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.


What to do with multiplayer in TWS: ToB

VM_MorS#3918VM_MorS#3918 Junior MemberRussiaRegistered Users Posts: 37
edited May 2018 in Multiplayer
Dear Creative Assembly, with all respect, the situation around multiplayer in «TWS:ToB» is doubtful. The main reason for this is the unsuccessful variability of the units, and as a result – strange balance.

ToB is very similar to Shogun2TW, because of one nation and closed historical region. Also ETW and NTW did not have a gameplay variety: almost identical builds of armeis and very similar factions. But only multiplayer in Shogun2 had a resounding success. Why? Because in ‘classic mode’ of battles each faction had mini-bonuses: for swords, for spears, for cavalry etc. These bonuses were small, but it’s was enough for very interesting mp fights at the beginning of Shogun2 vanilla. Another excellent component was ‘avatar mode’ and personalization of general and veterans. The best Total War decision ever!
F.e. in TW Rome2 such balance is impossible because of historical period and cultural properties of factions. Barbarians strikingly different from the Greeks in tactics and units. So, nobody expected a repetition of the gold balance. But in ToB this variant is very easy to implement! All factions in ToB have little differences in tactics and units, and the main problem for now is unplayability of some types of units and some deficiency of the functional in multiplayer.

1) Balance edits that bring closer «Rock–Paper–Scissors» to the ToB. Adding a little bit of breakdown damage to archers and skirmishers (~5%). As a variant - add special types of shells (like in Rome2), not only fire arrows. Of course, we understand that ToB is primarily about brutal melee combat with sharp swords and mighty shields, and all focus is on melee units. But in situation where 2-3 archers do not affect the course of the battle at all, players will not take them at all, using only swords+axes spam, and it’ll be sad for multiplayer.
2) Adding weight and inertia to the cavalry, because it must break through by ‘charge’ most of the units that do not stand in the ‘shield wall’, except spearmen ofc. For now with cavalry is the same situation as with archers: it is much more reasonable to take infantry spam than 3-4 unrealizable units of cavalry. Players just using axes spam + berserkers and nothing else, that’s all multiplayer gameplay for now in ToB.
3) Adding mini-bonuses to factions. F.e. +3% of melee skill for axes, or -10% of the cost for weak spearmen, or +5% of accuracy for archers, or +5% of charge for expensive cavalry etc. This decision will give a variety in the armies with the same set of units (like in was in ‘classic mode’ of S2TW).
4) Adding key buildings in battles (like in was in S2TW). Bonuses from the capture and retention of such buildings will give the necessary dynamics for multiplayer battles.
5) Adding a rating system that was in Shogun2TW, including naval battles. Adding the ability to search for fast sea battles.
6) Do not know how it happened, but the winner is not registered in the results of the battle, even with an icon.
7) Adding ‘avatar mode’ and customization for generals and units. Historical era in ToB is very suitable setting for customization of banners, colors and armor. This decision will allow to show more cultural features of Britainnia of that period.
8) Adding a retainers system, like it was in Shogun2 (maximum 5 retainers for generals, which give different bonuses for land or naval battles). ToB have enough historical material for interesting list of retainers.

This simple additions will bring to the multiplayer a significant amount of attractiveness. Players will spend more time than 2-3 months for this game, and they will buy new DLC-s with special units for factions and with new factions. Otherwise, the game will suffocate in the shadow of «Three Kingdoms», because singleplayer process is finite, and multiplayer is directed into infinite replayability.

With best wishes to whole Total War!

Post edited by VM_MorS#3918 on


  • PandaTheWarriorPandaTheWarrior Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 959
    I didn't heard that CA closed the shogun 2 servers. Oh wait.
    "because you know nothing of multi-player and know nothing of tactics." Hero of Freedom (Too much GoT)

    I'm Panda_Warrior on steam.
  • VM_MorS#3918VM_MorS#3918 Junior Member RussiaRegistered Users Posts: 37
    Pamina said:

    I'm Panda_Warrior on steam

    Very strong statement ))

  • Reym#7442Reym#7442 Registered Users Posts: 825

    I'm gonna answer to your first 2 points only (I don't have anything interesting to add to the other exept a I agree or why not...). Also take into account that the most multiplayer battles I did were in custom not ranked with the rule of 4 same units max and 2 berzerks max whitch of course might have contribute a lot to encourage variety/experimetentation way more than in QB and it's infantry rush.

    1. I found archers quite well balanced, they are cheap so you can still afford a good frontlane even with 4 of them and can be quite effective when shooting on unshieldied sides of units even on well armored ones. Maybe a bit more ammunitons can be nice for bow/crossbows. The javelins however are a nightmare, they are super hard to use because of there low range have very little ammo and the worst thing, at the exeption of maybe one of them, they take years to shoot so you can't use them as a "burst" kind of projectile unit.

    2. I don't think cav should be able to break any infantry that is not in shield wall by charging front. Also they currently do a fair amount of damage (kills and moral) when rear charging. However some horsemen seem to stop charging before contact when rear charging like they did when you tell them to charge front. The other problem I see with cav is that heavy cav don't seems to be really worth compare to light one. Indeed I don't remember that having one heavy cav in a cav fight gived me a solid upperhand, also light cavalery gives you a similar result when rearcharging. Don't get me wrong heavy cav is still better than light one but in term of cost effectiveness they are just outmatched by light cav.
    But is talking about what is appropriate to talk about in this thread appropriate to be talked about in this thread ?
  • Davebr0chillDavebr0chill Registered Users Posts: 2
    Wow I just found my kindred spirit. I've had the same thoughts as you but never been able to articulate as well.

    On your points

    1. One way to indirectly buff ranged units is to keep them as is, but buff dane axe units in some way, maybe give them a "shield breaker" trait.

    2. On cavalry, instead of risking overtuning cavalry and messing with the theme of Thrones of Britannia, instead increase the speed of cavalry, while also giving most if not all of them javelins. I was under the impression that most cavalry in this area would operate in this way anyways, but I have to double check and look into it some more. At the very least this makes sense thematically AND balancewise since the first instance of a cavalry charge with couched lances happened further into the middle ages, while javelins and speed give cav further utility.

    3. As for faction bonuses, I agree with your sentiment, but I would argue going further and having larger numeric bonuses.

    For the rest of your points I agree 110%

Sign In or Register to comment.