Looking for an NTW Multi players perspective on Shogun2

Ok I’ve played all of the TW series including the first Shogun but I only started played online with ETW so I’ve really only played ETW and NTW multiplayer.
I have watched quite a few Vids, over the last 6 months or so, of Rome battles and where I can see its fun, I get the impression battles seem to follow the same patterns. It seems a bit like watching the same vid over and over again. I look at the NTW vids a lot of you guys on here post and they are all so remarkably different in style and game play. I know sometimes in ETW and NTW players seem to play the same style over and over again with the same build but you still get quite a few games against good players which make it worth doing a vid.
I think guns have added a more strategic element to the TW series. I’m not saying Shogun won’t be fun but in the end battles are going to be decided mostly by melee. In both ETW and NTW I always felt a little let down when the battle was determined by some random melee encounter which sometimes seems to be WTF moment and that what I am sorta expecting in too get more of in Shogun 2.
Also when I use to play campaign in Shogun, Rome and MTW once the battle started you sorta knew the outcome based on a rough estimate of who had the superior melee force. I maybe wrong, as it's a long time since I played these games and I suppose I’m only really trying to gauge the playability by viewing some of the latest Rome online battles. But I really like the expansive game play possible in ETW and NTW and I get the feeling if you play expansive in Shogun you’re going to get owned.
I’m going to be a bit disappointed if I spend the first 2 months having to create builds to counter a Shogun 2 melee ball. As I sit here and play NTW and the wide variety of builds and strategies you can use, I do wonder if Shogun 2 is going to be as intense as NTW when you’re playing a really good player.
In NTW I really like, as point mentions the three phases, light skirmish, line battle and cav fight. To me the skirmish fight is just a distraction for what is to come. In group games like 3v3, 4v4 games the skirmish fight allows for an opportunity to highlight weaknesses and I love how this opens up the opportunity to caving one of my allies opponents who is not expecting it from the side(like we all do) and then this opens the game up with line exploiting the breach and disruption. I get the feel from the Rome vids I’ve seen its just - game starts – select unit – double click on an opponents unit – repeat till all units moving – go grab a coffee.
Seriously if you look at someone like pointman in his vids or have ever played him – I aspire to have micro like him in a TW game. I really want to avoid drinking too much coffee.
From time to time people here post threads on great battles etc and I usually have a bit of a think about some of my epic games and they always highlight a few things – the importance of good builds, initial deployment and in game timing but by far the most important thing in playing good players is having good in-game unit positioning. This unfortunately is the one element which IMO goes out the door in melee battles. Example as I mentioned in other thread the other day – the power of the Huron in ETW – this was a set and forget build, lots of fun yes but a real no brainer. Also even in NTW Otto melee is pretty effective and another example of set and forget, once you go the melee you pretty much just micro you’re other units depending on how the melee is going. Sure this is maybe simplifying things a little bit but it’s also quite true of vids I’ve seen of Rome. There just inst the need for the precise unit positioning which is so crucial to ETW or NTW.

I definitely going to get shogun 2, I suspect the graphics will be awesome and lots of fun but I wonder if they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in terms of strategic game play. I not saying that shogun will be void of strategy but I kinda think from looking at the vids currently around of both Rome and NTW I think omg how could I go back to that style after playing ETW and NTW.
So as you guys are all pretty much hardcore NTW multi addicts – are you thinking the same or do you really think Shogun 2 will redefine itself as a superior strategy game to NTW and if so how and should I book myself in for the frontal lobotomy after xmas so I can have a seamless transition to shogun 2.

wow

is that it - after all i said - thats the best u can come up with - that like took me about 2 hours to write and your perspective is wow

oh btw

sorry i couldnt play GODS this morning i got caught doing a HM 3v3 navel - which was sorta epic but really dragged on. then i had to get kids to school and then off to work. BTW thanks to marsh for leaving game to join that game i think - we would have probably won if he didnt leave

Originally Posted by terminator acheron

Seriously if you look at someone like pointman in his vids or have ever played him – I aspire to have micro like him in a TW game. I really want to avoid drinking too much coffee.

Give me some coffee and you might get motion sickness from the camera movements

Originally Posted by terminator acheron

In NTW I really like, as point mentions the three phases, light skirmish, line battle and cav fight.

Yes it is true. It's the battle phases that define the rest of the match.

From my perspective, each phase is like an example of the rock, paper, scissors effect, but the really good players are the ones that figure out that instead of battling out one phase with another, you should combine parts of all three phases.

It will be different no doubt about it, its really hard to say at this point but lets not forget THERE WILL STILL BE MUSKETS in this game so there will be some parts of NTW and ETW lingering.

For me the revolution for this game will have to be the campaign side of things, if they cant get it right this game with pretty much 2 beta's under their belt then im worried . The exciting bit is that they did hint at a possibility of making campaigns expand from more than a 1v1. CLAN CAMPAIGNS PEOPLE! they didnt actually say it but kieran was hinting at something special about campaigns this time around.

In RTW they had an equivalent to the lights; the slingers or archers. I have played enough campaign to realize that these units are a necessity in a fight just as well as a legion or samurai would be. The main difference in RTW and NTW and ETW has to be the difference in micromanagement and the big picture. By the big picture I mean in NTW or ETW its more of what will end the battle and how to keep that alive while letting the rest die. For example saving a cavalry for the last seconds of the game knowing that you could use that now to disrupt the line formation. If you have patience you will wait for the battle of attrition in line is to the point where you and your opponent have too few men to form square and to just plain stop your cavalry at which point you attack. In RTW its more like you just have to know the math of which units will beat other units in melee and to make sure that your army isnt tired or not mobile enough as in not enough light cavalry or light inf to keep up with his archers just massacring you from the flank or his missile cavalry harassing you. It is less about those patient decisions and more about those quick moves to snuff out enemy units while wasting few men. Oh and I'm not sure why you think everything is melee as skirmishers do by far the most damage over time if you use them correctly in RTW, MTW and M2TW. I wouldnt know about Shogun as I have never played it.

well i suppose not playing multi in anything before ETW - i dont have much to go on as in single player campaign you just had to have strong melee to win.

But most vids ive seen of online TW games other than etw or ntw battles were pretty much decided by melee. have not seen a vid where i thought wow did those slingers or archers just owned in that game. and realistically they shouldnt these eras were dominated by melee so i have no problem with that. and yes as you said its do the maths on which will win in melee will need to formost in players minds. im not going to be outraged when shogun comes out and it goes back to melee and its probably to be expected, i suppose im just wondering if players on NTW multi think its a little disappointing that some of the best aspects are going to be lost - like expansive and the insane micro gameplay which i think were what makes playing and watching the replays of etw or ntw so much more impressive.

One good thing - as dunk said - which would be great is if they could get more than a 1v1 type campaign thing happening.

I think for alot of TW players we started with the campaigns, i know i did. It would be nice to get back to square one so to speak.

Originally Posted by terminator acheron

I’ve played all of the TW series including the first Shogun but I only started played online with ETW so I’ve really only played ETW and NTW multiplayer.

Same here.
Actually, I was thinking the same thing: will the heavily melee-based combat make MP boring for me?

I have watched quite a few Vids, over the last 6 months or so, of Rome battles and where I can see its fun, I get the impression battles seem to follow the same patterns. It seems a bit like watching the same vid over and over again.

For me what you're saying is the same with NTW battle vids tbh (I really don't want to start that discussion again, but hang in there, I'll get to my point).
To me, no art GF battles consist of advance/fall back, cav charge/square up, flank/fold flank combinations; rinse, repeat - best micro wins.
I do like watching Point's micro and jmartin's layed-back commentary, but I thought rattue's art-spam battle was the most fun to watch in a long time just because it was different.

Now, to my point: this is exactly why I think STW MP will be fun.
Because, everybody wouldn't be playing no art GF battles all the time if they didn't think they're fun, would they?
So I assume the same is true for melee-based battles; they may look the same to me, but you'd have to get into it to be able to appreciate them.

For me personally, it's possible GF will become even more dominant and I won't be getting into it heavily; then again, I'm having lots of fun in quick battles right now, so I may stick to those if I feel map-spammed.

Originally Posted by daniu

Because, everybody wouldn't be playing no art GF battles all the time if they didn't think they're fun, would they?

What is GF?

If it has ninjas it will be better,no battlefield ninjas no fun.but to be serious as long as cav stays the same and can get smashed by ranged units it will be ok.The thing that annoys me when watching rome vids is how fast cav is,and its pretty much hammer and anvil over and over.

Maybe we should go deeper on this subject when STW2 goes final.

i have only played rome for leisure, and racked up what, maybe 2 hours gameplay?NTW was my first total war game, so i'm relishing the new types of tactics that are inevitable along with the change of era for the game setting.one thing i must say though, is that im not sure how shogunII will rank in terms of tactical superiority.as terminator acheron says, the scope for a variety of tactics in NTW is just immense, it shouldnt be underestimated.battles follow vague phases, but ultimately, you can toy around with this, and i often find i can play a few games a night, with every game completely different tactics wise, faction wise, and build wise, and i love this.ill reserve judgement until shogunII actually does appear, but for now im still sceptical.

girlfriend or grassy flatlands.

Originally Posted by Y@$!N

girlfriend or grassy flatlands.

Yep. Never forget that neither girlfriends nor battlefields should be flat.

Just kidding.

With girlfriends, it's fine.