obvious now that CA is unable to match the standard of gameplay they had in the original game. They haven't been able to balance a simple thing like spears since the original game. It's unbelievable that here we are 7 years after the original release still talking about cavalry/spearmen imbalance.

Very true. But we should recognize, that we are not the CA's target group anymore. I have sold M2TW and look for other games and companies.

I think, you cannot convince someone, which likes the low gameplay with full of bugs and strange CA balance decisions. We are the minority and have to accept that.

[Paolai]

I did, Puzz doesn't have the game ... how can he know what's wrong if he doesn't know what's wrong?

If you think Puzz is wrong, tell me which infantry unit can beat a cav unit. Waiting for an answer.

[Stig]

If you think Puzz is wrong, tell me which infantry unit can beat a cav unit. Waiting for an answer.

Let's see, I've beaten them with:
all kinds of spearmen
dismounted knights
dismounted arab cav does a wonderfull job
pikemen ofcourse

No I've beaten enough cav with infantry. There are cav spammers about, but that doesn't mean my main infantry army loses to them oh no.

[Paolai]

Let's see, I've beaten them with:
all kinds of spearmen
dismounted knights
dismounted arab cav does a wonderfull job
pikemen ofcourse

No I've beaten enough cav with infantry. There are cav spammers about, but that doesn't mean my main infantry army loses to them oh no.

that's what I mean: you know nothing about the game. You can beat also pikes with cavs, just click behind the pikes and cavs win. SPears cannot beat cavs, cause if you know how to charge with cavs they die 90% at the first cavs contact.
Again listen to Puzz, seems he knows much more about this game than you. If you need some replays about what I am saying, PM me.

[Stig]

that's what I mean: you know nothing about the game.

That I take as an insult

give your men a small armour upgrade next time you play

[R'as al Ghul]

Again listen to Puzz

No, just concentrate on the fact that Yuuki doesn't own the game....all the bugs will simply go away. (There's no spoon)

[Stig]

If you need some replays about what I am saying, PM me.

Same here, I'm sure I have more then 1 replay in which you can see what I mean.

[Paolai]

That I take as an insult

give your men a small armour upgrade next time you play

sorry if you have taken that as an insult, but thats the true. From what you are saying I assume you know nothing about this game.

Again, armour do nothing againt the cav charge, try by yourself if you do not beleive me, or just PM me if you need some replays.

No, just concentrate on the fact that Yuuki doesn't own the game....all the bugs will simply go away

But I have it, and Puzz is right. When all the bugs will go away, we will talk about how fantastic is the game, but atm the game has a crap balance. Sad but true.

[Paolai]

Same here, I'm sure I have more then 1 replay in which you can see what I mean.

Seems that you do not know how to beat a pike with cavs. I surely do not need you replay cause seems you do not know all the bugs and imbalances that this game has.

[Stig]

I don't need to know how to beat pikes with cav. I hardly use cav, max 4 an army. My armies tend to be infantry heavy, and I win with them (sometimes).

And I know about the bugs in the game, but then my opponent has them too

[R'as al Ghul]

But I have it, and Puzz is right. When all the bugs will go away, we will talk about how fantastic is the game, but atm the game has a crap balance. Sad but true.

Yes, of course Yuuki is right. I was trying to be ironic.
The bugs are there and saying that the opponent has them too or repeating the fact that Puzz doesn't own the full game changes nothing about it. Also, a lot of what is wrong in the full game is already wrong in the demo.

[Orda Khan]

Rather than open new sub-forums perhaps it would be a better idea to shut down the whole MP forum

.......Orda

[Paolai]

Yes, of course Yuuki is right. I was trying to be ironic.

oopppps sorry

[Stig]

Also, a lot of what is wrong in the full game is already wrong in the demo.

I know but:
-demo doesn't give one an AI
-demo doesn't give one a campaign
-demo doesn't give one MP options

[x-dANGEr]

Paoli, sounds from your posts, I assume that you're taking things more of a 1 on 1 than an army vs an army.

[Paolai]

Not exactly, I am talking more about an army based. I mean a cavs army based is stronger than an infantry based army. What I am asking to CA is to have an anti cav unit different from another cav and atm there isnt. In a good balance game there is an anti unit for every unit, if I have this kind of balance who has more skill win. So also the cheaper spears should beat ALL the cavs, ALL the swords shoud beat the spears and ALL the cavs should beat the swords. Here atm we have cavs that beat swords, cavs that beat spears and only cavs that beat cavs. Why we cannot have a good balance? Is it so hard to have one? In BFME II there is no way that a cav can beat a spear also if the cav have all the UPG and the spear have none, why it is so difficult for CA to do the same?

[Stig]

If every unit has it a unit that can counter it the game would be extremely boring.
No in real too Knight were more or less invincible, as they are in game. And they could easely be killed in melee fighting as they are ingame. CA did a good job at that, if you think it's wrong I suggest you make a mod no-one plays and go advertising about it

[ElmarkOFear]

The main problem, with anti-cav units currently, is they are so expensive, when taking into account their power per florin spent. Also, only a few factions have units that can stop a cav charge without losing almost the entire unit. Lastly, the units which can stop a cav charge, must be micro-managed. If they are not in Spearwall formation and kept in good order, the unit will lose more men than it will kill when facing cav. I would rather these anti-cav units be able to hold their own without having to micro-manage them, but that is the way it was made so I adjusted.

Another way to stop the devastation of the cav charge is to stack two units on top of each other to keep the cav from being able to "push" through the units after impact. This is also very inefficient, since the timing must be right to actually trap the cav unit and kill or rout it.

I also can also show how to kill cav units, in low florin games (5K) with volume and mass. I will show anyone in the M2TW lobby how it works, if they would like. In higher florin games there are not enough open slots to gain the necessary mass to defeat cav. It also can be accomplished with the cheapest non-spear foot units in the game using the same principle.

[Paolai]

If every unit has it a unit that can counter it the game would be extremely boring.

lets say that it is your opinion right?
STW was not imho a boring game.
BFME is not a boring game, same for BFMEII
same for CoH and many others. Games that have online about 10 times (probably much more) the number of players that have MTW2. Have you asked yourself why?
A tactical/strategic game HAVE to have an anti unit for every unit. It is called balance. You have fun with a imbalance game, np for me. Have fun, but MTW2 will never have the big community that has for example BFME.

[R'as al Ghul]

I know but:
-demo doesn't give one an AI
-demo doesn't give one a campaign
-demo doesn't give one MP options

You're right, but Puzz3D is not posting about the AI or the campaign, so I don't see why you bring that up.
It's also true that you can't play MP in the demo. So? As I read Puzz's posts he only concerns himself with the battle mechanics and the game play. Both factors can be observed and evaluated in the demo. The points he brings up are all in the demo.
Again, I don't see how his points can be turned down on the fact alone that he does only own the demo. A lot of other players raise exactly the same points here and in the Citadel. What do you say to them?

R'as