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

Dear Criminal Assembly

ACApexPredatorACApexPredator Posts: 11Registered Users
You have ruined rome 2's multiplayer by turning it into a blob festival exactly like Warhammer.

By limiting the length at which units can be lengthened you have made a horrendous mistake to multiplayer. As a customer I want the freedom to have my units deployed as thin as I want not this garbage where you limit the length at which I can deploy my units. As a player that only plays Multiplayer i can say that these new changes have made multiplayer a depressing experience. I don't want to see giant blobs of units slogging it out turning multiplayer into a boring grind festival.


The core game mechanics that you have affected are as follows

1. Unit Charges

The Meta of the game has changed into the favor of units with high armor and high melee attack (Rome).
Barbarian factions that rely on charges to win combats are now weak and useless. This is because only the front ranks of charging infantry units receive the charge bonus. The units at the back are blocked from receiving their charge bonus from the models at the front. Cycle Charging is not viable anymore because once again the dense formations that you have limited us to playing blocks charging units from the rear from receiving charge bonuses.


2. Missiles

Missiles always hit the center of units. With this new update and these denser formations missiles hit far more units. This once again affects the balance of the game. Factions like Suebi have no armor and are absolutely ruined by this change. Artillery is far more devastating because of this change and a pain to stop.


3. Speed of the battle

Battles are not fast paced anymore. Prior to this change battles were far faster paced because battlefields were far bagger. Units were stretched out making the battlefield bigger this in turn caused players to have decent micromanagement, managing multiple units at once caused. Now it is just a blob mess no micromanagement skill required. Dead boring to say the least.



I do not want to play Multiplayer at its current stage. Its dull boring and requires no skill whatsoever
«1

Comments

  • saberslash117saberslash117 Posts: 223Registered Users
    is this a troll? Since when has spaghetti line been a good thing?
  • ACApexPredatorACApexPredator Posts: 11Registered Users
    edited August 2018

    is this a troll? Since when has spaghetti line been a good thing?

    No I am not a troll and to answer your question read what I actually wrote. Spaghetti lines were done for numerous reasons that were beneficial and made Multiplayer a better experience. By putting a cap on how wide we can deploy our units it negatively effects multiplayer so that it is a horrible experience. Rome shouldn't turn into a zero micromanagement game like warhammer.
  • alexanderkotsch@gmx.de[email protected] Posts: 1Registered Users
    edited August 2018
    I dont get why all those Warhammer players **** talk Spaghetti lines all the time just because it is not "historically accurate".
    The whole Warhammer universe is not one bloody finger historically accurate, and still they keep going to moan about it.

    Since I ve seen the multiplayer being a lot more entertaining, challenging and fun with spaghetti lines, and since CA made big mistakes anyways with the "Historical Accuracy", I think there is not one bloody reason to patch spaghetti lines out of the game.
    Post edited by dge1 on
  • McJohnsonnMcJohnsonn Posts: 3Registered Users
    Although the OP puts it rather bluntly, I wholeheartedly agree. "Spaghetti-lines" were one of the largest things that drove micro-intensive actions and stragegies, thus making Rome 2 a far, FAR more interesting game from a mechanical and competitive point of view than the Warhammer series.

    I think it's sad that CA listens to the crybabies, and without a word (afaik) just tosses it out, completely changing core mechanics of the game years after release. I have spent quite a decent chunk of money on this game, with all it's DLCs and feel like CA just shoves a part of it's most dedicated playerbase to the side wihtout a second thought.

    I know the multiplayer scene isnt the biggest source of revenue, so nothing will probably happen. I guess the loud, angry people won again.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
    I have a lot of issues with Rome 2; from the bugs to some outright weird decisions such as the transport fleet ranges. However, the removal of the arcadey, mindless and overpowered 'feature' (or more accurately; a massive flaw of the game) that were spaghetti lines is something that is most definitely a step in the right direction.

    To address the OPs points:-
    1. This was not an era where charges determined the course of battles; battles were drawn out melees where the fatigue and morale of soldiers played a far greater role than charges or rapid movement. If anything, the removal of spaghetti lines has changed the meta into a far more balanced one where barbarian (especially Gaulic and Germanic) factions can not simply dominate based on their high charge and lack of formed attack. Cycle charges also don't make sense as that only really became a thing with heavily armoured knights in the high medieval ages (and even there were difficult to pull off and still needed to be backed up in order to be successful). If anything I'd say that CA didn't go far enough and that formation attack still needs buffs to go along with it in order to represent the advantages of formations over undisciplined rushes. If anything, the dominance of Rome in the meta is a good thing as the meta begins to resemble the actual reality of the era being represented.
    2. The use of spaghetti lines to counter missiles may best be described as a cheesy tactic, or more accurately, abusing a the limitations of the game. The reduction to spaghetti lines has allowed for limitations of factions in things like armour to become more prominent and something that actually needs to be considered instead of an easily ignored statistic that doesn't have the effect it should because most missiles aren't hitting their targets. Put bluntly; the removal of this cheap way of underpowering missiles is a good thing as it allows them to have the effect that they should always have had.
    3. Of all the effects that the change has brought, the slowing down of battles was perhaps the best. This is not Starcraft or Warcraft, where fast micro may cover up for a lack of planning and tactics. The slowing down of battles allows important considerations like the keeping of reserves and the placement of units to become more important that mindless clicking. No amount of micro should save bad tactics; and the slowing down of battles helps in that while also bringing the game closer to the reality of the era.

    To be fair, I do have an issue with the current fix in that it only serves as a band aid and doesn't quite represent what actually happened when thin lines were faced off against thicker formation and therefore doesn't allow for the use of tactics such as oblique orders. However, at least the spaghetti line abuse is gone from the game and that is a good thing.

    I would agree with the OP that perhaps the ability to deploy lines as thin as desired should be brought back. However, this should only be done when the game can actually represent the effects of formation fighting and rank depth in battle, as without this spaghetti lines simply become an overpowered and cheap mechanic that encourages micro at the cost of tactics and overpowers factions that rely on charges at the cost of factions that relied on formations and endurance (which were actually what won battles in this era).

    As for Warhammer; it's already more micro intensive and fast than any Total War should be, but at least it's somewhat understandable there due to the presence of gunpowder weaponry and monsters. However, the same fast pace of battles for a game like Rome 2 is a flaw that needed to have been corrected much sooner.
  • ACApexPredatorACApexPredator Posts: 11Registered Users
    edited August 2018
    cool_lad said:

    I have a lot of issues with Rome 2; from the bugs to some outright weird decisions such as the transport fleet ranges. However, the removal of the arcadey, mindless and overpowered 'feature' (or more accurately; a massive flaw of the game) that were spaghetti lines is something that is most definitely a step in the right direction.

    To address the OPs points:-
    1. This was not an era where charges determined the course of battles; battles were drawn out melees where the fatigue and morale of soldiers played a far greater role than charges or rapid movement. If anything, the removal of spaghetti lines has changed the meta into a far more balanced one where barbarian (especially Gaulic and Germanic) factions can not simply dominate based on their high charge and lack of formed attack. Cycle charges also don't make sense as that only really became a thing with heavily armoured knights in the high medieval ages (and even there were difficult to pull off and still needed to be backed up in order to be successful). If anything I'd say that CA didn't go far enough and that formation attack still needs buffs to go along with it in order to represent the advantages of formations over undisciplined rushes. If anything, the dominance of Rome in the meta is a good thing as the meta begins to resemble the actual reality of the era being represented.
    2. The use of spaghetti lines to counter missiles may best be described as a cheesy tactic, or more accurately, abusing a the limitations of the game. The reduction to spaghetti lines has allowed for limitations of factions in things like armour to become more prominent and something that actually needs to be considered instead of an easily ignored statistic that doesn't have the effect it should because most missiles aren't hitting their targets. Put bluntly; the removal of this cheap way of underpowering missiles is a good thing as it allows them to have the effect that they should always have had.
    3. Of all the effects that the change has brought, the slowing down of battles was perhaps the best. This is not Starcraft or Warcraft, where fast micro may cover up for a lack of planning and tactics. The slowing down of battles allows important considerations like the keeping of reserves and the placement of units to become more important that mindless clicking. No amount of micro should save bad tactics; and the slowing down of battles helps in that while also bringing the game closer to the reality of the era.

    To be fair, I do have an issue with the current fix in that it only serves as a band aid and doesn't quite represent what actually happened when thin lines were faced off against thicker formation and therefore doesn't allow for the use of tactics such as oblique orders. However, at least the spaghetti line abuse is gone from the game and that is a good thing.

    I would agree with the OP that perhaps the ability to deploy lines as thin as desired should be brought back. However, this should only be done when the game can actually represent the effects of formation fighting and rank depth in battle, as without this spaghetti lines simply become an overpowered and cheap mechanic that encourages micro at the cost of tactics and overpowers factions that rely on charges at the cost of factions that relied on formations and endurance (which were actually what won battles in this era).

    As for Warhammer; it's already more micro intensive and fast than any Total War should be, but at least it's somewhat understandable there due to the presence of gunpowder weaponry and monsters. However, the same fast pace of battles for a game like Rome 2 is a flaw that needed to have been corrected much sooner.

    It never was "overpowered" playing spaghetti lines at all. Your more prone to taking damage from cavalry charges as well as special units such as elephants and chariots to name but one consequence of playing thin lines.

    Your first argument is based on realism of the time but it is the mechanics of the game that have been affected, which is what is being discussed here. After more testing I would like to add more problems that this change has created as well as addressing some existing points in further depth.


    1.The balance of Factions

    The balance of factions is the most integral part of Multiplayer. The diversity created from the strengths and weakness of each individual faction is what made Multiplayer Great. The balance was good prior to this release most factions had equal chances of beating each other, if you planned correctly. I have already said it was mostly barbarian factions hit hard with this patch and with them being half of the faction roster it makes no sense whatsoever to imbalance the factions so. As a player who bought every Dlc I want there to be close to equal chances of every faction being able to beat another.


    Unit mass

    Factions that have units with light mass have zero effect in multiplayer. Prior to this change units with lighter mass could be used to cover ground quickly allowing you to engage on one part of the battlefield while pulling back on the other etc. Units with Heavy mass are all that matter now. By limiting the length of units you limit the length of the field. I don't need to be worried about lighter mass units outflanking me because they can't cover enough ground to be viable. My dense heavy mass units can tank all charges cavalry included, which is utter nonsense.



    2. Missiles

    The reasons why spaghetti lines were used was to mitigate the damage that missiles caused yes. However it is absolutely absurd if 1/3 to 1/2 of a unit can be decimated by missiles before it even enters combat. I am talking about factions like the Odryssian Kingdom and Suebi.


    You haven't addressed the strength of Artillery now in the current meta either. However i am sure that historically the answer to being hit by missiles and artillery was to extend the lines and not bunch up together.

    3. Micromanagement

    Let me first address what Micromanagement actually is. It is not mindless clicking, any ape can do that. It is the movement of units in reaction to your opponents movements as well as the rate at which you can move your units to factor the outcome of the battle. Why should the game favor players with no micro? Any player can take factions like Athens and cruise to a easy win in this current meta. Historically generals had to think on their feet, so there is no reason to slow down the pace of battles by making them into very intense slog festivals


    Charges

    The current game is at a stage where you don't need reserves and careful consideration that point is utterly irrelevant . Look at Rome for example. I can sit and eat charges because I know that no charge can break my line. Unless every unit model within the charging unit receives his charge bonus then they have no way of influencing a fight. If I have to show videos and tests of how broken the charge mechanic is now then I am more then willing to do it.
  • ACDarkPrinceACDarkPrince Posts: 2Registered Users
    I hope CA is actually having a look on this, Rome 2 is not the same as it was , and unfortuantely the feeling of playing and enjoying Rome 2 has passed away, leaving space for the feeling "Why am I doing this?".

    As @cool_lad mentioned Warhammer is a very fast game, but does Rome 2 need to be a speed game as well?
    It indeed is already faster than total wars like empire, napoleon and even shogun. Rome 2 is not Warhammer... and as other guys explained, there are already a lot of mistakes regarding the "historical accuracy".

    Spaghetti lines were one of the fewer important not-accurate-things, but since a lot of people didnt know how to deal with them in a correct way a lot of them just started moaning, and this is not the way a game should be played.

    The Restriction of 4 ranks has made certain factions unplayable such as Suebi, OK and barbs in general like @ACApexPredator pointed out.

    So to summarize it, the patch has changed nothing but simplifying the game structute, the need of micromanagement and moving, which was one of the leading skill-marks in this game, now just taken away for "historical accuracy".

    If Warhammer players got to understand the correct usage of those hundreds of spells ( a thing that I personally didnt achieve so far ) , it shouldnt be too difficult for them to understand the usage of Spaghetti-lines, and I gotta say it is certainly not impossible to take the win over a spaghetti-line army, but it is almost impossible to win if that nation you decided to play just simply needs to go spaghetti and is otherwise in a very very bad position.

    CA please think about that....because this is not Rome 2 anymore, it feels like a Total war for babies...with basically no skill required to take the victory.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users

    cool_lad said:

    I have a lot of issues with Rome 2; from the bugs to some outright weird decisions such as the transport fleet ranges. However, the removal of the arcadey, mindless and overpowered 'feature' (or more accurately; a massive flaw of the game) that were spaghetti lines is something that is most definitely a step in the right direction.

    To address the OPs points:-
    1. This was not an era where charges determined the course of battles; battles were drawn out melees where the fatigue and morale of soldiers played a far greater role than charges or rapid movement. If anything, the removal of spaghetti lines has changed the meta into a far more balanced one where barbarian (especially Gaulic and Germanic) factions can not simply dominate based on their high charge and lack of formed attack. Cycle charges also don't make sense as that only really became a thing with heavily armoured knights in the high medieval ages (and even there were difficult to pull off and still needed to be backed up in order to be successful). If anything I'd say that CA didn't go far enough and that formation attack still needs buffs to go along with it in order to represent the advantages of formations over undisciplined rushes. If anything, the dominance of Rome in the meta is a good thing as the meta begins to resemble the actual reality of the era being represented.
    2. The use of spaghetti lines to counter missiles may best be described as a cheesy tactic, or more accurately, abusing a the limitations of the game. The reduction to spaghetti lines has allowed for limitations of factions in things like armour to become more prominent and something that actually needs to be considered instead of an easily ignored statistic that doesn't have the effect it should because most missiles aren't hitting their targets. Put bluntly; the removal of this cheap way of underpowering missiles is a good thing as it allows them to have the effect that they should always have had.
    3. Of all the effects that the change has brought, the slowing down of battles was perhaps the best. This is not Starcraft or Warcraft, where fast micro may cover up for a lack of planning and tactics. The slowing down of battles allows important considerations like the keeping of reserves and the placement of units to become more important that mindless clicking. No amount of micro should save bad tactics; and the slowing down of battles helps in that while also bringing the game closer to the reality of the era.

    To be fair, I do have an issue with the current fix in that it only serves as a band aid and doesn't quite represent what actually happened when thin lines were faced off against thicker formation and therefore doesn't allow for the use of tactics such as oblique orders. However, at least the spaghetti line abuse is gone from the game and that is a good thing.

    I would agree with the OP that perhaps the ability to deploy lines as thin as desired should be brought back. However, this should only be done when the game can actually represent the effects of formation fighting and rank depth in battle, as without this spaghetti lines simply become an overpowered and cheap mechanic that encourages micro at the cost of tactics and overpowers factions that rely on charges at the cost of factions that relied on formations and endurance (which were actually what won battles in this era).

    As for Warhammer; it's already more micro intensive and fast than any Total War should be, but at least it's somewhat understandable there due to the presence of gunpowder weaponry and monsters. However, the same fast pace of battles for a game like Rome 2 is a flaw that needed to have been corrected much sooner.

    It never was "overpowered" playing spaghetti lines at all. Your more prone to taking damage from cavalry charges as well as special units such as elephants and chariots to name but one consequence of playing thin lines.

    Your first argument is based on realism of the time but it is the mechanics of the game that have been affected, which is what is being discussed here. After more testing I would like to add more problems that this change has created as well as addressing some existing points in further depth.


    1.The balance of Factions

    The balance of factions is the most integral part of Multiplayer. The diversity created from the strengths and weakness of each individual faction is what made Multiplayer Great. The balance was good prior to this release most factions had equal chances of beating each other, if you planned correctly. I have already said it was mostly barbarian factions hit hard with this patch and with them being half of the faction roster it makes no sense whatsoever to imbalance the factions so. As a player who bought every Dlc I want there to be close to equal chances of every faction being able to beat another.


    Unit mass

    Factions that have units with light mass have zero effect in multiplayer. Prior to this change units with lighter mass could be used to cover ground quickly allowing you to engage on one part of the battlefield while pulling back on the other etc. Units with Heavy mass are all that matter now. By limiting the length of units you limit the length of the field. I don't need to be worried about lighter mass units outflanking me because they can't cover enough ground to be viable. My dense heavy mass units can tank all charges cavalry included, which is utter nonsense.



    2. Missiles

    The reasons why spaghetti lines were used was to mitigate the damage that missiles caused yes. However it is absolutely absurd if 1/3 to 1/2 of a unit can be decimated by missiles before it even enters combat. I am talking about factions like the Odryssian Kingdom and Suebi.


    You haven't addressed the strength of Artillery now in the current meta either. However i am sure that historically the answer to being hit by missiles and artillery was to extend the lines and not bunch up together.

    3. Micromanagement

    Let me first address what Micromanagement actually is. It is not mindless clicking, any ape can do that. It is the movement of units in reaction to your opponents movements as well as the rate at which you can move your units to factor the outcome of the battle. Why should the game favor players with no micro? Any player can take factions like Athens and cruise to a easy win in this current meta. Historically generals had to think on their feet, so there is no reason to slow down the pace of battles by making them into very intense slog festivals


    Charges

    The current game is at a stage where you don't need reserves and careful consideration that point is utterly irrelevant . Look at Rome for example. I can sit and eat charges because I know that no charge can break my line. Unless every unit model within the charging unit receives his charge bonus then they have no way of influencing a fight. If I have to show videos and tests of how broken the charge mechanic is now then I am more then willing to do it.
    1. The balance of the game isn't just from multiplayer. A far greater concern is the campaign and how these factions actually fought in that time period; hence the Suebi's lack of armour for example. There is a conscious attempt to give rosters that attempt to reflect the actual armies of the time instead of an arbitrary notion of balance. This means that certain factions will have weakness and will be harder perhaps to play than others. Not all armies were equally good; which is one of the reasons that Rome built an empire while others found themselves being overrun and forced to resort to unconventional tactics.

    2. Light infantry aren't meant to be frontline combatants. Their strength comes from their ability to relocate quickly and maintain their stamina where heavier infantry would become tired. If anything, this has remained unaffected or even become stronger as fights last longer and don't stretch across absurdly large parts of the map. A light unit can more easily move from one part of the battle to the other and more easily get off flanking or even rear charges.

    3. It's perfectly acceptable for unarmoured and unshielded units being charged straight into enemy ranged fire to take horrendous losses. Bring some basic spears to run ahead of your main units instead of sending in unarmoured infantry into the exact thing you should be keeping them away from.

    Also, absolutely no one in history responded to concentrated missile fire by putting their men in thin lines. Contrary to what you believe, the answer to missile fire was in fact to bunch up into formations (such as the testudo or the shield wall). In fact, thin formations in battles were pretty much a death sentence as they were quickly broken due to the loss of men, allowing the enemy to push through and destroy the divided unit, not to mention the lack of reinforcements within the fighting units themselves to replace tired fighters on the front lines.

    In fact, with one very specific exception (the battle of marathon, where heavy Greek hoplites organised into thin lines took on tired and disorganised Persian light infantry as they disembarked from their ships), thin lines were never used because of just how ineffective they were in a fight.

    4. Micromanagement even as you've defined it, should only be somewhat important in a game about tactics. Half the battle is not what you do during the fight, but what you do before; movements during battle are really only valuable when in furtherance of an already prepared tactic instead of mere reactions to what the enemy is doing. Historically, victorious generals won the battle well before the lines were joined, and while movements in battle were a thing that happened, they were quite limited in their scope. As Sun Tzu quite succinctly put it; the great warriors of old won first and then went to war, whereas those who were defeated went to war first and then sought victory.

    In a game about battle tactics, micromanagement should most certainly not be a dominant factor. More important should be proper scouting, foresight and preparation, and no amount of micro should trump those things. Sun Tzu goes so far as to point out that if you're always responding to the enemy, then you've already lost.

    5. Simply put, frontal charges against prepared lines using light infantry aren't some magical spell that makes the defender turn and run. They are not meant to break the enemy, only give some initial impetus to the attacker, however, as the battle of watling street made amply clear, charging precursor armed heavy infantry with light infantry of your own can be a very bad idea. Heck, one of the most common uses of the pilum was to break enemy charges and render them ineffective by embedding in the enemy's shield and bending, or by just outright killing and maiming the charging enemy and thereby breaking the momentum of the enemy charge.

    Charges are a mechanic, one which can be both useful and useless depending when and where they are deployed. Charging isn't some sort of panacea that makes all attacks better; use them at the wrong time or the wrong place and all you're doing is handing the enemy a victory.

    Most certainly there are units that are very good in the charge, but even these will need to either be backed up with units capable of holding the line in order to be successful. Even cavalry in this era (before the saddle was discovered) had to either have extremely good protection or exceptional backup in order to cycle charge. In fact, shock cavalry, even at the height of it's power (the high middle ages) couldn't crush prepared units of infantry and often got slaughtered unless it picked the right time to charge (the Battle of the Golden Spurs comes to mind, as well as the campaigns of the Romans against Parthia after the defeat of Crassus, even Tours; history is littered with the corpses of generals who thought that a good charge could stand as a substitute for tactics and strategy).
  • ACApexPredatorACApexPredator Posts: 11Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    cool_lad said:

    I have a lot of issues with Rome 2; from the bugs to some outright weird decisions such as the transport fleet ranges. However, the removal of the arcadey, mindless and overpowered 'feature' (or more accurately; a massive flaw of the game) that were spaghetti lines is something that is most definitely a step in the right direction.

    To address the OPs points:-
    1. This was not an era where charges determined the course of battles; battles were drawn out melees where the fatigue and morale of soldiers played a far greater role than charges or rapid movement. If anything, the removal of spaghetti lines has changed the meta into a far more balanced one where barbarian (especially Gaulic and Germanic) factions can not simply dominate based on their high charge and lack of formed attack. Cycle charges also don't make sense as that only really became a thing with heavily armoured knights in the high medieval ages (and even there were difficult to pull off and still needed to be backed up in order to be successful). If anything I'd say that CA didn't go far enough and that formation attack still needs buffs to go along with it in order to represent the advantages of formations over undisciplined rushes. If anything, the dominance of Rome in the meta is a good thing as the meta begins to resemble the actual reality of the era being represented.
    2. The use of spaghetti lines to counter missiles may best be described as a cheesy tactic, or more accurately, abusing a the limitations of the game. The reduction to spaghetti lines has allowed for limitations of factions in things like armour to become more prominent and something that actually needs to be considered instead of an easily ignored statistic that doesn't have the effect it should because most missiles aren't hitting their targets. Put bluntly; the removal of this cheap way of underpowering missiles is a good thing as it allows them to have the effect that they should always have had.
    3. Of all the effects that the change has brought, the slowing down of battles was perhaps the best. This is not Starcraft or Warcraft, where fast micro may cover up for a lack of planning and tactics. The slowing down of battles allows important considerations like the keeping of reserves and the placement of units to become more important that mindless clicking. No amount of micro should save bad tactics; and the slowing down of battles helps in that while also bringing the game closer to the reality of the era.

    To be fair, I do have an issue with the current fix in that it only serves as a band aid and doesn't quite represent what actually happened when thin lines were faced off against thicker formation and therefore doesn't allow for the use of tactics such as oblique orders. However, at least the spaghetti line abuse is gone from the game and that is a good thing.

    I would agree with the OP that perhaps the ability to deploy lines as thin as desired should be brought back. However, this should only be done when the game can actually represent the effects of formation fighting and rank depth in battle, as without this spaghetti lines simply become an overpowered and cheap mechanic that encourages micro at the cost of tactics and overpowers factions that rely on charges at the cost of factions that relied on formations and endurance (which were actually what won battles in this era).

    As for Warhammer; it's already more micro intensive and fast than any Total War should be, but at least it's somewhat understandable there due to the presence of gunpowder weaponry and monsters. However, the same fast pace of battles for a game like Rome 2 is a flaw that needed to have been corrected much sooner.

    It never was "overpowered" playing spaghetti lines at all. Your more prone to taking damage from cavalry charges as well as special units such as elephants and chariots to name but one consequence of playing thin lines.

    Your first argument is based on realism of the time but it is the mechanics of the game that have been affected, which is what is being discussed here. After more testing I would like to add more problems that this change has created as well as addressing some existing points in further depth.


    1.The balance of Factions

    The balance of factions is the most integral part of Multiplayer. The diversity created from the strengths and weakness of each individual faction is what made Multiplayer Great. The balance was good prior to this release most factions had equal chances of beating each other, if you planned correctly. I have already said it was mostly barbarian factions hit hard with this patch and with them being half of the faction roster it makes no sense whatsoever to imbalance the factions so. As a player who bought every Dlc I want there to be close to equal chances of every faction being able to beat another.


    Unit mass

    Factions that have units with light mass have zero effect in multiplayer. Prior to this change units with lighter mass could be used to cover ground quickly allowing you to engage on one part of the battlefield while pulling back on the other etc. Units with Heavy mass are all that matter now. By limiting the length of units you limit the length of the field. I don't need to be worried about lighter mass units outflanking me because they can't cover enough ground to be viable. My dense heavy mass units can tank all charges cavalry included, which is utter nonsense.



    2. Missiles

    The reasons why spaghetti lines were used was to mitigate the damage that missiles caused yes. However it is absolutely absurd if 1/3 to 1/2 of a unit can be decimated by missiles before it even enters combat. I am talking about factions like the Odryssian Kingdom and Suebi.


    You haven't addressed the strength of Artillery now in the current meta either. However i am sure that historically the answer to being hit by missiles and artillery was to extend the lines and not bunch up together.

    3. Micromanagement

    Let me first address what Micromanagement actually is. It is not mindless clicking, any ape can do that. It is the movement of units in reaction to your opponents movements as well as the rate at which you can move your units to factor the outcome of the battle. Why should the game favor players with no micro? Any player can take factions like Athens and cruise to a easy win in this current meta. Historically generals had to think on their feet, so there is no reason to slow down the pace of battles by making them into very intense slog festivals


    Charges

    The current game is at a stage where you don't need reserves and careful consideration that point is utterly irrelevant . Look at Rome for example. I can sit and eat charges because I know that no charge can break my line. Unless every unit model within the charging unit receives his charge bonus then they have no way of influencing a fight. If I have to show videos and tests of how broken the charge mechanic is now then I am more then willing to do it.
    1. The balance of the game isn't just from multiplayer. A far greater concern is the campaign and how these factions actually fought in that time period; hence the Suebi's lack of armour for example. There is a conscious attempt to give rosters that attempt to reflect the actual armies of the time instead of an arbitrary notion of balance. This means that certain factions will have weakness and will be harder perhaps to play than others. Not all armies were equally good; which is one of the reasons that Rome built an empire while others found themselves being overrun and forced to resort to unconventional tactics.

    2. Light infantry aren't meant to be frontline combatants. Their strength comes from their ability to relocate quickly and maintain their stamina where heavier infantry would become tired. If anything, this has remained unaffected or even become stronger as fights last longer and don't stretch across absurdly large parts of the map. A light unit can more easily move from one part of the battle to the other and more easily get off flanking or even rear charges.

    3. It's perfectly acceptable for unarmoured and unshielded units being charged straight into enemy ranged fire to take horrendous losses. Bring some basic spears to run ahead of your main units instead of sending in unarmoured infantry into the exact thing you should be keeping them away from.

    Also, absolutely no one in history responded to concentrated missile fire by putting their men in thin lines. Contrary to what you believe, the answer to missile fire was in fact to bunch up into formations (such as the testudo or the shield wall). In fact, thin formations in battles were pretty much a death sentence as they were quickly broken due to the loss of men, allowing the enemy to push through and destroy the divided unit, not to mention the lack of reinforcements within the fighting units themselves to replace tired fighters on the front lines.

    In fact, with one very specific exception (the battle of marathon, where heavy Greek hoplites organised into thin lines took on tired and disorganised Persian light infantry as they disembarked from their ships), thin lines were never used because of just how ineffective they were in a fight.

    4. Micromanagement even as you've defined it, should only be somewhat important in a game about tactics. Half the battle is not what you do during the fight, but what you do before; movements during battle are really only valuable when in furtherance of an already prepared tactic instead of mere reactions to what the enemy is doing. Historically, victorious generals won the battle well before the lines were joined, and while movements in battle were a thing that happened, they were quite limited in their scope. As Sun Tzu quite succinctly put it; the great warriors of old won first and then went to war, whereas those who were defeated went to war first and then sought victory.

    In a game about battle tactics, micromanagement should most certainly not be a dominant factor. More important should be proper scouting, foresight and preparation, and no amount of micro should trump those things. Sun Tzu goes so far as to point out that if you're always responding to the enemy, then you've already lost.

    5. Simply put, frontal charges against prepared lines using light infantry aren't some magical spell that makes the defender turn and run. They are not meant to break the enemy, only give some initial impetus to the attacker, however, as the battle of watling street made amply clear, charging precursor armed heavy infantry with light infantry of your own can be a very bad idea. Heck, one of the most common uses of the pilum was to break enemy charges and render them ineffective by embedding in the enemy's shield and bending, or by just outright killing and maiming the charging enemy and thereby breaking the momentum of the enemy charge.

    Charges are a mechanic, one which can be both useful and useless depending when and where they are deployed. Charging isn't some sort of panacea that makes all attacks better; use them at the wrong time or the wrong place and all you're doing is handing the enemy a victory.

    Most certainly there are units that are very good in the charge, but even these will need to either be backed up with units capable of holding the line in order to be successful. Even cavalry in this era (before the saddle was discovered) had to either have extremely good protection or exceptional backup in order to cycle charge. In fact, shock cavalry, even at the height of it's power (the high middle ages) couldn't crush prepared units of infantry and often got slaughtered unless it picked the right time to charge (the Battle of the Golden Spurs comes to mind, as well as the campaigns of the Romans against Parthia after the defeat of Crassus, even Tours; history is littered with the corpses of generals who thought that a good charge could stand as a substitute for tactics and strategy).
    Your argument is based on history not the game mechanics that are affected here. Campaign is irrelevant here this is about multiplayer and why it needs to be rebalanced. Make arguments when you can base them on game mechanics not history.

    I never mentioned light infantry was meant to be used as a front line unit. Like I said light units cannot cover the same amount of ground as they could in the past. A smaller field of battle means that the fighting is condensed it is not pick and choose where you start your engagements like it used to be

    Have you honestly done any Multiplayer testing at all? Half of the Suebi and Odryssian Kingdom rosters are unarmoured you don't have the luxury of sending in spears to soak up missile fire.

    Yes I am very sure a testudo would stop artillery fire. More so it is a unique skill that only 1 faction in GC has. Barbarians should make a testudo to stop artillery and missile fire as well?

    Micro

    You haven't mentioned anything game mechanic related. What are you going to do before a multiplayer battle other then select your army think about what units your opponent could potentially bring and counter them.

    Tactics?

    What tactics are you rambling on about. Foresight, scouting and preparation. You use those to a extent but micromanagement in a multiplayer battle is far more key. I really doubt you have more multiplayer hours then campaign. If you did you would know that it is far easier to counter your opponent then initiate movements.

    Charges?

    Oh my lord. This is all history based nothing to do with mechanics at all. This is a example of when Rome 2 was balanced when a unit gets the charge bonus it does well. With the current changes the game is unplayable.





    You can see why the charge is crucial to certain factions in this

  • ACDarkPrinceACDarkPrince Posts: 2Registered Users
    Well @cool_lad all of your arguments look a bit as if you would have never really experienced the feeling of the old rome 2, or you were just unable to counter/play against very thin lines effectively, which leads me ( im sry ) to the suspicion that you are a noob at this game.

    1.Your point regarding Micromanagement is nonsense in that way, that Micro is always and in every battle necessary and it was a mark of skill to have all your sometimes up to 20 units under control, to get the right charges, deny charges, kite effectively etc.
    And just by the way how do you want to provide effective "scouting,preparation" if you dont have any micromanagement?

    How do you want to move your army effectively without micromanagement?

    Your example of Sun Tzu is basically useless, because why would you just sit there and wait for your enemy to do something, this is a thing noobs were always doing in Rome 2, and they will even more now with this patch.

    Dont just bloody camp and wait, take action and try to do moves yourself, and agian to provide effective moves like flank overload, or all out attack you NEED MICROMANAGEMENT. Otherwise winning is not possible.


    2. I just want to point out something. Did you say that cav charges in rome 2 are op??? They probably are now, but
    were balanced in the past.

    Shock cavalry in Rome 2 is either very vulnerable to missiles or is really slow, all the costeffective mid tier priced shock cavs like Tessalian Cavalry and Persian cavalry have a very low amount of armour, and the very expensive shockcavs like Royal Cataphracts or Hellenic Cataphracts are very very slow, so they both have their ways to be countered, and using them effectively is only provided by good MICROMANAGEMENT.


    There are units with a very good charge, most elite swords have a charge bonus over 30, and our specialists are the thracians, certainly the Thracian Nobles and the Thracian warriors. Since none of their melee units got precursors players always thought they would be so dead against cav heavy nations, but CA balanced this out quite effectively, and gave the thracian melee units a 15 bonus vs large on their weapons.

    Unfortunately because of this "so good and historical update", you made charge factions almost unplayable, in it is bloody wrong justifying this by a few battles in the past.

    Rome 2 is never gonna be 100% historical, and in my opinion and as @ACApexPredator mentioned, this patch has made Rome 2 boring and slow, just for "historical accuracy"

    I recommend you to watch videos of Maximus Decimus Meridius explaining game mechanics and all the other stuff, that really helps you to understand the game , because from my point of view you didnt really play Rome 2 multiplayer.
  • morrmorr Posts: 1Registered Users
    Removing spaghetti lines, is not a problem in itself. The problem comes from the fact that instead of fixing the mechanics that made spaghetti lines so meta, they choose to just cap the lines to minimum 4. This choice is very understandable as it is by far the more easy solution.

    Now the big issue is that the change was made without any testing in terms of multiplayer. The unit and factions stats that where balanced in a spaghetti environment, are now totally messed up. I would not mind this fix, if only they did a minimum amount of testing, and changed the unit stat accordingly. That clearly is not the case.

    Also the argument "multiplayer will be unbalanced but at least historically accurate" is false. How in the world is it historically accurate that Arverni uses scorpions against Rome? And that the main part of their troops are composed of missiles and cavalry because the infantry they have access to is now ****? How historicaly accurate is it to spam chariots, since the thick formation make it harder for javelin to be thrown at them? That is not only not historical, but totaly ridiculous.

    And thats where we are going.

  • McJohnsonnMcJohnsonn Posts: 3Registered Users
    edited August 2018
    @cool_lad

    Why we're not going to convince each other.

    cool_lad said:


    1. The balance of the game isn't just from multiplayer. A far greater concern is the campaign and how these factions actually fought in that time period;

    Yes but no. Please don't throw the opinions and concerns of an entire group out of the window just because you don't engage with content the same way.
    People engage in videogames for different reasons. A theory from Jon Radoff says gamers take pleasure from four different categories:
    1. Immersion
    2. Coöperation
    3. Achievement
    4. Competition
    These things aren't fixed, as in: you're not going to be only an "Achiever" or only enjoy "Competition". However, different people do enjoy games focussed on some category more than others. Everyone enjoys a bit of each category, but in general people focus on roughly two categories.

    Campaign in Rome 2 focusses more on Achievement and Immersion, whilst the multiplayer community focusses more on Achievement and Competition. We engage with the game in a different way. Neither is better than the other. It is just differerent.

    The problem I have with this patch is that for the sake of the engagement of one group, the engagement of the other is ruined. Competition only works on an even playing field. It only feels good to win for people who engage in Competition if they feel like it was them doing the winning. They were harder, faster, stronger, smarter than their opponent. If the game does the winning for them, it's just no fun. So when you say:
    cool_lad said:


    This means that certain factions will have weakness and will be harder perhaps to play than others. Not all armies were equally good; which is one of the reasons that Rome built an empire while others found themselves being overrun and forced to resort to unconventional tactics.

    This means Competition is less fun.
    For us, the idea of commanding an army of sword/spear/bow-wielding dudes is enough Immersion to play the game. Now just point us at a foe to beat. And it has to be a human. Because that's how it works. Competition is tribal.

    The good things about Spaghetti Lines (For Competition-types)

    1. It allows for different execution of strategies and balances them out.
      There are different flavours of factions in Rome 2. Some factions are good at melee, charge-reliant infantry, others are good at shock cavalry, again others are good in a long, drawn out melee, while others favour horse archers, etc.
      Each of these flavours naturally prefer some strategies: Horse archers want to kite, charge-reliant infantry wants to deploy in a wide army formation, with only one or two lines of infantry, to envelop the enemy and get the charge-bonus on every unit, whilst the slow sluggers want to engage in a small area, deny charges and slug it out.

      The thing Spaghetti lines offered to you was a choice:
      You could deploy in a wide army formation, or you could deploy small.

      Deploying wide means that you can envelop your enemy, but it also means that you can push the enemy across the whole map, preventing them from getting in your rear with horse- or regular skirmishers. This sounds amazing, but it also has its downsides: because you deployed wide, if the opponent jumps one of your flanks (a so called "flank overload") with cavalry and/or faster infantry, the other wing of your army are going to be slower to join the fight, giving your opponent a temporary numerical advantage, which may (probably) cost you the battle.

      Deploying small is a more defensive formation, which gives you better resistance to chariots and elephants, because you have more men in reserve as well as against a frontal cavalry attack, however you are more prone to being surrounded.
    2. They are more micro-intensive.
      Another thing Spaghetti Lines made easier was cycle-charging and swapping out units.
      Rome 2 is (was) a very charge-oriented game. Whether you are playing with barbarian infantry, hoplite factions or in a cavalry fight, you are always trying to "win the charge". It is just the nature of the game and how the charge-bonus works.
      In higher level multiplayer this would mean there would be a game of "Feinting": charging with one unit, prompting the opponent to charge as well, then pulling your unit back, swapping it for a meatshield unit and then charge for real once the opponent was tied down, because turning your back and running away whilst engaged even with a meatshield unit would cause losses.
      Some units had a high enough charge-bonus to warrant cyclecharging, which involved one unit holding an enemy in place, whilst a second unit charged, extracted from combat and charged again, in a cycle. This worked because with thin (2 ranks deep) lines, the second unit could get their models fairly easily through the models of the first. This meant that extracting a unit from a fight was fairly easy, as long as the enemy was tied down and the charge bonus would actually partially be applied.
      More things to do means more things to master to defeat opponents, which is exactly what Achievement/Competition types want.
    3. They provide defense against missiles.
      I admit, this is the weakest of the pros, but it has still turned out to be a necessity. With Spaghetti Lines it is still possible to get 150+ kills with skirmishers, but you actually have to use them well: keep them save, be mindfull of your targets, reposition.

    What this removal of Spaghetti Lines means.

    1. Less micro-opportunity.
      What I liked about battles in Rome 2 is that there was always something to do, get better at, be faster at. Now with unit swapping and cycle-charging being so less effective, I find I have moments where I have nothing to do: all my units are engaged, skirmishers are firing at the right target, abilities are on cooldown. Before, this would be the moment where I'd pull my high-charge units back for another cycle. Now it's Boredom.
    2. Less Balance.
      Less Balance amongst factions, less balance amongst strategies, fewer mindgames.

      Kite (with foot skirmishers or horse) was already a valid strategy, with it's own niche: strong versus slow factions with medium-to-weak cavalry, weak to mobile factions that could afford to deploy wide. Now it's the strongest strategy out there and the one counter to it has been removed.

      Balance between factions used to work because a lot of them had clearly defined strengths and weaknesses, which you could tailor your strategy to, playing with or playing against. Some factions could employ different armies for different strategies, adding an additional layer of Competition, where you have to make an educated guess about which strategy your opponent is persuing. Removing viable strategies means removing either strengths and weaknesses, which are both bad and removes that extra layer of mindgames.

    My suggested solution

    Please, for the love of God acknowledge that there are different people with different kinds of engagement who play your game, CA!

    Luckily for you, the divide is actually rather easy:
    • People who are in it for the Immersion most prominently play Campaign.
    • People who are in it for the Competition most prominently play Multiplayer.
    So why don't you balance those accordingly?
    Allow people to use and many or as few ranks deep in Multiplayer and Quick Battle as they want.
    That's it.
    That's all that's needed.

    Sure, there is going to be some cross-over. I too like to play Campaign occasionaly. But as long as you make the divide clear, people will accept it, because they'll recognize they're in a different environment. So slightly different rules may apply. It makes sense, right? The added benefit is that this still allows people who /want/ to use deeper formations in multiplayer still can and could also make it clear in lobby that theirs is for deep-ranks play.

    Please.
    Post edited by McJohnsonn on
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,548Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Let's all avoid getting personal in the point counter-point discussion.
    "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
  • BobiTWBobiTW Posts: 9Registered Users
    The change to the formations was unnecessary and it may change the game but it definitely doesn't ruin it. For the first time I am having so much fun with pike builds (like 4 foot companions). We just have to adapt to the changes. Barbarians are not useless, just different to use, especially Vs pike builds which is good, because barbs+Rome sword spams were one of the worst things in Rome 2. Problem with it is that the game is even slower and more "noob-friendly" from before. The fights are just way too slow for even average skilled players.

    About kite: Yes, skirmishers are far better but no it isn't unstoppable. Especially with Sparta you can beat it so easily.

    So I think that we have to either adapt, get used to it and stick with it until Three Kingdoms, or just play Paradox, or the far better tw Games Like Shogun 2.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Posts: 2,388Registered Users
    The Spaghetti Lines were god awful and I'm delighted to see them gone. The community has been asking for exactly that for literally years.
  • ACApexPredatorACApexPredator Posts: 11Registered Users

    The Spaghetti Lines were god awful and I'm delighted to see them gone. The community has been asking for exactly that for literally years.

    It was optional to play spaghetti lines. Those of the community who wanted it gone have no idea why it was used in the first place. Then it became "overpowered" and not "historically accurate"
  • ACApexPredatorACApexPredator Posts: 11Registered Users
    Possible Solutions?

    Attila had a accuracy mechanic. Where missile fire wasn't always on target and would completely miss at times. It would help stop lightly armoured units from being completely decimated before they can reach combat, making multiplayer more balanced.

    Charges are something that have to be reworked. It was one of the reasons why spaghetti lines were played. Far to many units need charges to affect the outcomes of their battles and with the current patch it, just isn't there.


    Speed of battle and level of micromanagement required are honestly the worst changes this patch has brought.

    Why not split the multiplayer community so that those that want historical accuracy over a balanced game can play on a setting where unit length is limited. Make a option where those who want it, can play on a setting where there are no limitations on how wide a unit can be used.

    Adding a Avatar Conquest system like in shogun would also be a major improvement
  • BobiTWBobiTW Posts: 9Registered Users

    Possible Solutions?

    Attila had a accuracy mechanic. Where missile fire wasn't always on target and would completely miss at times. It would help stop lightly armoured units from being completely decimated before they can reach combat, making multiplayer more balanced.

    Charges are something that have to be reworked. It was one of the reasons why spaghetti lines were played. Far to many units need charges to affect the outcomes of their battles and with the current patch it, just isn't there.


    Speed of battle and level of micromanagement required are honestly the worst changes this patch has brought.

    Why not split the multiplayer community so that those that want historical accuracy over a balanced game can play on a setting where unit length is limited. Make a option where those who want it, can play on a setting where there are no limitations on how wide a unit can be used.

    Adding a Avatar Conquest system like in shogun would also be a major improvement

    Too much work for too little gain. With removal of spaghetti most of the community is happy while few are annoyed.And tbh most tw players are awful in micromanaging so this is another good addition for them. Competitive community is just way too small for CA to care.
  • ACApexPredatorACApexPredator Posts: 11Registered Users
    edited August 2018
    Of course but it shows the true face of CA. They listen to the majority of the community who cry that spaghetti is awful and terrible but they have no real argument other then it is historically inaccurate. Its disgusting that the opinions of those that actually understand the game mechanics and those who put far more hours into Multiplayer are pushed aside by those that have no understanding of anything multiplayer related. CA actively kills its Competitive community and it is absolutely putrid.



    Anonymous anti spaghetti line


    "I really like that CA still cares about rome 2 it is phenomenal game you gave us new dlc and political overhaul but multiplayer need tweaks too now im talking about line stretching and how it affect combat efficiency of units for those who dont know in rome 2 strecthed formation always win against square formation or just less stretched formtion this can be done with same units but even with weaker so weaker unit can defeat stronger one just because of more stretched formation but in reality tighter square or formation atleast 5 ranks deep is always better for exampe when 3 ranks deep and 5 ranks deep formation collide center of 3 ranks deep formation going to be stomped by denser formation after formation is broken rest of unit going to be decimated so in reality its opposite scenario this totaly breaks immersion and changing my illusion of playing simulation of ancient warfare into ridiculous spaghetti fest in which more cost effective inantry going to win it also take out army formation variety into just spaghetti lines it is almost sure that more skilled player going to loose to less skilled if he tries historical aproach in multiplayer battle but this also applies to singleplayer where you can do that same (cheat) to ai wich wont make spaghetti lines and letting you to destroy their stronger units with cheap ones its shame that game with such noble personality is just cheap spaghetti fest"



    I have no idea what to say to be honest. If that sort of logic makes you change a balanced game into a broken experience based on the reviews of those who have no idea of mechanics................It speaks volumes about what sort of developer you are.
    Post edited by ACApexPredator on
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Posts: 2,388Registered Users
    Couldn't you just learn to play multiplayer without spaghetti lines?
  • ACApexPredatorACApexPredator Posts: 11Registered Users
    I have no intention of playing multiplayer with how faecal it currently is. CA values historical accuracy over balance which is also why campaign is also historically accurate,with the amount of female generals.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
    Referring to just the spaghetti lines; the OP really fails to make a coherent argument. Are you arguing that Spaghetti lines were what balanced the game, because that's really not the case, or are you arguing that spaghetti lines were actually used in reality, because that too is wrong.

    What this reads like is the OP complaining that an imbalanced flaw that they loved using has been removed, and suddenly they've found themselves fighting without the 'feature' that overpowered their favoured high charge, low durability units.

    And no; barbarian infantry was by no means the most cost effective of the lot. But the use of spaghetti lines allowed them to become excessively overpowered, which is a major reason that they were removed.

    Better tactics still win out, if anything, the gulf between the effectiveness of good tactics and bad ones has been widened; all that's changed is that an abusive "mechanic" that was exploited for cheap wins has been removed, forcing those that abused it to suddenly fight on even terms and realise that they actually need to use tactics in the game instead of abusing the game's flaws.
  • ACApexPredatorACApexPredator Posts: 11Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    Referring to just the spaghetti lines; the OP really fails to make a coherent argument. Are you arguing that Spaghetti lines were what balanced the game, because that's really not the case, or are you arguing that spaghetti lines were actually used in reality, because that too is wrong.

    What this reads like is the OP complaining that an imbalanced flaw that they loved using has been removed, and suddenly they've found themselves fighting without the 'feature' that overpowered their favoured high charge, low durability units.

    And no; barbarian infantry was by no means the most cost effective of the lot. But the use of spaghetti lines allowed them to become excessively overpowered, which is a major reason that they were removed.

    Better tactics still win out, if anything, the gulf between the effectiveness of good tactics and bad ones has been widened; all that's changed is that an abusive "mechanic" that was exploited for cheap wins has been removed, forcing those that abused it to suddenly fight on even terms and realise that they actually need to use tactics in the game instead of abusing the game's flaws.

    Spaghetti lines are what balanced the game. You can deny it all you want but it's simple fact that spaghetti balanced the game. It's more lack of acknowledgement that is the problem here.Barbarians were not "excessively overpowered" like you think they are because of spaghetti lines. Every faction had a equal chance of beating another faction prior to this patch. Thus you have achieved a balance for multiplayer. This patch heavily advantages certain factions and heavily disadvantaged factions thus the game is now imbalanced.


    Better tactics haha. What better tactics are you talking about if I may so enquire? There is no more flank overloading, no more power rushes, no tri parte the list goes on and on. The fact will always remain that spaghetti was the enabler to all of this. You call it a cheap tactic but like I have already said it came with as many consequences as benefits. I feel its more that the upset of its usage. didn't know these weaknesses thus it was labelled "overpowered".




    Why should certain factions be far stronger then others just because of history. The whole total War Saga is based on a what if scenario. Any faction should be able to win against another. The removal of spaghetti has hit charge reliant and missile prone factions far to hard as I have repeated numerous times.

    Here is the video that shows the missile mechanic in work.

    It would be nice if CA looked into the problem instead of ignoring it.
  • McJohnsonnMcJohnsonn Posts: 3Registered Users

    Couldn't you just learn to play multiplayer without spaghetti lines?

    As I explained in my previous post: sure, we can. It's just inherently less enjoyable because we have fewer strategies available to us, the game is much more imbalanced now and there is less to do for us in a battle.
  • HelvetianHelvetian Junior Member Posts: 2Registered Users
    Ill have to respond to this shortly to much go in atm so little time, but ahh ssrly Safado man your a funny one. and I will point out why. Btw I wouldn't use outdated Maximus for showcasing your points. he hasn't been around for the last 4-6 patchs and he would prolly heartily disagree with you. We can all say that that CA should have just fixed this issue by not removing Spaghetti lines so much as nerfing them and making them more tactically situational. ill follow up but anybody reading this chat shuld know that most multi and the best multi players have been gone a lot longer then this guy has even been in clan. lets say hes not wrong coming from where hes at atm... a micro chasm in which most competitive clans and people have left well before he had the chance to get In to multi.

    Spaghetti lines: atm we in multi think people who don't use Spaghetti lines are noobs.

    The issue is so many great multi players have left just because of imbalance spaghetti lines brings.


    R2: in the last 2 years and 6 patchs the players left have gotten in to a very specific way to play that at this point is abusing the mechanics to win ie charging through the back of your own troops as a viable tactic repeatedly or to use PT as a tactic to overwhelm those not prepared for it. using Spaghetti to across the board to gain advantage in line width map coverage and basically making missiles only semi effective for the price. and as ulterior tactic pulling through multiple lines of spaghettied infantry to disrupt so high charge barbs can wrap it all up in thin lines.

    When im not working a lot I will be more then to happy to post a full response to this very twisted and altogether only partly accurate discussion about whats wrong with R2 ( and maybe the multi community still hanging around).

    keep this convo moving though its a decent laugh and maybe we'll get somewhere like eventually posting a big fix list for CA on R2. as they have listened In Tob to the community to some degree, enough people sign on to fixing certain things they may not ignore it like in the past.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Posts: 2,388Registered Users

    I have no intention of playing multiplayer with how faecal it currently is. CA values historical accuracy over balance which is also why campaign is also historically accurate,with the amount of female generals.

    Well, Spaghetti Lines are gone and it's likely they're never going to return, so it's all kind of a moot point now. No point in any of us getting worked up about it and getting into this-vs-that, tit-for-tat discussions now.

    Cheerio, lads.
  • ACApexPredatorACApexPredator Posts: 11Registered Users
    @Helvetian

    Maximus may have outdated videos but those mechanics are still relevant because they haven't really changed. Whether or not he agrees or disagrees with me is something only he can say. I am unsure if you are referring to me or Sofado in some of your points,but i was there during the golden days of multi.

    It is hard to say what exactly made the multiplayer greats leave but the current game is even more imbalanced then before.

    Yes Spaghetti had negatives like those you have mentioned but imo the positives were far more then the negatives. Without the usage of charging your troops into the back of troops you have that are already engaged then there is to much of a imbalance in factions.

    Map coverage made battles far bigger and better with the allowance of more tactics and it actually makes unit mass have a far more relevant purpose.

    I would be curious to know which parts of the discussion you find only partly accurate.

    It would be nice to establish a list of things that CA could look into in the future
  • BobiTWBobiTW Posts: 9Registered Users
    Problem with current version of Rome II is that formations no longer work.
    Shield wall, Hoplites phalanx etc are all bugging even without formation attack, which is making hoplites next to useless against sword rushes (guys on the flanks are trying to go in the center and the unit just gets surrounded/flanked, kinda like when you activate the formation with formation attack on before the patch)
  • sir_moan_a_lotsir_moan_a_lot Posts: 8Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    I have a lot of issues with Rome 2; from the bugs to some outright weird decisions such as the transport fleet ranges. However, the removal of the arcadey, mindless and overpowered 'feature' (or more accurately; a massive flaw of the game) that were spaghetti lines is something that is most definitely a step in the right direction.

    To address the OPs points:-
    1. This was not an era where charges determined the course of battles; battles were drawn out melees where the fatigue and morale of soldiers played a far greater role than charges or rapid movement. If anything, the removal of spaghetti lines has changed the meta into a far more balanced one where barbarian (especially Gaulic and Germanic) factions can not simply dominate based on their high charge and lack of formed attack. Cycle charges also don't make sense as that only really became a thing with heavily armoured knights in the high medieval ages (and even there were difficult to pull off and still needed to be backed up in order to be successful). If anything I'd say that CA didn't go far enough and that formation attack still needs buffs to go along with it in order to represent the advantages of formations over undisciplined rushes. If anything, the dominance of Rome in the meta is a good thing as the meta begins to resemble the actual reality of the era being represented.
    2. The use of spaghetti lines to counter missiles may best be described as a cheesy tactic, or more accurately, abusing a the limitations of the game. The reduction to spaghetti lines has allowed for limitations of factions in things like armour to become more prominent and something that actually needs to be considered instead of an easily ignored statistic that doesn't have the effect it should because most missiles aren't hitting their targets. Put bluntly; the removal of this cheap way of underpowering missiles is a good thing as it allows them to have the effect that they should always have had.
    3. Of all the effects that the change has brought, the slowing down of battles was perhaps the best. This is not Starcraft or Warcraft, where fast micro may cover up for a lack of planning and tactics. The slowing down of battles allows important considerations like the keeping of reserves and the placement of units to become more important that mindless clicking. No amount of micro should save bad tactics; and the slowing down of battles helps in that while also bringing the game closer to the reality of the era.

    To be fair, I do have an issue with the current fix in that it only serves as a band aid and doesn't quite represent what actually happened when thin lines were faced off against thicker formation and therefore doesn't allow for the use of tactics such as oblique orders. However, at least the spaghetti line abuse is gone from the game and that is a good thing.

    I would agree with the OP that perhaps the ability to deploy lines as thin as desired should be brought back. However, this should only be done when the game can actually represent the effects of formation fighting and rank depth in battle, as without this spaghetti lines simply become an overpowered and cheap mechanic that encourages micro at the cost of tactics and overpowers factions that rely on charges at the cost of factions that relied on formations and endurance (which were actually what won battles in this era).

    As for Warhammer; it's already more micro intensive and fast than any Total War should be, but at least it's somewhat understandable there due to the presence of gunpowder weaponry and monsters. However, the same fast pace of battles for a game like Rome 2 is a flaw that needed to have been corrected much sooner.

    Superb points, CA! TAKE HEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • sir_moan_a_lotsir_moan_a_lot Posts: 8Registered Users
    missile fire should be changed from targeting the center in a circular pattern to targeting the whole line, giving a more oval area of effect on the unit, the thinner the unit the more elongated the area of effect should be,HOWEVER spaghetti lines should NOT be removed as this is limiting players decisions, actions and ideas!

    CA! FIX THE MECHANICS AND PHYSICS INSTEAD OF COMING UP WITH LAZY ASS SHORT SIGHTED ''FIXES'',

    Also rome 1 had it right as far as light armored and barbarian units are concerned, they should not suffer as much of a drawback in speed and acceleration in wood land, swamps, snow, river beds, as heavy armies like rome, and they should also get combat bonuses in woodland/snow etc. etc. CA, by making barbarian factions infantry RELIANT ON CHARGES TO WIN, means barbarians are better off fighting in the OPEN( HAHAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH a complete turn around of history!!)
This discussion has been closed.