Poll: What Melee System Do You Want In NTW?

So let's face the facts, NTW will 90% probably have ETW's melee system, but that doesn't mean people want that, right? So I wanted to do a poll on which melee system would have been more preferred.

Empire's melee system, where people thought things looked more smooth and nice what with the many fight scripts in the game, yet all fights were 1 on 1 which made numbers almost totally pointless as an army of 10 could hold off 1,000 men if they were lucky. There were no "I'll stab you in the back while you're preoccupied with my mate!" it was more "Oh good show gentlemen! I'll wait and see who wins and I might give it a go!".

Medieval II's melee system, where things were more "clunky" and was thought not too look smooth, with a limited array of special killing moves. However numbers would matter because even the most skilled knight could have been taken down by a peasant who decided to poke him in the back with his pitchfork.

So basically, it's a choice between looks and gameplay. Which do you choose?


Personally I preferred Medieval's, because to be it did actually look smooth to me and, come one, once a couple thousand men get into it it's not going to be very open to watch people duel is it? Plus it added to the aura of total chaos in the midst of battle with who knows how many swords, spears, and the like waving around hitting a target out of view. I also don't really like the fact Empire's melee system can get in the way of gameplay. It p's me off when two regiments of equal pikemen can get bested by a single regiments of equal pikemen, and the numbers just didn't matter. I'm sure many battles were unfairly lost in games because of that where normally had the horde just attacked with as many as 4 on 1 it would have been no contest.

But that's just my opinion.

We don't need to choose between the animations and decent melee, nor can we. All serious games are moving towards photorealism and lifelike animations. CA, to their credit, understands this.

Furthermore, you are mistaken when you say the scripted 'shows' had an impact on the battles, that simply is not the case. The outcome of two units in combat was not actually effected by the animation, as if the animation represented 'dice rolls.' It did not.

Also, I 'never' saw a troop of Milita hold off, say, two units of Linemen. You're simply mistaken on this.

Originally Posted by Thoragoros

Also, I 'never' saw a troop of Milita hold off, say, two units of Linemen. You're simply mistaken on this.

Well no duh because linemen are superior.

However I have seen two pikement regiments get owned by 1. They were completely equal in everyway.

Plus I'm pretty sure when 1 man fights 1 man at a time and has the chance to win everytime without fear of being picked off by some other guy, there has to be some chance for unfairness. That man could take down 5 when in reality he'd barely pop 1 off.

Originally Posted by Isaristh

Well no duh because linemen are superior.

However I have seen two pikement regiments get owned by 1. They were completely equal in everyway.

Plus I'm pretty sure when 1 man fights 1 man at a time and has the chance to win everytime without fear of being picked off by some other guy, there has to be some chance for unfairness. That man could take down 5 when in reality he'd barely pop 1 off.

Actually...you took it much further in your OP, you said an army 10 could hold off an army of 1000 provided they were lucky.

Again, the 1 on 1 combat does not effect who wins or loses that individual battle, its already been decided, the animation is merely a fun way of watching it get carried out.

For isntance, in that '5 men killing 1,' whoever would have made that kill in MTWII, still makes the kill, just whoever makes the kill now occasionally take part in a short animation. So its still 5 to 1, in your example, just sometimes the kill is made via a quick animation script rather than a simple 'poke' as in MTWII.

Also, on the graphics side of things, CA cannot singlehandedly hold back the progression and trends of the gaming industry, which are towards photorealism and lifelike animations. The clunky melee battles of MTWII, while good for their time, are now obsolete.

i like ETW's melee. It was fun and showed hand to hand combat way better than med 2.

wow its even 5 and 5

I for one felt the melee combat in empire to be well done and excellent indeed.while not completely realistic to what one might have assumed it to have been in reality it is amply cinematic recreating the epic atmosphere of a fine cinema combat,which is after all what ca has been going for from the start,to bring us not the realistic drudgery of warfare throughout the eras,but to instead allow us to relive these conflicts through the lens of a hollywood film

Yeah, ETWs animations look nice but they can't be called lifelike in my opinion. A hundred men charge at ten, and only ten out of those hundred will get to fight? Makes no sense (they'd rout probably though, rough example) and certainly isn't lifelike. There should have been animation for 1 vs 2 or even three to make it lifelike. Now it looks weird when there's all those men standing around watching their mates get killed. That's clunky if something.

Originally Posted by Kohvi

Yeah, ETWs animations look nice but they can't be called lifelike in my opinion. A hundred men charge at ten, and only ten out of those hundred will get to fight? Makes no sense (they'd rout probably though, rough example) and certainly isn't lifelike. There should have been animation for 1 vs 2 or even three to make it lifelike. Now it looks weird when there's all those men standing around watching their mates get killed. That's clunky if something.

I don't htink the animations have anything to do with the result. The result was already predetermined before the charge was made based on a series of calculations and variable. I don't think it would be possible to have an open field situation where a unit outnumbered 5 to 1 held the field. Only in a breach may that be possible where it would truly be say 10 vs 10 at all times as the space permitted.

It maybe clunky, but in stat/gameplay terms, the OP is simply wrong, I've done a fair share of modding for myself, and I can tell you outright that the animations are just scripted 'event signals.' They 'do not' effect the outcome of battles since they are not a part of gameplay calculation.

Here is an example, 5 men surround one guy, they each take a 'swing/roll' at the singular target (whether or not you see that swing.) Now, the difference here from MTWII is that occasionaly the kill signals a short a 'kill animation.' So it is important to note that the single man still took 'hits' from all five guys, its just that the one who actually makes a kill occasionally gets to partake in a short animation, showing the kill through the scripted event.

So it is not as if the animation prevents further hits from being made, the result has already been decided by the time the animation plays.

Now, since the gameplay remains the same, I see no reason to take a step backwards. Yes, battles still 'look' a little clunky, but we're getting there. Battles look much smoother than MTWII, that's for sure, so we're headed in the right direction.

Originally Posted by Thoragoros

It maybe clunky, but in stat/gameplay terms, the OP is simply wrong, I've done a fair share of modding for myself, and I can tell you outright that the animations are just scripted 'event signals.' They 'do not' effect the outcome of battles since they are not a part of gameplay calculation.

Here is an example, 5 men surround one guy, they each take a 'swing/roll' at the singular target (whether or not you see that swing.) Now, the difference here from MTWII is that occasionaly the kill signals a short a 'kill animation.' So it is important to note that the single man still took 'hits' from all five guys, its just that the one who actually makes a kill occasionally gets to partake in a short animation, showing the kill through the scripted event.

So it is not as if the animation prevents further hits from being made, the result has already been decided by the time the animation plays.

Now, since the gameplay remains the same, I see no reason to take a step backwards. Yes, battles still 'look' a little clunky, but we're getting there. Battles look much smoother than MTWII, that's for sure, so we're headed in the right direction.

Then why is it not every "kill animation" results in a kill? It's still 1 on 1 squaring off while the other 5 guys sit and watch, yet sometimes no one dies from the animation, and sometimes they just stop fighting all together and run off to find new targets.

If what you said was true, every animation would result in death, and since everyone goes into an animation, everyone would die equally. Which would effect gameplay.

For now I prefer M2TW system. But I hope they manage to make ETW system smoother: no more men sliding on the ground unrealistically, give some blood and dirt and ETW melee would look much better!!

Vote for M2TW. It is just horrible to see 10 french guys fighting 2 indians where only 2 french are actually fighting and the rest are just standing around, watching friends to die and waiting to have their turn. M2TW with backstabbing was far far better. The number of men has much bigger effect.

Originally Posted by Isaristh

If what you said was true, every animation would result in death, and since everyone goes into an animation, everyone would die equally. Which would effect gameplay.

No, he said

Originally Posted by Thoragoros

you are mistaken when you say the scripted 'shows' had an impact on the battles, that simply is not the case. The outcome of two units in combat was not actually effected by the animation, as if the animation represented 'dice rolls.' It did not.

The melee in Empire works fine.

Originally Posted by Isaristh

Then why is it not every "kill animation" results in a kill? [...], sometimes no one dies from the animation

This is because the animation is only eye candy, the actual mechanic may still consider 5 men fighting 1 internally (i.e., the men shown waiting next to a fight still count as taking part in it).
It's good to see you find the strength of character to present counter-arguments to your own position.

Originally Posted by daniu

This is because the animation is only eye candy, the actual mechanic may still consider 5 men fighting 1 internally (i.e., the men shown waiting next to a fight still count as taking part in it).
It's good to see you find the strength of character to present counter-arguments to your own position.

That is a moot argument unless you can prove it. We don´t know how the mechanics of melee combat in ETW works, if you do please share it with us. What we know is what we can see: duels between soldiers, while the rest of soldiers are watching, waiting until it is finishe to have their duel. If you have tested the melee combat extensively up to the point where you can tell that those guys standing behind do count towards the result, then please provide some proof of it.

Originally Posted by Bucefalo

That is a moot argument unless you can prove it.

The same is true for the assumption that there is only 1v1 combat.

What we know is what we can see: duels between soldiers, while the rest of soldiers are watching, waiting until it is finishe to have their duel.

No, that's not all you can see. Did you read Isaristh's observation that a death animation doesn't mean an actual casualty?
Is that not proof that mechanics and display are independent?

Originally Posted by Bucefalo

That is a moot argument unless you can prove it. We don´t know how the mechanics of melee combat in ETW works, if you do please share it with us. What we know is what we can see: duels between soldiers, while the rest of soldiers are watching, waiting until it is finishe to have their duel. If you have tested the melee combat extensively up to the point where you can tell that those guys standing behind do count towards the result, then please provide some proof of it.

Yes, we do know how the game mechanics work internally.

Editing melee and seeing how it works can be done as simply and as use friendly as just downloading the DBEditor and opening up the vanilla game.

You will find the unit stats in unit_stats_land_tables

Melee is also effected by certain values in _kv_rules_tables

If you want, I can go into the specific stats themselves if you need more proof and their effects and turn this thread into something of a tutorial.

So again, I am sorry, but OP's premise is simply false.

Originally Posted by Isaristh

Then why is it not every "kill animation" results in a kill? It's still 1 on 1 squaring off while the other 5 guys sit and watch, yet sometimes no one dies from the animation, and sometimes they just stop fighting all together and run off to find new targets.

If what you said was true, every animation would result in death, and since everyone goes into an animation, everyone would die equally. Which would effect gameplay.

Because there is a stat called 'Defense Skill.' Occasionally a 'hit' will result in the target unit 'blocking' the hit. Sometimes this results in an animation, sometimes it does not.

Again, when the animation plays, the result has already been decided, either that the unit will die, or that the unit will block the attempted hit. So those 5 guys fighting 1, to continue with you're example, are still five on one internally, the animations are just part of a script, not part of the mechanics.

I'm sorry, but you're question is not based on how the game works under the hood. Your premise for the question is misleading at worst and ill-informed at best.

Well the melee moves in ETW are the best by far, the fight really well compared to MTW2, or RTW, but it happens to often, as we all know!