Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Rome 2 vs Shogun 2 MP

2

Comments

  • Marshal SuchetMarshal Suchet Senior Member Posts: 2,077Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    Belialxv wrote: »
    And veteran system doesnt allow you to adapt yourself to your battles: you need to have one playstyle or so, since you can't have enough veterans for each army style.

    I only ever had about 55 veteran slots and I found that I could make any kind of army that I wanted; rush kiting or balanced. Lots of players had anywhere up to 300 slots. The only reason why you would be able to field one style of army would be if you were trying to spam a particular unit type (so say the naginata rush builds).

    The battle speed was a good thing because it encouraged competitive play - also battles only tended to be over quickly if you were really bad at playing. Top player games would take quite a long time as they involved a lot of maneuvering - if you made a mistake you would die.

    In Rome you can make mistake after mistake after mistake and still not get punished for it. I've watched my opponents come back after losing all their cavalry and a decent chunk of their flanking infantry. In Shogun you would be dead at that point - you would be hammered by the enemy cavalry units until you broke.

    Skirmishing in rome is absolutely broken as units don't have enough ammunition or killing power. I can make a choice - either shoot at enemy skirmishers (which is a complete waste of ammo), or save my missiles for the enemy infantry after I have rushed. Either way, there is not any real "skirmish phase" to battles like there was in shogun 2.

    If they had fixed the melee dragging and put a cap of eight on cavalry units I'd still be playing shogun 2 now. :/
    RedStag
  • PariyaPariya Senior Member Posts: 567Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    Pariya wrote: »
    I was always against the "grinding" part of Shogun 2. They could have done all the customizations without needing to grind for it. You simply upgrade your units how you want to without needing to level, you upgrade your general however you want without needing to level. You start at 10 stars and you start with all the units and retainers. They never needed to make us "grind" for it. All the customizations were great and with all these customizable aspects it was surprisingly well balanced although it went through some rough patches Anyone remember the update that made Monks OP? Everyone was using armies of literally nothing but Nagi Monks and there Gens. Those rough patches were few though and usually pretty quickly resolved. I still wish they had stuck to a somewhat earlier period of time when there was no gunpowder units but even the matchlocks could not deter me from enjoying this game immensely.

    All that said MTW1 was the greatest TW game ever in terms of multiplayer. You need to look at it with perspective given to the time period it was released in and the other games on the market. It had a smaller but extremely competitive community and it was well balanced and lag free in 4v4 which is what most people played. You would go into the battlelist and half the hosted games would be 4v4. You guys really don't know what your missing out on being forced to play nothing but 1v1 and 2v2 and maby an occasional 3v3 because there is no chat lobby in which to arrange competative games and the lag prevents it because if you take 8 random people now it is 95% chance one of the 8 will lag the game.

    I really feel this post is 100% accurate and deserves to be brought to the newest page of this thread. I did not mention Rome, even though i have 300 hours on record (not a lot compared to most but adequate enough to have my say), because we cannot form opinions on it because it is changing every week. I will say though that there has not been a single patch where i was satisfied in the gameplay of multi-player battles. There have been a few patches i posted in support of but after further testing started to discover the faults. Someone who had posted earlier about the broader range of units is correct, it does have more units. However CA does not have the intelligence, or whoever is in charge of this department, does not have the intelligence to balance all these units oppropriately. They would be better of with fewer units because they are incompetent in this area.
    I guess i'll start linking my channel again: http://www.YouTube.com/BadEgoGM
  • jonasneejonasnee Senior Member Posts: 1,737Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    Belialxv wrote: »
    The units are different in Rome2. Units have way more defense and die way slower, so rushing and camping the magic buildings could become viable. You could bring cheap pikes, some inf to protect them from missiles and some missiles units to kill the ennemy missiles.

    Also the thing is that it would favorise some type of playstyle and even worse some factions. The factions with good infantry can easily take control of the magic buildings and camp. But factions that rely on skirmishers and cavalry will have a bad time because they'll have to kill their opponent in a short amont of time. It basically ruins a big part of the game and is not realistic for a penny... To be honnest I'll be happier to learn that CA made the game lag really hard than to learn that they implemented magic buildings.

    And veteran system doesnt allow you to adapt yourself to your battles: you need to have one playstyle or so, since you can't have enough veterans for each army style.


    To be honnest, I think that the only reason why CA implemented costumisation, veteran system and magic buildings is because there wasnt enought factions and variety to make a good multi. Those mecanics were just there as a plan B to make the multiplayer community alive. People who like rpg enjoyed it alot, thats true. But it wasnt a good strategic multiplayer: battle were too fast, more you play the game better your army is, putting together two type of army with one just way more superior (with FOTS), etc.

    I know that Rome2 has some bad points (magic abilities, ridiculously small map) but its way superior to Shogun2 from a tactic point of view.
    personally i always fought shogun 2 was slightly to fast for its own good (i felt patch 14 speed to so far be the best in the series, speed wise) the fast speed of shogun to meant that battles transcended tactics and became a series of individual engagements in high level, no front line just that 1 no dachi hitting that 1 yari ash before quickly retreating.
    that said patch 15 is as tactical as shogun is, the difference is just that while micro can change something in shogun it has very little effect on rome 2 P15.
    also i don't like the term "magical abilities" as if it was a bad thing, as long as it has clear advantages and disadvantages or have to be used carefully (banzai from S2 fx) then it only adds to the game, i play multiplayer to have fun and a challenge, not to play a boring history simulator. a thing shogun did a lot better.
    put your actions where your mouth is.
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=TJpmII-kxuM
    Total war is best when it is kept simple and not overly complex
  • DudeStu1DudeStu1 Senior Member Posts: 317Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    jonasnee wrote: »
    the dominating tactics among pros was matchlock kiting.


    Never played Shogun, but if this is the pinnacle of tactical play then I'm very relieved I have never tried it.

    This type of "single minded" play is better somehow to the very diverse armies used in Rome 2? Really?

    Ugh!!
  • jonasneejonasnee Senior Member Posts: 1,737Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    DudeStu1 wrote: »
    Never played Shogun, but if this is the pinnacle of tactical play then I'm very relieved I have never tried it.

    This type of "single minded" play is better somehow to the very diverse armies used in Rome 2? Really?

    Ugh!!
    i say dominant, among pros. though the game was to fast (and yes i do say that) to make line fights be a viable option most of the time, don't worry though its not like 8 missiles running around.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AwQnqMSMNM
    usually it was skirmish groups of 2-3 units (1 of them range usually matchlock) with a melee core and cav doing the rest, i was simply trying to refuse the idea of rushing being the best tactic anyways.
    put your actions where your mouth is.
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=TJpmII-kxuM
    Total war is best when it is kept simple and not overly complex
  • Sir TwiG of ShrubberySir TwiG of Shrubbery Senior Member Posts: 390Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    DudeStu1 wrote: »
    Never played Shogun, but if this is the pinnacle of tactical play then I'm very relieved I have never tried it.

    This type of "single minded" play is better somehow to the very diverse armies used in Rome 2? Really?

    Ugh!!
    I think the point is that matchlocks made all those crazy strong veteran units everyone complains about much weaker there was a much wider array of tactics given that there was only one faction. More factions don't necessarily make a more diverse game sometimes less is more.
    Don't try to make assumptions for a game you never played
    RTK | TwiG
  • The KestrelThe Kestrel Senior Member Posts: 850Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    ^^ There were so many personal variations that fighting new players seemed unique almost every time. Even people with similar structures would often handle them very differently.
  • CagataiKhanCagataiKhan Senior Member Posts: 808Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    Rome 2 still is garbage. I have play multi 700-800 hours.(totally 1200-1300 hors) I pick Odrys ,Epir , Suebi etc... I cant win Rome .(rome player play avarage.Rome win me.Not player)If rome pick proper amy, it will be invincible.... A noob player see some videos ,pick rome and very happy :D
    I must use cahriot faciton or maybe Tylis. It dont have strategic deep. Evocort line put front line.. Put hastaiti side .Put syrian acrher back
    take some cav . Shogun or Fots are more suprisly
  • HannibalBarkasHannibalBarkas Senior Member Posts: 2,860Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    Rome 2 still is garbage. I have play multi 700-800 hours.(totally 1200-1300 hors) I pick Odrys ,Epir , Suebi etc... I cant win Rome .(rome player play avarage.Rome win me.Not player)If rome pick proper amy, it will be invincible.... A noob player see some videos ,pick rome and very happy :D
    I must use cahriot faciton or maybe Tylis. It dont have strategic deep. Evocort line put front line.. Put hastaiti side .Put syrian acrher back
    take some cav . Shogun or Fots are more suprisly

    What type of builts do you use against Rome? I don't think they are invincible.
  • CagataiKhanCagataiKhan Senior Member Posts: 808Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    What type of builts do you use against Rome? I don't think they are invincible.
    1)I try Inf rush by Odyris, Suebi ( ınf + jav cav)
    2) cav rush( inf + 6-7 cav + 1 ele) by Epirius, Macedon ,Parthia
    3) Balanced armyy by all
  • HannibalBarkasHannibalBarkas Senior Member Posts: 2,860Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    1)I try Inf rush by Odyris, Suebi ( ınf + jav cav)
    2) cav rush( inf + 6-7 cav + 1 ele) by Epirius, Macedon ,Parthia
    3) Balanced armyy by all

    Admittedly inf rush is very unlikely to be successfull especially as Odrysians and Suebi are quite weak in this patch. But other than that there shouldn't be much of a problem. Especially Parthia is handled as a counter to Rome. You should first try to destroy the Roman cav and skirmishers effeciently. After that it should be a cake-walk.

    Just don't try to counter the Roman inf with your own infantry. They will always have more cost effective units. Instead try to be superior in the cavalry and skirmishing departement and rely on rear charges to destroy the Roman infantry when they are engaged. Also I wouldn't recommend using elephants.
  • CagataiKhanCagataiKhan Senior Member Posts: 808Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    Thank you for the advice . I dont agree "parthia is anti rome" bro. I think that there isnt a anti-rome faciton :) I can win easly parthia by excluding Pontus and Armenia
    . It is easy for rome"
  • GoTW KubeeGoTW Kubee Senior Member Posts: 153Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    I think, overall, Shogun 2 is the better game. However, the sad thing is that neither of them are in the same league as Med 1 or Rome 1 MPs in terms of high-level gameplay and clan community scene. Amazing how much TW MP has regressed when you think about how much potential the format has.
    Admin on Total War Hub, the new home of the Rome: Total War Multiplayer community.
  • jonasneejonasnee Senior Member Posts: 1,737Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    GoTW Kubee wrote: »
    I think, overall, Shogun 2 is the better game. However, the sad thing is that neither of them are in the same league as Med 1 or Rome 1 MPs in terms of high-level gameplay and clan community scene. Amazing how much TW MP has regressed when you think about how much potential the format has.
    rome 1 is often viewed as the prime of skill level, the funny thing is just that the people who went from rome 1 too rome 2 sucked a hole lot more than those from shogun too rome 2, tbh the few games i had in rome 1 all seemed easy :/ and too be completely fair i highly doubt people who says it was skilled, the players from/in there certainly don't paint that picture.
    put your actions where your mouth is.
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=TJpmII-kxuM
    Total war is best when it is kept simple and not overly complex
  • GoTW KubeeGoTW Kubee Senior Member Posts: 153Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    jonasnee wrote: »
    rome 1 is often viewed as the prime of skill level, the funny thing is just that the people who went from rome 1 too rome 2 sucked a hole lot more than those from shogun too rome 2, tbh the few games i had in rome 1 all seemed easy :/ and too be completely fair i highly doubt people who says it was skilled, the players from/in there certainly don't paint that picture.
    High-level, tournament RTW play is completely different from games against randoms in the lobby. That's like me going into a random game on Shogun 2, winning easily and then saying that it's a game for noobs. Did you, for example, even play on 15K, normal scale, CWB rules, grassy flatlands against someone from any sort of clan (even a **** one)? If not then for all intents and purposes you might as well have been playing a completely different TW game altogether: that is how huge of a difference there is between noob-level and pro-level RTW. Competitive RTW MP has a far steeper learning curve and is just so much better suited to high-level play than any of the warscape games.

    Well, it's true that, other than Iraklis, nobody from RTW became a top player on R2 from what I'm aware of. However, it's also true that the vast majority of top RTW players stopped playing the game around November/December or much earlier because it was so bad. Honestly, the overwhelming majority of the RTW community thought it was so terrible that they just didn't bother getting into it at all. A lot of the top RTW players had also moved on completely from TW and didn't even get it.

    Finally, I wasn't actually arguing that the top RTW players were necessarily better TW players or more skillful than the top S2/R2 players. I was merely saying that RTW on a competitive level was a much better game than S2 or R2. Mostly because the gameplay is a lot better, but also due to having a chat lobby and less lag.
    Admin on Total War Hub, the new home of the Rome: Total War Multiplayer community.
  • jonasneejonasnee Senior Member Posts: 1,737Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    GoTW Kubee wrote: »
    High-level, tournament RTW play is completely different from games against randoms in the lobby. That's like me going into a random game on Shogun 2, winning easily and then saying that it's a game for noobs. Did you, for example, even play on 15K, normal scale, CWB rules, grassy flatlands against someone from any sort of clan (even a **** one)? If not then for all intents and purposes you might as well have been playing a completely different TW game altogether: that is how huge of a difference there is between noob-level and pro-level RTW. Competitive RTW MP has a far steeper learning curve and is just so much better suited to high-level play than any of the warscape games.

    Well, it's true that, other than Iraklis, nobody from RTW became a top player on R2 from what I'm aware of. However, it's also true that the vast majority of top RTW players stopped playing the game around November/December or much earlier because it was so bad. Honestly, the overwhelming majority of the RTW community thought it was so terrible that they just didn't bother getting into it at all. A lot of the top RTW players had also moved on completely from TW and didn't even get it.

    Finally, I wasn't actually arguing that the top RTW players were necessarily better TW players or more skillful than the top S2/R2 players. I was merely saying that RTW on a competitive level was a much better game than S2 or R2. Mostly because the gameplay is a lot better, but also due to having a chat lobby and less lag.
    i usually played FFA won about 80% some of them had clannies (i cant remember names) and well within my group (Z and co) flatland's map was viewed as something used by noobs, ofc we where lucky to have dojos but i still think a flat open map does not show skill and more shows patterns.

    i remember the first rome 2 tournament hosted, i got like 4th place lost to dave the brave (i think he was x-shogun but ain't sure).

    the immediate pro part (aka before you can claim fall offs) was dominatingly shogun players, also GI was actually an X-shogun player. and well it was mostly: duck, GI, simon and akenathon in the start.

    when it comes to it shogun is far more advanced in terms of tactics it actually had skirmishing (a thing that seemed to be mostly redundant in rome 1). and micro was MUCH more empathized, n the end of the day i just cant see a reason why a community that has decided only 1 map is ever fair to play is too be considered better/stronger than 1 who instead try to remove maps that are broken (like the ones where people had a hill each).
    put your actions where your mouth is.
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=TJpmII-kxuM
    Total war is best when it is kept simple and not overly complex
  • GoTW KubeeGoTW Kubee Senior Member Posts: 153Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    jonasnee wrote: »
    i usually played FFA won about 80% some of them had clannies (i cant remember names) and well within my group (Z and co) flatland's map was viewed as something used by noobs, ofc we where lucky to have dojos but i still think a flat open map does not show skill and more shows patterns.

    i remember the first rome 2 tournament hosted, i got like 4th place lost to dave the brave (i think he was x-shogun but ain't sure).

    the immediate pro part (aka before you can claim fall offs) was dominatingly shogun players, also GI was actually an X-shogun player. and well it was mostly: duck, GI, simon and akenathon in the start.

    when it comes to it shogun is far more advanced in terms of tactics it actually had skirmishing (a thing that seemed to be mostly redundant in rome 1). and micro was MUCH more empathized, n the end of the day i just cant see a reason why a community that has decided only 1 map is ever fair to play is too be considered better/stronger than 1 who instead try to remove maps that are broken (like the ones where people had a hill each).
    This is exactly my point...FFA games in no way resemble high-level RTW play.

    Flat maps were used in RTW because they ensure that no one has an unfair advantage and also terrain would have limited a lot of factions and strategies and generally made gameplay a lot worse. It's ridiculous to discount RTW just on account of only 1 map being used. There was a huge variety of tactics and strategies needed to be good at RTW and it had probably the most advanced meta of any TW game. It was just so rich in terms of how strategical the gameplay was due to all the different faction/army combinations and variety of unique units with different purposes . Micro was much more emphasised in S2? Micro was of paramount importance in RTW; one misclick could lose you the game in certain faction matchups. You had to have excellent micro to stand a chance in tourneys. And skirmishing was hugely important in competitive RTW play. No one who played it at a high level would claim otherwise. Sorry, but you are just making incorrect assumptions about the game. As I said, the game I'm talking about (high-level games on 15k, CWB rules, normal scale vs. good players) is almost unrecognisable from the one you're describing (FFA, noob rules, large/huge scale, high money, noob opponents). So stop assuming that your limited experiences of RTW MP apply in any way to the actual elite clan community which lasted for almost 10 years.

    There were far more S2 players in those original tournaments compared to RTW players (ratio of 5:1 or higher), and IIRC Iraklis won a lot of them anyway. But anyway, didn't I already say that I wasn't comparing how good the different communities were at TW in general? All I've ever said is that the quality of gameplay and usability has regressed since RTW.
    Admin on Total War Hub, the new home of the Rome: Total War Multiplayer community.
  • jonasneejonasnee Senior Member Posts: 1,737Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    GoTW Kubee wrote: »
    This is exactly my point...FFA games in no way resemble high-level RTW play.

    Flat maps were used in RTW because they ensure that no one has an unfair advantage and also terrain would have limited a lot of factions and strategies and generally made gameplay a lot worse. It's ridiculous to discount RTW just on account of only 1 map being used. There was a huge variety of tactics and strategies needed to be good at RTW and it had probably the most advanced meta of any TW game. It was just so rich in terms of how strategical the gameplay was due to all the different faction/army combinations and variety of unique units with different purposes . Micro was much more emphasised in S2? Micro was of paramount importance in RTW; one misclick could lose you the game in certain faction matchups. You had to have excellent micro to stand a chance in tourneys. And skirmishing was hugely important in competitive RTW play. No one who played it at a high level would claim otherwise. Sorry, but you are just making incorrect assumptions about the game. As I said, the game I'm talking about (high-level games on 15k, CWB rules, normal scale vs. good players) is almost unrecognisable from the one you're describing (FFA, noob rules, large/huge scale, high money, noob opponents). So stop assuming that your limited experiences of RTW MP apply in any way to the actual elite clan community which lasted for almost 10 years.

    There were far more S2 players in those original tournaments compared to RTW players (ratio of 5:1 or higher), and IIRC Iraklis won a lot of them anyway. But anyway, didn't I already say that I wasn't comparing how good the different communities were at TW in general? All I've ever said is that the quality of gameplay and usability has regressed since RTW.
    and maybe its redicules to claim only 1 map is good enough for competetive play? maybe its mentality? idk but there something wrong if you cant play on others (and yes i am aware some of the more terrainful maps are bad), 1 missclick would with all certainty be a lose vs a player like maju or KF in shogun 2. rome 1 was so good danm easy, like really was i once took a 3 v 3 and i ended up having killed 2.5/3 armies with almost no loses, really this is pinical of hardness? and for the record i played CWB always, like really it was standart even in "noob FFA".
    put your actions where your mouth is.
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=TJpmII-kxuM
    Total war is best when it is kept simple and not overly complex
  • GoTW KubeeGoTW Kubee Senior Member Posts: 153Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    jonasnee wrote: »
    and maybe its redicules to claim only 1 map is good enough for competetive play? maybe its mentality? idk but there something wrong if you cant play on others (and yes i am aware some of the more terrainful maps are bad), 1 missclick would with all certainty be a lose vs a player like maju or KF in shogun 2. rome 1 was so good danm easy, like really was i once took a 3 v 3 and i ended up having killed 2.5/3 armies with almost no loses, really this is pinical of hardness? and for the record i played CWB always, like really it was standart even in "noob FFA".
    There's nothing wrong with it because, as I mentioned, terrain maps in RTW generally made gameplay far less interesting. Why would we have played on maps which limited your options in terms of what strategies you could use, gave far less scope for manoeuvre and gave one side an advantage over the other?

    Look, I've already said this, but your experiences in FFA vs. noobs from the lobby don't mean anything when it comes to tournament-level RTW MP. High-level RTW MP and FFA's against randoms bear absolutely no resemblances, neither in terms of format, difficulty or level of gameplay, so to try extrapolate your experiences from the former to make an assertive conclusion about the latter is nonsensical beyond description. Try playing a 1v1 against any good or even average (by clan standards) RTW player and then tell me it's an easy game. You just wouldn't be making these claims if you had any understanding or knowledge of competitive RTW MP.
    Admin on Total War Hub, the new home of the Rome: Total War Multiplayer community.
  • jonasneejonasnee Senior Member Posts: 1,737Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    GoTW Kubee wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with it because, as I mentioned, terrain maps in RTW generally made gameplay far less interesting. Why would we have played on maps which limited your options in terms of what strategies you could use, gave far less scope for manoeuvre and gave one side an advantage over the other?

    Look, I've already said this, but your experiences in FFA vs. noobs from the lobby don't mean anything when it comes to tournament-level RTW MP. High-level RTW MP and FFA's against randoms bear absolutely no resemblances, neither in terms of format, difficulty or level of gameplay, so to try extrapolate your experiences from the former to make an assertive conclusion about the latter is nonsensical beyond description. Try playing a 1v1 against any good or even average (by clan standards) RTW player and then tell me it's an easy game. You just wouldn't be making these claims if you had any understanding or knowledge of competitive RTW MP.

    the flat map limits your options too as it just basically turns the game into a repeat, you would basically always have "this is the most efficient way to deploy" rather than "hm should i swing around over that hill or place my men in the open field" and this sort of mentality was what cracked TWCC basically they only allowed nemetocenna and it just ended up being some weird **** where your questioning yourself what fun is there always to see chariots and elephants cause that was what happend, terrain maps makes it idea giving and more exiting where as a flat boring map will in the end lead to certain builds being viewed as much more useful, in no way is that to be viewed as more balanced.

    as i told you i also played some team games but found them even easier, basically i would just end up doign all the work while seeing my allies fall when i wasn't there. and i have taken at least a few games vs "pros" but still the fact that the remainning pros from rome 1 are largely pup-skill level in rome 2 does not make the claim seem so strong any more. i think i once played vs someone from HOE (there is such a thing right) and someone from another clan.
    put your actions where your mouth is.
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=TJpmII-kxuM
    Total war is best when it is kept simple and not overly complex
  • GoTW KubeeGoTW Kubee Senior Member Posts: 153Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    jonasnee wrote: »
    the flat map limits your options too as it just basically turns the game into a repeat, you would basically always have "this is the most efficient way to deploy" rather than "hm should i swing around over that hill or place my men in the open field" and this sort of mentality was what cracked TWCC basically they only allowed nemetocenna and it just ended up being some weird **** where your questioning yourself what fun is there always to see chariots and elephants cause that was what happend, terrain maps makes it idea giving and more exiting where as a flat boring map will in the end lead to certain builds being viewed as much more useful, in no way is that to be viewed as more balanced.

    as i told you i also played some team games but found them even easier, basically i would just end up doign all the work while seeing my allies fall when i wasn't there. and i have taken at least a few games vs "pros" but still the fact that the remainning pros from rome 1 are largely pup-skill level in rome 2 does not make the claim seem so strong any more. i think i once played vs someone from HOE (there is such a thing right) and someone from another clan.
    You're describing why you think flat maps suck in R2. We are discussing RTW, which is a completely different game with different dynamics. What you're saying wasn't the case in RTW since there was so much variety in tactics due to the superior gameplay mechanics and all the unique factions and units. There is no 'most efficient way to deploy' because there are so many different ways to approach a game in 15k CWB. There's literally not a single high-level RTW player who would argue that playing on terrain maps would improve the game, and yes, flat maps on RTW (there were a few others other than grassy flats) were far more balanced than terrain maps. There is actually a far greater diversity of different armies and play styles that can be used on grassy flats than on terrain.

    Name me one quality RTW player who still plays R2 other than Irakils. Again, I'm not disputing that RTW players apart from Iraklis didn't make an impact in tournaments, but that was because all the good players quit very early on. Please send me a replay of you defeating or even playing against a good player on RTW and from watching that I'll be able to tell you whether or not you have the authority to discuss the game on a competitive level or call it easy with the same confident tone you are using now.

    Also, please explain how RTW MP would be more balanced and allow the use of more strategies on terrain maps, giving specific examples of extra things you could do and how gameplay would differ for the better.
    Admin on Total War Hub, the new home of the Rome: Total War Multiplayer community.
  • GoTW KubeeGoTW Kubee Senior Member Posts: 153Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    By eliminating terrain maps, you effectively cut out a lot of factors from a battle. Maneuvering is not as important anymore, there are no "objectives" on the map (hills, forests that you can take with your army), line of sight, etc. This is R2 MP. As for RTW MP, I'm not sure because I barely played the game, but if it is as you say, it's sad that grassy flatlands is the best map and I'd call that poor design.
    There are technically 1000s of maps in RTW because you can use any of the tiles from the campaign map if you just copy the coordinates into the relevant file. I would actually argue that the maps in RTW were superior in terms of variety and quality to R2. Belle actually released a mod which added the most popular ones automatically and with preview pictures, names, location etc. We did sometimes play on those for the sake of variety, but grassy flats, fertile flats, etc. were used for competitive play because they are the most balanced. It's not that grassy flats is the 'best' map, just the most popular. There's just far greater scope for cavalry play and skirmishing on grassy flats than there is on terrain maps (in RTW).
    Admin on Total War Hub, the new home of the Rome: Total War Multiplayer community.
  • Sir TwiG of ShrubberySir TwiG of Shrubbery Senior Member Posts: 390Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    Shogun 2 had the best maps fighting on different areas of terrain had a huge impact. I think that's what makes it superior it's prbly the only total war game that had maps that were balanced but not jus flat pieces of grassland.

    Also shogun has an infinite number of maps as you can create your own
    RTK | TwiG
  • DudeStu1DudeStu1 Senior Member Posts: 317Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    I think the point is that matchlocks made all those crazy strong veteran units everyone complains about much weaker there was a much wider array of tactics given that there was only one faction. More factions don't necessarily make a more diverse game sometimes less is more.
    Don't try to make assumptions for a game you never played

    I didn't make assumptions. Jonasnee clearly said the "dominant" tactic amongst "pros" was matchlock kiting. Which IMHO sounds terribly limiting and boring.

    If we can take him at his word, and the natural state of progression is to improve with experience and "PRO" is an inference to some who are "better" or have reached a higher state of ability in some area of interest/expertise. Then it only makes sense if one "pro" uses matchlock kiting and the other does not than the prior will have the advantage IF the dominant tactic amongst pros is "matchlock kiting". Why would the "dominant" tactic be so specific if it wasn't dominant? And if it is dominant amongst pros then it stands to reason it is "better"

    All this in mind is why I said it sounded very single minded and boring.

    It is not an assumption, it is a "conclusion" based on the info offered up by a self proclaimed PRO!
  • Marshal SuchetMarshal Suchet Senior Member Posts: 2,077Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    There were lots of different ways to play stw2 - matchlocks were not really essential, depending on your style of play or build.

    "Matchlock kiting" is not really a term I would ever use to describe the MP as there were so many different factors that you had to consider. If anything the game was far more cavalry than matchlock based - but in saying that there were so many different maps and cavalry was not always the best choice. Killerfisch (the best player I have ever fought in TW) beat me a couple of times with only three cavalry units on the terrain heavy maps.
    RedStag
  • TajlTajl Senior Member Posts: 250Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    I played quite lot of stw2 MM and team tournaments with Killerfisch and i think we used all kind of armies, sometimes we used ninjas, or we could have normal rush builds with no-dachis or monks or something totally different that no one had used before. I usually used bow general but killerfisch changed his general occasionally. I think it was quite rare for people to quess our builds beforehand even in the end when there was quite lot of YouTube videos about our games and even more about Killerfischs 1vs1 games.

    Stw2 i rarely knew what i was going to face, rtw2 when i saw what faction my opponent used i could usually quess his army and tactic so i could prepare and of course my opponent could prepare too when he saw my faction, so many times faction choise was army and tactic choise too, especially with familiar opponent.

    So for me rtw2 was disappointment, more factions but my factions choise and my opponents faction choise together dictates my tactic and army, so i have less freedom than i had with stw2, then there is no dojos or anything to stop camping so battles agaisnt randoms become boring practically immiditly and even against good players predictable armies in flat terrain start to repeat itself far too quicly. So for me even with only one faction stw2 just had more variety with armies, tactics and maps.
  • |Sith|DesertFox|Sith|DesertFox Senior Member Posts: 458Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    Skirmishing was viable in Rome 1, no idea where you got that from ?
    "Who I am is not important, my message is." ~ Darth Reven
    MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL!!!! https://www.youtube.com/user/teubel98/feed
  • JacquestheApostateJacquestheApostate Senior Member Posts: 672Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    Tajl wrote: »
    I played quite lot of stw2 MM and team tournaments with Killerfisch and i think we used all kind of armies, sometimes we used ninjas, or we could have normal rush builds with no-dachis or monks or something totally different that no one had used before. I usually used bow general but killerfisch changed his general occasionally. I think it was quite rare for people to quess our builds beforehand even in the end when there was quite lot of YouTube videos about our games and even more about Killerfischs 1vs1 games.

    Stw2 i rarely knew what i was going to face, rtw2 when i saw what faction my opponent used i could usually quess his army and tactic so i could prepare and of course my opponent could prepare too when he saw my faction, so many times faction choise was army and tactic choise too, especially with familiar opponent.

    So for me rtw2 was disappointment, more factions but my factions choise and my opponents faction choise together dictates my tactic and army, so i have less freedom than i had with stw2, then there is no dojos or anything to stop camping so battles agaisnt randoms become boring practically immiditly and even against good players predictable armies in flat terrain start to repeat itself far too quicly. So for me even with only one faction stw2 just had more variety with armies, tactics and maps.
    Great post!
    3 Kingdoms is a great game campaign wise. Make ranked battles in Records mode. Until that is done it won't be complete.
    Gun Cav in Shogun II should have a Retainer!
    Give us another Avatar Campaign!
  • PariyaPariya Senior Member Posts: 567Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    When CA switched to steam it took away a working global chat lobby and has been used to release numerous content updates. We do not have to buy these updates unless they contain content necessary to compete in multiplayer but many of them change, sometimes drastically, the balance of multiplayer. CA is usually focused on the campaign playing community but these updates affect multiplayer as well. It took away some of the innovation of our community because before steam we would all have website, and forums. It was very creative and lead to a very active and participative community. Now everything is done via steam and we have become a lazy community. As technology improves and CA grows larger so have the demands the game requires to play large online battles. It is so very much more likely now that when playing large 4v4 battles that someone is going to have a computer that cannot handle it. It only takes one person to ruin a game. In Medi1 75% of hosted games were 4v4. In Rome2 75% of hosted games are 1v1 or 2v2. This, again, also leads to distancing the community. With each new title CA needs to add new features and this adds to the difficulty of balancing multiplayer which as i highlighted before is near the bottum of CA's to do list.


    My list of the best Total War games for multiplayer: (excluding shogun1 because i was only a child when i played it and empire/napolean because i hardly played it out of dislike for gunpowder tactics)

    1) Medi1
    2) Rome1 (even though i disliked the new game engine and what it did to multiplayer)
    3) Medi2 (after they updated the game, merged the 4 worlds and rebalanced it)
    4) Shogun 2 (a revolutionary game for TW multiplayer but still far behind the others because of the reasons i outlined)
    5) Internet pong
    6) Rome2
    I guess i'll start linking my channel again: http://www.YouTube.com/BadEgoGM
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,648Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    edited November 2014
    Deleted several posts containing potentially inflammatory and/or personal remarks.

    Stay on topic folks, and tolerate differences of opinion, without personal comments.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
This discussion has been closed.