Moderator: Thanas
Why is this necessary?* Line up the cavalry parallel to the target
Fine.* Utilize a long straight run up toward the target
And why the fuck should this happen? It's frakking stupid.* Prioritize stationary targets as moving targets may result in a last second turn and reform
Indeed. I lost 1/3 of a unit of Byzantine Lancers that way before I realized what had happened.InnocentBystander wrote:Anyone notice how cavalry **love** to charge nearby groups, rather than further groups which you've ordered them to attack?
Many of my cavalry attacks on missile/artillary units go like this:
"Go attack that unit of archers, they're on their own, easy targets!"
"Yes sir, charging enemy heavy spearmen which are closer, but have no interest in attacking us! Ho!"
*rapid clicking follows, sometimes profaity too*
The response of CA-apologists (there's a faction of them with every major game franchise) would be that charges in Rome were overpowered or some such.Darth Wong wrote:CA needs to get plenty of negative feedback on deliberately nerfing the cavalry charges so much. It's pretty ridiculous when the medieval plate-armoured knight, which was pretty much the ultimate evolution of the cavalry charge, actually produces a weaker charge than Roman equites.
Have you ever noticed that if you issue an attack order to multiple cavalry units and hit "shift" immediately afterwards to highlight their intended targets, you'll find them going all over the place? The reason for this, presumably, is to prevent infantry charges from all converging on one point in the line as an aid to lazy players, but it's a shit idea.InnocentBystander wrote:Anyone notice how cavalry **love** to charge nearby groups, rather than further groups which you've ordered them to attack?
Many of my cavalry attacks on missile/artillary units go like this:
"Go attack that unit of archers, they're on their own, easy targets!"
"Yes sir, charging enemy heavy spearmen which are closer, but have no interest in attacking us! Ho!"
*rapid clicking follows, sometimes profaity too*
I endorse this wholeheartedly.Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:If they want to bring cavalry down a notch, they should make them more expensive. I haven't glanced at the specific numbers in a while, but I never got the impression that cavalry cost more than ~25% extra over comparable infantry. If they cost double or triple, people wouldn't fill their stacks with them but they could still be as good as they're supposed to be.
It would help if you described which bug in particular you're talking about. Plenty of bugs have already been mentioned in this thread.Isana Kadeb wrote:Nobody else experiencing the bugs?
Fucking A. I learned quickly that no matter how much sense it made, sending cavalry after Pavise Crossbow resulted in excessive casualties in melee, when in reality it should be an effortless slaughter.Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Part of the problem against crossbowmen, I think, comes from the fact that their melee stats are too high in addition to cavalry's being too low. I'd have to check, but I believe crossbowmen are better melee fighters than levy spearman / spear militia.
It's interesting times for my first Byzantine game. I'm at war with Hungary, Venice, the Turks and Egypt.Playing as the Byzantines is a lot of fun. But I'm only 25 turns in and I'm already in Italy (Venice decided to be a little bitch and sucker-punch me after I allied with them, so I've been slaughtering them en masse and taking their regions.
So now, I'm at a crossroads. Do I continue and take Italy? It'd be a huge campaign, I'd probably have to commit another full stack in additon to my own, plus I'd earn the ire of the entire Catholic World. On the other hand, expanding into Turkey will just piss of the Muslims. Then again, they're probably going to come a knock-knock-knocking on my door anyway. So, what should I do? Raise another army and confidently crush Italy, or turn my attentions eastward?
Never. They always fucking refuse. I swear, diplomacy in M2TW is just as fucking useless as it always has been.D.Turtle wrote:Has anyone here successfully bribed an enemy army/character/city?
I know it was way too easy and too cheap in RTW, but in M2TW it is ridiculously hard. Even with 100k and a level 5 diplomat I couldn't bribe 2 or 3 units of barbarians or rebels.
Not even thinking about bribing larger enemy armies, characters or cities.
1. Passive AI. This is a feature put into the game by the developers to make battles last longer. After RTW many fans were crying out for longer battles. What better way to make them last longer than to have the AI never attack?
2. Cohesion. This feature simulates individuals on the battlefield. Some men may decide to obey the orders, while others may decide they would much rather laugh at the idiots next to them run in and get slaughtered.
3. Cavalry Charge. This is a new mechanic to the game. CA wanted to satisfy the gamer who doesn't give a **** about the game and just wants to watch men go flying. So they gave cavalry a unbelievably high charge for them. But so it doesn't unbalance the game, the charge only works if you double right click exactly .2 seconds apart while singing the hokey pokey to a retarded midget riding a unicycle singing along to Styx. (sad part is that this one is actually true)
4. Two handed weapons. It is a well known fact that soldiers wielding a two handed weapon are heretics. This new feature allows you to watch those heretics to be sent to hell without a fight.
5. Aggressive AI. This feature increases the difficulty of the game by having all your neighbors declare war on you at once. We all know that those who complain about it just suck at playing the game.
6. Inquisitors. This feature simulates the inquisition and its affects on Europe. We all know how people were executed so often when tried for heresy, especially for their first offense. We also know how often generals and other men of high influence and power were tried for heresy...ESPECIALLY KINGS!
7. Treacherous Alliances. We all know that there was no such thing as an alliance in the middle ages. MTW2 features a new mechanism that punishes those who seek alliances by having their "allies" ambush their settlements while their guard is down. Those who need allies suck at the game anyways. If they want the AI to honor their alliances they should be playing at a lower difficulty than easy.
8. Desertions. We all know that you men will desert when they are on a crusade, fighting for a holy cause. But they will not desert whenever they are not on a crusade. This feature simulates stupidity.
9. Refusing gifts. Did someone say the trojan horse? Not all gifts should be accepted.
10. Excommunication. Even if you are defending your lands from invasion, God still hates you.
11. Reputations. Shouldn't your reputations always be bad? Let me ask this question. Would you trust yourself?
Well worth it, to be sureDecue wrote:I have once done a successful bribing, it was a france army and got two units of peasants for 7k...
, their architecture is the same as that of the Catholic factions, the skins for the infantry is largely identical (not to say it isn't a good skin) etc.
