Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Online Multiplayer Rules

  1. #1

    Default Online Multiplayer Rules

    I wanted to ask people their opinion about the rules that are typical for multiplayer games.

    The standard rules seem to be:
    - No artillery
    - No elephants
    - Max 6 of the same unit
    - Max 8 Cavalry
    - Max 2 Horse Archers (HA counts as cav too)
    - Max 2 Bezerkers

    Now I understand that the whole point of the rules is to make a level playing field and discourage cheap or unfair tactics. But I don’t agree with the rules for a couple of reasons:

    1.) They discourage certain style of play while encouraging other types. For example, with those rules it makes the most sense to pick the Romans and get yourself a praetorian army (urbans + cav). All other things being equal (skill, money, terrain etc.) that army will destroy just about anything. I only know one way of beating this army and you basically have to take out the praet cav first and then surround the infantry. You can do this with either lots of cavalry to overwhelm them, with elephants, or chariots. These rules disqualify two of those methods. I think the praetorian units have an obvious advantage for the cost so if you’re going to limit certain units, they should be limited as well.

    2.) A lot of players will stack up on archers, historically this time period was ruled by infantry and cavalry melee’s (one more than the other depending on the faction) and skirmishers, while present, typically didn’t have a defining role in battles. So if you’re going to limit cavalry and other types of units you should limit archers as well.

    3.) I don’t think anyone that breaks those rules will necessarily have an advantage. What I mean is elephants are not always a good option because they cost so much and can easily be routed with some well placed skirmishers. I’m not a big fan of artillery but I haven’t seen it make or break a battle yet and it costs a lot too. I once played with no rules where a guy picked an army of bezerkers and he got routed pretty quickly. So it makes since for people to have a variety of units anyway, in the no rules games that I’ve played no one has had an unfair advantage.

    4.) The final reason is because some factions have strengths that those rules do not allow for (ie: Carthage with the elephants, Germany with zerks, Armenia and Parthia with cavalry) which makes them not playable and takes away from the variety of the game. Also, this takes away from the historical flavor of the game.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    I never agree to those rules, well i very rarely do. I tend to do 10k no rules, this is good because you can have anything you want, but the 10k money limits the power of some factions like the romans (well slightly), it makes it more fair.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    I think you're right! The romans have an unfair advantage anyway, and they will easily crush anyone who is equal to them in battle. To restrict other factions are only foolish. This ruins the type of playing for many factions, and will also change the historical aspect, just as you said.

    Best regards, Domitius.

  4. #4
    Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    3,925

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    I like the limiting the number of same units (eliminates spamming) but the no elephants and no berzerkers rules are unfair. If you are really smart, you'll be able to counter with one type of unit: Archers. I would also eliminate the HA rule. Just use the same typ restrictions (6 of same unit) That would mean that both Armenia and Parthia could have max 12 HA's, Parthia having Persianand reguar HA's and Armenia having HA's and Archer Cataphracts.



  5. #5
    Decanus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cornwall, Uk
    Posts
    551

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by micromegas View Post
    I wanted to ask people their opinion about the rules that are typical for multiplayer games.

    The standard rules seem to be:
    - No artillery
    - No elephants
    - Max 6 of the same unit
    - Max 8 Cavalry
    - Max 2 Horse Archers (HA counts as cav too)
    - Max 2 Bezerkers

    Now I understand that the whole point of the rules is to make a level playing field and discourage cheap or unfair tactics. But I don’t agree with the rules for a couple of reasons:

    1.) They discourage certain style of play while encouraging other types. For example, with those rules it makes the most sense to pick the Romans and get yourself a praetorian army (urbans + cav). All other things being equal (skill, money, terrain etc.) that army will destroy just about anything. I only know one way of beating this army and you basically have to take out the praet cav first and then surround the infantry. You can do this with either lots of cavalry to overwhelm them, with elephants, or chariots. These rules disqualify two of those methods. I think the praetorian units have an obvious advantage for the cost so if you’re going to limit certain units, they should be limited as well.

    2.) A lot of players will stack up on archers, historically this time period was ruled by infantry and cavalry melee’s (one more than the other depending on the faction) and skirmishers, while present, typically didn’t have a defining role in battles. So if you’re going to limit cavalry and other types of units you should limit archers as well.

    3.) I don’t think anyone that breaks those rules will necessarily have an advantage. What I mean is elephants are not always a good option because they cost so much and can easily be routed with some well placed skirmishers. I’m not a big fan of artillery but I haven’t seen it make or break a battle yet and it costs a lot too. I once played with no rules where a guy picked an army of bezerkers and he got routed pretty quickly. So it makes since for people to have a variety of units anyway, in the no rules games that I’ve played no one has had an unfair advantage.

    4.) The final reason is because some factions have strengths that those rules do not allow for (ie: Carthage with the elephants, Germany with zerks, Armenia and Parthia with cavalry) which makes them not playable and takes away from the variety of the game. Also, this takes away from the historical flavor of the game.
    Sigh...

    you say rome is powerful well them rules will be applicable to 12.5k per player and also have the rule "max 8 missiles". They are CWB (clan War Belt) which was played in 2006 to great success (i hear) and it is currently being played under the name of RCS (Rome Community Shield) so the reason why you see them rules is because the host is probably practicing for that tourney.

    Your First point about how rome is top heavy that maybe true but rome struggles vs several factions (Brits, Seleucids, Armenia, Pontus, Egypt) If you don't believe me then i cba to explain why.

    Second point is as said above them rules should include max 8 foot missiles unless you play a certain clan that loves archers .

    Third point (oh and fourth), yeah Ele's and art aren't that effective sometimes but a few artillery forces people to rush which mess up alot of skirmish tactics which these rules promote. Ele's are banned as people consider that they lack skill but i have enjoyed games with max 1 ele per team which is a good fun rule as it allows carthage and even numidia to be effective yet not spam elephants. Seriously if you think carthage needs several units of elephants to win then you are wrong . The no zerkers rule i don;t care for as you can easily shoot them to death due to their lack of armour and they are also useless for anything but rushing as they are hard to control and a bit one shot. Armenia is not useless with them rules, 5 good cataphracts, 3/4 infantry, 6 archers and 2 ha is a v good all round army and is not limited with them rules. And loads of HA are annoying too, you may consider it to be accurate but it sucks as a tactic. First Horse archers in canta-circle are impossible to hit and second its a boring game when people do it (well not when i take 20 chariots it isn't).

    To sum it up nope they may limit factions to some extent but they fair up the game where CA didn't and couldn;t as MP is just a feature to write on the box not a major part of this game...

  6. #6
    Prince_of_Macedon's Avatar Πρίγκηψ της Μακεδονίας
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    2,815

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    Those rules you mentioned seem to favor the Romans (except for the NO ARTILLERY rule which favors the Noob Box players). Why make things easier for Rome?

    I play 10,000 denarii exclusively. Some recommended 12,000-15,000 but that actually makes Rome even stronger. So I stick with 10,000.

    MAX 8 CAVALRY - spamming heavy cavalry (I'm assuming this is what it's targeted against) can be beaten. For example, hoplite spam is bad news for cataphract spam. It depends on the faction though. But it can certainly be beaten. No need to make a rule against it.

    NO ELEPHANTS is a ridiculous rule. Elephants are the only advantage that Carthage has against the Romans. And it's a dubious advantage because if you lose those elephants, you've lost a huge investment (and the battle).

    NO ARTILLERY is a dumb rule too. Artillery has never been decisive in any of my 350+ online battles. I think NO ARTILLERY is a rule made for Greek players (so that they can feel safer with their boxes). But seriously, I've never seen artillery win a battle.

    MAX 2 BERSERKERS is another dumb rule. Berserkers are the only credible melee-threat from Germania (when playing against Rome), and that advantage is also very dubious. Berserkers are easy to manipulate (meaning they are easily taken down).

    MAX 2 HORSE ARCHERS is ridiculous because that would defeat the purpose of using Scythia or Parthia. And historically-speaking, these factions spammed mounted-archers. So why ruin a historically-correct setup?

    MAX 6 OF THE SAME UNIT - historically-speaking, there were many "factions" that spammed units. For example, many of the Greek City-States spammed hoplite armies. Romans spammed legionaries. Scythians spammed mounted-archers.

    These rules would make every army look very predictable.
    Last edited by Prince_of_Macedon; July 10, 2007 at 04:13 PM.
    HOW TO PLAY EMPIRE TOTAL WAR OFFLINE

    "It is a lovely thing to live with courage and to die leaving behind an everlasting renown." - ALEXANDER THE GREAT

    Watch my online-commentary battles here
    Under the Patronage of Hader

  7. #7
    Paul d's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lost in the New Real
    Posts
    5,423

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    exactly, i love parthia, and they will pretty much be toast if there are rules.

    2ha max!!! cant even make a decent army then...

    for example, a horsearcher spam:
    parthia's cavalry willl be toasted vs egypt chariots and heavy archers.


    my rules are usually no urban or praetorians, and thats all!!!

    they are the only unfair unit in the game

  8. #8

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    All those rules are crap, and I don't play in any game that uses them.

    Everybody has the same cash. If my opponent wants to waste some of his on artillary (easily destroyed) or elephants (easily panicked), why should I stop him?

  9. #9

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by unfortunate crow View Post
    All those rules are crap, and I don't play in any game that uses them.

    Everybody has the same cash. If my opponent wants to waste some of his on artillary (easily destroyed) or elephants (easily panicked), why should I stop him?
    Lol yep when i see the other player has chosen onagers or whatever, i think 'thats a waste of 1000 odd denrii'

  10. #10
    Decanus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cornwall, Uk
    Posts
    551

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul d View Post
    exactly, i love parthia, and they will pretty much be toast if there are rules.

    2ha max!!! cant even make a decent army then...

    for example, a horsearcher spam:
    parthia's cavalry willl be toasted vs egypt chariots and heavy archers.


    my rules are usually no urban or praetorians, and thats all!!!

    they are the only unfair unit in the game

    you don't need loads of HA for a good pathian army... my most used parthian army has no HA at all

  11. #11

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    All those rules are ok,i often play with the Antiquae Clan and they have the "antiquae" rules where 8same is allowed


    Busy!!!

  12. #12
    Severous's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hertfordshire, England
    Posts
    645

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    I didnt mind any particular rules...provided they were advised nice and early.

    That gives me the option of dropping out/not joining. If rules I dont like emerged late then I fell some obligation to the other players to stick in there so the battle could get underway. Not everyone feels the same. Ive seen players exit in droves when late/bad rules emerged.

    I saw a mix of rule strategies. From those designed for balanced play through to those designed to give the host a significant advantage.
    Last edited by Severous; July 12, 2007 at 01:13 PM.
    Regards
    Severous

    Did my part in a Franks BI Succession campaign:
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=118689
    Played a Mod called "End of Days" Picture based AAR is here:
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=116509
    From last year. Final turn of vh/vh Egyptian campaign
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=54262

  13. #13

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    The almost only winner is the Noob-box with the Greeks and the Romans. These rules seems to want evryone but the romans to loose, especially HA factions. Every army can be beat if you only have a well mixed army and a tactical mind.

    Ps. This is my hundred post! Ds.

    Best regards, Domitius.

  14. #14
    Roshak's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Check your attic
    Posts
    1,082

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    The rules were made and kept mainly for balance concerns. Unfortunately as the patches changed the game dramatically the rules semi-failed to reflect it.

    The Archers is what kills me, there is no way in hell a few peasant archers can take down Urban cohorts, it makes no sense. Note that's with full upgrades.

    If you want my views on the other rules go to my guide sticked above in this forum.

    If you limit the missiles it would be a better game, for the upgrades is too easy to not make them worth the cost considering you can easily get 190 archers with 12 attack for roughly 400. Plus I don't like missiles

    Call me a Spartan why don't ya.

    Arrogance is the Leading Cause of Defeat.

    New to the Multiplayer or just Total War games? Check out Roshak's Guide

  15. #15

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    Hi Roshak,

    I read your guide and you seem to agree with the rules that I mentioned.

    To re-iterate my point, the rules actually make the game less fair because they favour the Romans so much.

    I think the game is self regulating if you play at $10k or $12.5k, that way the costs of certain units outweigh the benefits. And spamming units is a big disadvantage in my opinion.

    Some people play games with a ridiculous amount of money ($100k) and I think those are the games that need rules but I'm not very interested in those.

    The only problem I have come across with no rules is with people that will play me just to try out ridiculous things, like one guy picked an army of wardogs.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by micromegas View Post
    I wanted to ask people their opinion about the rules that are typical for multiplayer games.

    Speaking as someone who's spent many an hour in MTW, MTW VI, RTW BI and MTWII lobbies I would say the rules are more geared towards balancing things for tourney play.

    Otherwise it's up to you. But just note many of the people who play in clans prefer the rules so chances most games will have them.

    On another note when I'm on I'll host games with either no rules or weird rules, rules that break the monotony of the multiplayer. And once you get a good group of people who like your particular rules or lack there of, you will find multiplayer a lot more fun.

    If you want to be competitive join a clan otherwise ask the people who join your game if they want rules. Probably the most common one of all is no artillery (NO ART) but I've had a lot of fun just play with people who wanted to play something as ridiculous as ALL ART

  17. #17
    Muagan_ra's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Derry, N.Ireland
    Posts
    1,232

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    Rules are a good idea.

    The whole reason why I don't play multi-player anymore is that people really, really rip the balls out of the game; entire armies of Spartan Hoplites, or Urban Cohorts with silver chevrons is just absurd. The infants who I've played against exploit the game so much, and I've never enjoyed playing online because of this.

    The maximum of six units of the same kind could be a good idea, but I think different army-types (Roman, Greek, Barbarian, Eastern) should have various "ratios" of unit types that gives a flexible but realistic scope for building armies. You could play to your army's strengths without being overpowered.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Muagan_ra View Post
    Rules are a good idea.

    The whole reason why I don't play multi-player anymore is that people really, really rip the balls out of the game; entire armies of Spartan Hoplites, or Urban Cohorts with silver chevrons is just absurd. The infants who I've played against exploit the game so much, and I've never enjoyed playing online because of this.

    The maximum of six units of the same kind could be a good idea, but I think different army-types (Roman, Greek, Barbarian, Eastern) should have various "ratios" of unit types that gives a flexible but realistic scope for building armies. You could play to your army's strengths without being overpowered.
    come to MTWII my friend

  19. #19

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    Tough question to answer because i understand why people would want to play with rules, it provides the illusion of a level playing field where in fact none exists. The whole setup of Vanilla is so intrinsically unbalanced it can't really be fixed by implementing a few generic rules.
    Its a real shame CA didnt bother to balance the game properly because it could have been a great multiplayer game instead of a hideous parody of classical warfare.
    If you want balanced battles don't bother with rules, download chivalry or play one of the older games.

  20. #20
    Roshak's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Check your attic
    Posts
    1,082

    Default Re: Online Multiplayer Rules

    It really comes down to cavalry and missiles. Granted Rome is THE most used faction because of their good archers and good cavalry they can be beaten by factions with good missiles and cavalry of their own mainly Parthia and Armenia to name a few.

    Yes the rules do take out some out some of the best units but these are rules most commonly used by clans and tourneys. I played with these rules plenty of times and the above points really do make a difference.

    Arrogance is the Leading Cause of Defeat.

    New to the Multiplayer or just Total War games? Check out Roshak's Guide

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •