Grassy Flatland

[RTW Fan]

IMO, the biggest flaw in multiplayer is the fact that the only battle map with any degree of unqualified fairness is the grassy flatland map. Unfortunately, the flatland favours heavy cavalry and archers, making heavy infantry for the most part obsolete and most light infantry at best cannon fodder.

The problem with hill maps is that there is no objective and thus comes the wicked hill camp.

IMO therefore, to make hill maps as interesting as they deserve to be, and to be able to use a whole lot of units that are otherwise useless, one needs to create objectives.

[Seagurt]

Agree with you. Absolutely. That's why I prefer to play on the maps with small forest and without hills. I can recommend a map with this coordinates:

custom_location Iberian Forest
{
location 37 65
image data/menu/grass1.tga
sett_locked no
summer no
}

You can add it to file: custom_locations

This map gives real chances to Dacia and Thrace ))

[caesar_37th]

Agree with you. Absolutely. That's why I prefer to play on the maps with small forest and without hills. I can recommend a map with this coordinates:

custom_location Iberian Forest
{
location 37 65
image data/menu/grass1.tga
sett_locked no
summer no
}

You can add it to file: custom_locations

This map gives real chances to Dacia and Thrace ))

Dacia is already good if you can skirmish really well and your opponent doesnt take chaz. Thrace never has a chance really unless your facing numidia or gaul. Grassy flats is good and cav is very good though i would quit complaining about cav since mideival 2 was even more cav favorable. Syrian flats is also a very fair map and it takes cavs stamina away quicker. Forrests are also annoying since you know that some guys is gonna hide as many units as he can and missiles dont do very well if you fire them at something in a forest.
Tbh i dont see why you guys care soo much about hill camping. It gives someone such an easy advantage cause they took away all their initiative. Plus i dont like the idea of objective since wtf would rtw have to do with taking a flag. then you would be complaining cuz some guy boxes up on the flag and simply lets you kill him while he racks up the points. having no objective means that someone cant camp because he knows that everyone will bombard him for 15 minutes until his spartans are routing.

[Seagurt]

Ave, Caesar ) If you PM me your email, I can send to you some interesting replays (Dacia vs chaz, Thrace vs all).
I dont want to argue with you (i am not the topicstarter) but I can tell you this IMHO:
1) Cavalry never was the main power in the ancient warfare. I don't want to explain why. It is a historical fact. But in RTW cavalry is overpowered (а simple proof of this fact is limitation of Cav in CWB/TWPL rules). This can be adjusted with mods (in RTR size of Cav uinits is reduced), rules (limitation of number of Cav units in an army) and maps (small forest gives penalties to Cav and bonuses to some Inf).
2) Another plus of forests is increasing of chances of barbarians vs falanx and romans. This improves game balance.
3) In reality, ancient warlords didn't knew exactly the number of enemy troops and its location. Forests can add this thing to the game.
4) I don't like big forests with giant trees ))) But small forests are perfect.
5) Peltasts (Velites etc) were the mandatory part of ancient armies. But they are almost not used in the MP.. I think that forests and limited usage of Eles (1 max) can give chances to Peltasts ))

[caesar_37th]

Ave, Caesar ) If you PM me your email, I can send to you some interesting replays (Dacia vs chaz, Thrace vs all).
I dont want to argue with you (i am not the topicstarter) but I can tell you this IMHO:
1) Cavalry never was the main power in the ancient warfare. I don't want to explain why. It is a historical fact. But in RTW cavalry is overpowered (а simple proof of this fact is limitation of Cav in CWB/TWPL rules). This can be adjusted with mods (in RTR size of Cav uinits is reduced), rules (limitation of number of Cav units in an army) and maps (small forest gives penalties to Cav and bonuses to some Inf).
2) Another plus of forests is increasing of chances of barbarians vs falanx and romans. This improves game balance.
3) In reality, ancient warlords didn't knew exactly the number of enemy troops and its location. Forests can add this thing to the game.
4) I don't like big forests with giant trees ))) But small forests are perfect.
5) Peltasts (Velites etc) were the mandatory part of ancient armies. But they are almost not used in the MP.. I think that forests and limited usage of Eles (1 max) can give chances to Peltasts ))

ok first id like to say that cav has always been decisive in history.
Of course alexander and attila conquered so much because of their infantry. After that genghis kahn took over the world with his cavalry. Sure the romans didnt like cavalry but look what happened when they went up against cavalry heavy opponents such as parthia. FAIL.
Also balance is not and issue since its already ed up anyways and adding forrests gives me the idea that n00bs will simply camp spartans or armored hoplite in there for the missile bonus. And annother thing, barbarians are designed to use their missile troops to a maximum effect so they dont get crushed. therefore adding forrests takes away from their ability to use cav to skrimish since cav blow in the woods. Therefore i think grassy flats is the fairest map single fairest map there is and adding forrests and what not would require a change in the rules. And sure cav is the best in the game but then again mano a mano that is expected since youve got a guy with a 12 foot spike bearing down on you. Also using cav requires more micro than inf since they move quickly and they need a charge bonus otherwise they will be slaughtered. Also other than catas cav really isnt that great in melee and if it wasnt for the charge bonus they would be useless other than for speed assults on archers.

[RTW Fan]

ok first id like to say that cav has always been decisive in history.
Of course alexander and attila conquered so much because of their infantry. After that genghis kahn took over the world with his cavalry. Sure the romans didnt like cavalry but look what happened when they went up against cavalry heavy opponents such as parthia. FAIL.
Also balance is not and issue since its already ed up anyways and adding forrests gives me the idea that n00bs will simply camp spartans or armored hoplite in there for the missile bonus. And annother thing, barbarians are designed to use their missile troops to a maximum effect so they dont get crushed. therefore adding forrests takes away from their ability to use cav to skrimish since cav blow in the woods. Therefore i think grassy flats is the fairest map single fairest map there is and adding forrests and what not would require a change in the rules. And sure cav is the best in the game but then again mano a mano that is expected since youve got a guy with a 12 foot spike bearing down on you. Also using cav requires more micro than inf since they move quickly and they need a charge bonus otherwise they will be slaughtered. Also other than catas cav really isnt that great in melee and if it wasnt for the charge bonus they would be useless other than for speed assults on archers.

Cavalry only played a supporting role for Alexander. The Romans flogged the Parthians many times, as well as dealed adequately with cata. Carrhae was an exception and that is because they marched on flatland to try to avoid the main Parthian army.

My prob with grassy flatland is not the lack of fairness, it is the landscape which favours cav and archer.

[Seagurt]

ok first id like to say that cav has always been decisive in history.

Ok. I think this is obviously that man on a horse has advantages against man on the feet. But in the ancient period good horses were very very expensive and even rare animals )) I am not talking about nomadic peoples now. But of course if an ancient warlord had had 1000000000000 denarii and can choose from RTW troop roster (with infinity horses) then... lol

Also balance is not and issue since its already ed up anyways ..... i think grassy flats is the fairest map single fairest map

Pardon? Don't you think that "balance" means fair game? So if "balance is not an issue" for you then why do you want to play on the "fairest" map? And why the rules exist then?

And annother thing, barbarians are designed to use their missile troops to a maximum effect so they dont get crushed. therefore adding forrests takes away from their ability to use cav to skrimish since cav blow in the woods.

Should I give link to the post with Faction rating in cwb? Barbarians are very weak in cwb. Btw forest do not influence at skirmishing ability.

And sure cav is the best in the game but then again mano a mano that is expected since youve got a guy with a 12 foot spike bearing down on you.

Of course you are right. But what about factions without phalanx?

Also using cav requires more micro than inf since they move quickly and they need a charge bonus otherwise they will be slaughtered. Also other than catas cav really isnt that great in melee and if it wasnt for the charge bonus they would be useless other than for speed assults on archers.

Agree with you. Historical roles of cavalry in ancient armies were: 1) combat reconnaissance 2) wearing down the enemy with skirmishing 3)"speed assault on the archers" and other psiloi 4) pursuit of the retreating enemy. That's all, it is called supporting role. But in RTW, Cavalry (Catas & Chaz especially) can be the main power of an army..

[caesar_37th]

Should I give link to the post with Faction rating in cwb? Barbarians are very weak in cwb. Btw forest do not influence at skirmishing ability.


Agree with you. Historical roles of cavalry in ancient armies were: 1) combat reconnaissance 2) wearing down the enemy with skirmishing 3)"speed assault on the archers" and other psiloi 4) pursuit of the retreating enemy. That's all, it is called supporting role. But in RTW, Cavalry (Catas & Chaz especially) can be the main power of an army..

Ok i know about the whole cwb ranking and yes trees do effect skirmishing cuz i can send my archers in there and guess who will win. believe me alexamder would not have won without his companions after all who broke through to almost capture Darius? that would be the cavalry. moving on, the rich always were on horseback and sure they chased enemy skirmishers but what about hannibal's cav at cannae? Most of the people who beat the romans were a very heavy cav army. Ok the parthians only won because it was in a flat desert but guess what the romans never counquered them. Then attilla went on his rampage and he was barely stopped at chalons. so id have to say cav was always decisive in battle except the Romans didnt use it for that.

[RTW Fan]

believe me alexamder would not have won without his companions after all who broke through to almost capture Darius? that would be the cavalry. .

Yes but he also would not have won without his infantry. The bulk of his army was infantry.

moving on, the rich always were on horseback and sure they chased enemy skirmishers but what about hannibal's cav at cannae? Most of the people who beat the romans were a very heavy cav army. Ok the parthians only won because it was in a flat desert but guess what the romans never counquered them. .

Cannae was won by infantry, the cav just sealed the victory and made it complete. The Roman blunders had to do with how they dealt with Hannibal's infantry. Cav would of been no match for Roman infantry on its own.

Ahh... Trajan sacked the Parthian capital. The fact that Parthia was not absorbed into the empire was due to political concerns. There always seems to be a great myth about Parthian military skill though. If Augustus wanted to conquer Parthia in 30 a.d., he could of in a couple of years. He had about 70 legions in Syria. Lucullus very easily dealt with Armenian cataphracts in the years before Carrhae and had destroyed the Armenian empire at birth at Tigranocerta. Parthians were beaten by Ventidius very easily.

Then attilla went on his rampage and he was barely stopped at chalons. so id have to say cav was always decisive in battle except the Romans didnt use it for that.

Being decisive is not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is being dominant.

[Seagurt]

Ok i know about the whole cwb ranking and yes trees do effect skirmishing cuz i can send my archers in there and guess who will win. believe me alexamder would not have won without his companions after all who broke through to almost capture Darius? that would be the cavalry. moving on, the rich always were on horseback and sure they chased enemy skirmishers but what about hannibal's cav at cannae? Most of the people who beat the romans were a very heavy cav army. Ok the parthians only won because it was in a flat desert but guess what the romans never counquered them. Then attilla went on his rampage and he was barely stopped at chalons. so id have to say cav was always decisive in battle except the Romans didnt use it for that.

Ok. I had already agreed with you. Man on the horse has a lot of advantages. But I told you that cavalry was not very numerous in ancient times. And most of the historic battles took place not on the flatlands.. (btw all your examples Cannae, Gaugamela, Carrhae were on the flatlands )) And if you want, here are some statistics: battle of Gaugamela - 37000 phalangist and 2000-2500 Companions... Cav/Inf ratio 1:15-1:18.. do you have the same ratio when you play Macedonians in RTW MP?

[|Sith| Max]

if you want a game with less archers and cav go play TWPL.

[Eagle]

If you guys wanna trully see overpowered cav check at MTW2 lulz

[VikingX]

IMO, the biggest flaw in multiplayer is the fact that the only battle map with any degree of unqualified fairness is the grassy flatland map. Unfortunately, the flatland favours heavy cavalry and archers, making heavy infantry for the most part obsolete and most light infantry at best cannon fodder.

The problem with hill maps is that there is no objective and thus comes the wicked hill camp.

IMO therefore, to make hill maps as interesting as they deserve to be, and to be able to use a whole lot of units that are otherwise useless, one needs to create objectives.

Play large where infantry can actually be of some use atleast?

[Seagurt]

Btw, RTW Fan, hills always give advantages in a battle. History has a lot of examples, you know it )) So can you explain your idea about objectives of battle?

And my idea for you: why didn't try "scored" game? Nobody will do "hill camping" if the game is "scored", realy ))) And you can simply withdraw and it will be a draw result. Or you can use all your arrows and retreat and it will probably be a victory! )))

[RTW Fan]

Btw, RTW Fan, hills always give advantages in a battle. History has a lot of examples, you know it )) So can you explain your idea about objectives of battle?

And my idea for you: why didn't try "scored" game? Nobody will do "hill camping" if the game is "scored", realy ))) And you can simply withdraw and it will be a draw result. Or you can use all your arrows and retreat and it will probably be a victory! )))

Well in ancient times, a commander would not try to take a hill without a good reason.

Yeah scored resolution is fine enough in some ways if you care about what the little banner says at the end of the battle. But it will not make the game quality better.

I suppose what I am really saying Seagurt is that the manner is which some of the historical battles have objectives that are not simply winning the field.

Besides, it is boring playing flatlands all the time. Over and Over.... Might be good sometimes, but it is an pain overall. More variety of maps is better skill wise in my opinion.

I agree totally, and cavalry dominates on flatlands.

But the problem with a lot of maps is hill camping.

[Seagurt]

Well in ancient times, a commander would not try to take a hill without a good reason.

Hmmm.. As far as I know, ancient commanders always tried to take a hill if it was possible (mostly if he is defending). But it is not true for phalanx of course )) and for cavalry. And I think that it is impossible to find such big hill (to place a whole army on it) in reality. And btw dont forget about army camp ))

But in RTW we can place a whole army on a hill.. And there are no army camp... So "hill camping" is natural reaction of the player on the unfair game mechanic.

Yeah scored resolution is fine enough in some ways if you care about what the little banner says at the end of the battle. But it will not make the game quality better.

Of course you are right. Game quality depends on players quality. But correct conditions of the victory is a good motivation for an abstract player not to do "hill camping". And of course we play "for fun but not for win" but.. a victory is a very funny thing )))

I suppose what I am really saying Seagurt is that the manner is which some of the historical battles have objectives that are not simply winning the field.

So let's try to classify them (i mean "objectives")? If we talking about "decisive battle" then there can be only two "objectives": to destroy enemy (primary objective), to cause the enemy great losses and withdraw from the battlefield as much as possible of own troops (secondary objective). Any other variants?Btw all of this things can be implemented in a "scored" game.

But if we talking about an "campaing" then there can be a lot of other "objectives": to capture strategic resources, to split the enemy army into pieces, to find best disposition, ambushes, wearing down the enemy etc (sorry for my english). But I think that RTW battle is mainly "decisive battle". Am I right?

But the problem with a lot of maps is hill camping.

Didn't you try my map? And I must say to you that fortunately RTW has a lot of various maps (without big and unfair hills and without boring flatlands)! And you can explore them and add to the "custom_locations" file. And any other player can play with you on these maps without need of modifying its own files. Should I describe the way of exploration of new maps?

[|Sith| Max]

Not true. i once did a free for all with 4 Sith recruits and one of em did. that was a scored ffa too..

[Seagurt]

Not true. i once did a free for all with 4 Sith recruits and one of em did. that was a scored ffa too..

Did he won the battle?

Did he knew what "scored" means?

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Besides, it is boring playing flatlands all the time. Over and Over.... Might be good sometimes, but it is an pain overall. More variety of maps is better skill wise in my opinion.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Just set season to winter when playing Flatlands and you got a map that is more fair for barbarians, then you can also put bad weather to lessen the effect of missiles.

EDIT: And larger units sizes reduces the power of cavalry charges, so there you got it all covered.