StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2006-12-02 08:15am**

* Line up the cavalry parallel to the target

Why is this necessary?

* Utilize a long straight run up toward the target

Fine.

* Prioritize stationary targets as moving targets may result in a last second turn and reform

And why the fuck should this happen? It's frakking stupid.

Good luck getting a perfect charge. It'll happen once in an entire Imperial Campaign. Maybe.

Posted: **2006-12-02 08:26am**

What I usually do is not order my cavalry to attack doubleclick somewhere behind the enemy unit. They will trample some infantry and they start fighting automaticly when they stand still anyway

Posted: **2006-12-02 09:37am**

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*

Posted: **2006-12-02 10:12am**

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*

Indeed. I lost 1/3 of a unit of Byzantine Lancers that way before I realized what had happened.

Posted: **2006-12-02 10:31am**

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.

Posted: **2006-12-02 10:55am**

Making "formed" and "unformed" charges is not a positive balance change. It just means more hassle for the players. 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.

In RTW, there was nothing cooler than seeing a unit of cataphracts charge into a unit of infantry and see people fly everywhere. Seeing as how knights are basically just cataphracts with more advanced tech and taken up a notch, I was pretty disappointed in their charge, even when it works right.

The problem, of course, with making knights as good as they should be but upping the cost is that people will just fill a stack with generals, so the size of bodyguard units should probably be reduced. I've never really liked the 'free heavy cavalry' aspect of general units, but it's been with the series since Shogun, so I suppose there's no point complaining about it. What I would really like to see is generals having no more than a half-dozen bodyguards that are attached to an existing unit, but that's as likely as snow in hell.

Posted: **2006-12-02 11:25am**

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.

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.

I don't have a problem with the power of cavalry charges per se- they really do annihilate a unit when they happen right (happens most often in Custom Battles)- it's just pulling one off is way too difficult, and as Arthur notes, the "formed" and "unformed" charge thing really results in nothing more than a great big pain in the arse.

Never mind that cavalry are way too fragile when going into melee combat against even the weakest, most ill-equipped infantry units- I lost 15 fucking Byzantine Lancers when attacking a pair of goddamn ballista units, for god's sake.

EDIT: as for general's units- in the Historical Battles we see they have foot-unit generals units, but they don't appear in the Imperial Campaign- which I think sucks. One thing I really dislike in Medieval 2 is that for some inexplicable region you have to procure "Dismounted" variants of Mounted units, whereas in the original you merely toggled the option in the deployment phase of the tactical battle scene.

The reason I bring this up is when defending (and attacking) cities, where cavalry just aren't that useful. I'd much rather have my general on the walls- it's more useful and draws one into the game more. As it is, you can't emulate Constantine XI throwing off his purple regalia and throwing himself at the Turks at the Fall of Constantinople, and that sucks. Not that such a thing will ever happen on my copy of Medieval 2. Ever.

EDIT EDIT: of course, you can emulate Theoden in The Two Towers, but that's not Medieval. It's still cool, though. Forth Eorlingas!

Posted: **2006-12-02 12:12pm**

Isn't it funny that in RTW, which models an age of infantry dominance, the cavalry was way overpowered, and in M2TW, which models an age of cavalry dominance, it's way underpowered?

Posted: **2006-12-02 12:33pm**

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*

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.

EDIT: And it was in Rome, too.

Posted: **2006-12-02 01:50pm**

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?

Posted: **2006-12-02 03:09pm**

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.

I endorse this wholeheartedly.

Stat-wise, heavy cavalry should dominate the field in any open battle. Charges should be absolutely devastating to units that aren't equipped to resist them (i.e., that have longspears and fight in tight formation). If lancers charge a unit of swordsmen, even head-on, their lances easily outreach and massacre the first rank of the infantry, after which the weight of their horses will break the formation. Cavalry in melee should be absolutely devastating to any unit caught out of tight formation. The situation in which knights ride down a bunch of crossbowmen in loose formation and then proceed to take 50% casualties in the process of wiping them out is perfectly ludicrous. That kind of exchange should happen against, say, sword-armed infantry who manage to keep their formation despite the charge. But if my heavy cavalry breaks their formation, it should hurt them really bad.

On the other hand, realistically, a unit of heavy cavalry (not light horse or mounted archers) should be prohibitively expensive in recruiting cost and unkeep. Between his charger, his armor, and his specialized weapons, and his mere cost of living, a single good quality knight easily cost as much as a dozen men-at-arms. I'm not saying that heavy cavalry should cost 10 times as much as an infantry unit, 2-3 times should be enough.

As Vympel said, separate runs of mounted and dismounted versions of the same unit is asinine. I also don't like the French and English cavalry archer units, which strike me as ridiculous. Yes, both sides employed archers who would ride horses to battle. These archers would then dismount and fight on foot.

Posted: **2006-12-02 03:40pm**

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.

Posted: **2006-12-02 05:22pm**

I got this game yesterday, had a bit of a tinker today. Its full of strange bugs, I'm going to wait till the holidays when I get some free time to play (knowing how addictive games in this series are). Hopefully CA will release a patch by then. But looks good so far.

Posted: **2006-12-02 08:34pm**

So does anyone know of any mods that you've played and would like to recommend? After I finish my British campaign, I'm going to play as the Byzantines with a larger map mod.

Posted: **2006-12-02 09:48pm**

I'll admit, I've seen speard out pavise/genoeese (same?) crossbowmen do pretty well against cavalry. Of course they're pretty well armored, all things considered. They've got swords and full shields (which, while you don't see them blocking, I'm sure the fact that they're there mean they get factored in).

Another thing I've noticed, crossbows (and maybe archers? Dunno, don't use them much) seem to like hanging out at the back of walls, rather than up front where they can shoot straight (and are closer). Seems odd to me seeing them all crowded in the back, rather than spread out, or crowded up front.

Posted: **2006-12-02 10:12pm**

Nobody else experiencing the bugs?

Posted: **2006-12-02 10:17pm**

Isana Kadeb wrote:Nobody else experiencing the bugs?

It would help if you described which bug in particular you're talking about. Plenty of bugs have already been mentioned in this thread.

Posted: **2006-12-02 10:26pm**

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.

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.

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?

It's interesting times for my first Byzantine game. I'm at war with Hungary, Venice, the Turks and Egypt.

I started the war against Hungary by taking Sofia from them (them getting there first bothered me- I wanted Sofia as a castle to protect my northern frontier). For the better part of 2 decades (I love 0.50 timescale) they haven't gotten over it, and have rejected all offers of peace. Venice, the Turks and Egypt all attacked me first.

In fact- I find that the AI will never accept a ceasefire, no matter how much money I offer them or how much it's in their interests to accept it. Annoying.

I'm taking out the Turks and reclaiming all of Asia Minor first, then I'll deal with Venice (I've already taken Iraklion on Crete from them- all Greece is in Greek hands now.)

I've converted two castles to cities (Rhodes and Nicosia) but I'm still having money problems- the Council of Nobles giving me 4 Vardariotai units everytime I took a region has eaten into my profits some what (250 florin upkeep each) but they're so valuable I can't part with them.

I also took Adana from Egypt after wiping out their Jihad. I'm going to swing North to take Caesarea and Trebizond from the Turks now- as the Jihad came/ Egypt declared war on me after I took Iconium from the Turks (and killed their Sultan).

Posted: **2006-12-02 11:13pm**

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.

Posted: **2006-12-03 02:43am**

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.

Never. They always fucking refuse. I swear, diplomacy in M2TW is just as fucking useless as it always has been.

- AI has no problem entering into trade rights and exchange of map informaiton if you've never met before. That's the only thing that works.

- If the AI comes with you to a deal and you turn it down, the AI will always reject your counter-offer, no matter how mutually beneficial.

- The AI will never agree to become your vassal. Ever.

- The AI will never accept a ceasefire, no matter what.

Posted: **2006-12-03 02:49am**

seems the AI hasn't changed too much since rome...

The units that should be devestating are crap, the AI won't play nice (and after they patched it, it became much harder to bribe folks)

Posted: **2006-12-03 02:53am**

I found this post amusing- "Medieval 2 has no bugs"

They're all features:

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?

Don't get me wrong, I Love the game, but I'll still compain about stupidity within.

Posted: **2006-12-03 03:05am**

I have once done a successful bribing, it was a france army and got two units of peasants for 7k...

Posted: **2006-12-03 03:10am**

Decue wrote:I have once done a successful bribing, it was a france army and got two units of peasants for 7k...

Well worth it, to be sure

Posted: **2006-12-03 03:30am**

I'm definitely going to do a "cheat" game with the Byzantines when I'm done. The Byzantines should have all their shit at the start of the game already. It's ridiculous that CA maintained their absurd Byzantine obsolescene cliche and yet the tech tree is identical. Of course, they were just generally lazy with the Byzantines in any event- they call them Byzantines in speeches

, 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.

It's absurd that Kataphrakts are so late in the tech tree that by the time you get them the AI will already have Knights who can dominate them in battle.

Nevermind the absurdity of Vardariotai having 1 Defence point higher than Kataphrakts- because, you know, Horse Archers with no significant armor to speak of are naturally going to have a higher defence than a fucking Kataphrakt.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Medieval 2 Battle Report & Strat Thread (Super pic hvy)