Critique

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

Geoffrey, you are not understanding me. I am perfectly clear on how tactics were changing. I am not looking for swarms of heavy cavalry (but there should still be some available, as Judeman pointed out). All I'm saying is that the armour value of the Cuirassiers doesn't reflect the armour worn in-game. And also that they barely get any kills. They have 16 AP missile damage and they do extremely poorly against infantry with 2 armour. Something's not right. They poof and they crack and they smoke, and enemies don't fall down.

Maybe the projectile angles for pistol bullets need tweaking like they do for grapeshot.

By adding some charge cavalry we would actually make it worthwhile to include pikemen in an army, since right now the very short-ranged missile cavalry is easily killed by gunners and it never charges your lines.

Also, we're in agreement that there should be some arquebus cavalry?

I think there are now mounted arquebusiers in the patch.

I can check the values for the Cuirassiers perhaps sometime on the weekend just in case. If they are as I remember them, they are a good unit and should not need changing.

If I get a chance and Monti agrees, I may write something about battle tactics in the not too distant future. It will have to be in broad terms. The Turks and the Poles had some cavalry intended to charge line infantry. They had a different style of fighting. Maybe try the Poles if you really like such units.

[k/t]

It's not about the values, it's about their performance. There might be a technical issue somewhere that's screwing them up.

[Gigantus]

Geoffrey just PMed me about the values for their projectile (pistol_bullet). For some weird reason there is no accuracy_vs_units line. I'll add it to the patch, in the meantime add this line below the mass line in the pistol_bullet section (descr_projectile):

accuracy_vs_units         0.0675

[k/t]

Aha! I knew there had to be something wrong! With their stats they should have butchered everything.

[Blackader]

Well, me too...

[MKeogh]

Ok, I've played until 1626-1627 as Bavaria on H battles/VH campaign. Here are my observations:

Overall, a much, much better campaign experience than 1.x. The absurd "money galore" economy of 1.x is gone. Wheras I was swimming in cash in 1.x, I now find things to be much tighter money-wise. I'm still doing pretty well economically, but I can't build and recruit everywhere like I could in 1.x. Armies are expensive to put in the field as they were in real life.

The CAI is still having issues with the huge map and the economic engine, but it's not as hapless a punching bag as it was in 1.x. Still, almost all AI nations are listed as being "bankrupt" and most of their towns are woefully underdeveloped. However, I have seen them use the enlarged king's purse to recruit mercs to fight me. (One curious difference between 1.x and 2.0 is the lack of AI religious agents. That was one of the few things the CAI did recruit in 1.x, but so far in 2.0 I've seen a grand total of one CAI religious agent.)

The battles are fun and I actually like the increased range for musketeers because its makes them actually semi-useful unlike in 1.x.

Mercs are still too plentiful and cheap. It's way too easy to build an "insta-army" that can immediately be disbanded upon removing a threat.

Issues:

Numerous stability problems and my most recent saves were corrupted.

[Blackader]

Cuirassiers are still far weaker than mounted Harquebusiers, with the same stats. Shouting circle is particulliary ineffective.
I don't know if it is normal or there is still an hiden problem.

[Teutonic]

Cuirassiers are still far weaker than mounted Harquebusiers, with the same stats. Shouting circle is particulliary ineffective.
I don't know if it is normal or there is still an hiden problem.

Maybe if they are shooting instead of shouting they will be more useful Anyway, look at post 44 above by Gigantus.

[YourStepDad]

Critique... I'll start with rather trivial things and things that you guys are in the process of fixing/have fixed already. I don't have much to complain about, but for the things I do I'll try to explain more thoroughly.

Still, there are things that I was not too happy about it, but you guys are already on to fixing most of them, hooray!

The lack of harquebusiers - you have fixed in the patch. Mad props.

Unit numbers too varying, too small - you are fixing this too. Mad props.

Improvised units.(peasants, militias, levies, hunters, cannon fodder of various kinds...) - Now I do like improvised units in video games, especially battlefield simulators such as total war. It's just a great chance to express creativity and variety, and make great visual treats when it comes to clothes/weapons. Thing here is, the improvised units are not all too creative and/or visually pleasing, yet they are just so frequent and compose the majority of starting armies. I am not sure what to think of this.

Jagers for example, are a perfect example of a non-standard military unit done right. They have character, are characteristic for the geographical or rather the political setting, and are slighly anachronistic, and they look visually pleasing.

Militias - a must have for every game, but here they are just rather...lame. Possibly because they are using the retextured model of vanilla halberds which just look god, god awful. This is another suggestion by the way, adding halberds such as those officers carry to such units or making an entirely new ones for halberdiers would be nice, and make the unit more pleasant to look at at the battlefield.

Jesuits, protestant priests and evil men of the cloth or whatever they are - Now I absolutely love the idea behind them, and how creatively the text is written for them, encouraging you to use them for cannon fodder. They however look like vanilla pilgrims, only retextured. I feel as if I'm having vanilla units on the battlefield. This is the problem with them.

Pressed sailors - now although they don't look all that bad, they are a bit on the fantasy side, dual wielding weapons and whats more - being exceptionally strong(20 attack, while a supposedly disciplined standard regiment of pike has 3, wtf?) The whole idea of pressed sailors seems a wee bit far fetched as well.

Anyway, this whole thing is pretty trivial, despite the lenght of the post, the real critique I will list below.


---

Mercenaries - I was disappointed by mercenaries not being regional, but heck, you are fixing that too, on top of that, we're getting entirely new ones in the patch, woot!

I'll consider the small variety of mercenaries and non regional mercenaries a thing of the past, as the latest patch has dealt with that. The thing that bugs me a LOT, and others too I am sure, is the availability of mercenaries. You can basically recruit a whole army at any time, as they are available anywhere at any time, and are too.​ plentiful. They also replenish far too quickly. The player can build insta armies too quickly and it just feels like cheating. Vanilla mtw has handled this just right. Please return it to​ the way it was.

The recruitment cost is right, upkeep cost could be bigger, but isn't nearly as important as SEVERELY limiting the availability of mercenaries. Perhaps have some(a lot?) of regions that actually do not have mercs available at all, or have them available but very, very scarce.

Mercenaries should be scarce, a way of improvising, last resort or even a luxury. Now I know this is gamey and not historical, as mercenaries were nearly as important and crucial as standing armies in the TYW, but I just think MTW is not capable of being a Wallenstein simulator.

Even so, vanilla MTW had all the above, and has a better mercenary system than I have seen in most games.

Mercenaries were expensive, few in number and again - a luxury. It was fun that way, and should remain that way, IMO.



Now the second thing I am not entirely pleased with may be surprising to some;

New Effects

Mainly the new smoke and gun sound effects.

Firstly I would like to say how this does not imply the cannon sound and visual effects, as they absolutely blew my mind. I have quite possibly never seen cannon effects this badass in any game.

Now that that's out of the way, lets start with smoke.

Smoke does not necessarily look bad, it just looks a bit...2D? I can't find another way to explain this. It is denser than vanilla, as it should be, however it does not look better, IMO, but it can pass.

Gun sound effects on the other hand are just plain bad. I cannot tell you how this cripples the atmosphere in battles. Vanilla sounds trillion sounds better and has the "punch" that 17th century arquebuses, pistols and muskets should have, and this mod doesn't. When I brought my cuirassiers to fire at the enemy, it is as they didn't fire, their shots just felt empty and completely lacked the "punch".

This is weird, as everybody is especially praising the new sound and smoke effects. Likewise, the musket sounds I heard in the trailer for 1.0 sounded absolutely amazing. Is it possible that there is something wrong with my game?



And lastly - unit stats. Again, you are on to that, but I would just like to point this out, in case this was intended.

I've seen stats vary dramatically, as I've said before, pressed sailors had the attack of 20, a regiment of pike had the attack of 3(or 5, not sure, but still). Likewise, a regiment of unarmored rapier wielding 77 swordsmen have the defense of 20, while cuirassiers in three - quarters armor have the defense of 5 and so on...

Glad this is prone to change.


Apologies for the lenghty post, and I assure you, If I was writing a review and stressing the positive things, I would not be done before tomorrow.

EDIT: Oh, and another, albeit a minor one. I'm sad there very little theme related traits for generals, or just new traits in general. Any chance this could be changed in a patch?

[WhiffOfGrapeshot]

I disagree about the mercenaries. While it can be used as a cheap tactic by the player, on VH AI buys mercenaries, too, and during the 30YW armies were composed almost entirely of mercenaries, which were plentiful, as every European nation at the time had men plying the trade in the Germanies. One way it could potentially be balanced is increasing the initial cost of purchase, so the player has some financial hit before he fights and immediately disbands them, but the AI might recruit them less, if at all. It'd need testing, but probably the best solution is to "house rule" yourself not to exploit the engine and recruit, fight, and immediately disband mercenaries. Maybe insist on keeping them on for at least 3 turns, for example.


As for the traits... I was considering making a traits and ancillaries submod, as so many are vanilla. I was mostly waiting for the initial patching spree to slow down before editing any files.

[YourStepDad]

but the AI might recruit them less, if at all. It'd need testing, but probably the best solution is to "house rule" yourself not to exploit the engine and recruit, fight, and immediately disband mercenaries. Maybe insist on keeping them on for at least 3 turns, for example.

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't want to house rule myself. I shouldn't have to do it. Yes, I am aware of the importance and scale of mercenaries, as I said, but if the AI cannot behave in the manner that you speak of, and it cannot, then this idea should be sacrificed for gameplay reasons.

Realistically, MTW is not capable of being a good wallenstein-wannabee simulator.

[WhiffOfGrapeshot]

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't want to house rule myself. I shouldn't have to do it.

True. Perhaps a slight increase in Merc cost would work, but honestly, they are supposed to be available everywhere in abundance, and on VH, the AI does take use of them, it just doesn't disband them after fighting a single battle. Maybe the AI needs a (bigger) money boost, as it seems to go into the red too easily. It's possible a slight decrease to mercenary replenishment would work, but at any given time there should be some available.

Realistically, MTW is not capable of being a good wallenstein-wannabee simulator.

Sad, but true. This mod is very, very close, though. There's many little problems preventing it from being 1:1, unfortunately.

[Hanti]

(...)The thing that bugs me a LOT, and others too I am sure, is the availability of mercenaries. You can basically recruit a whole army at any time, as they are available anywhere at any time, and are too.​ plentiful. They also replenish far too quickly. The player can build insta armies too quickly and it just feels like cheating. Vanilla mtw has handled this just right. Please return it to​ the way it was.

The recruitment cost is right, upkeep cost could be bigger, but isn't nearly as important as SEVERELY limiting the availability of mercenaries. Perhaps have some(a lot?) of regions that actually do not have mercs available at all, or have them available but very, very scarce.

Mercenaries should be scarce, a way of improvising, last resort or even a luxury. Now I know this is gamey and not historical, as mercenaries were nearly as important and crucial as standing armies in the TYW, but I just think MTW is not capable of being a Wallenstein simulator.

Even so, vanilla MTW had all the above, and has a better mercenary system than I have seen in most games.

Mercenaries were expensive, few in number and again - a luxury. It was fun that way, and should remain that way, IMO.
(...)

As I can agree with most things you said, I don't agree with mercenaries being few in number and a luxury.
Maybe they replenish too fast now, but they should create the core of any army in the period (maybe with the exception of Spaniards).

So to be short: mercenaries should be broadly available, sort of "first resort" troops, but their initial cost can be a little higher than national troops.

[YourStepDad]

Well yes, but it would have to be done right. What we have now is the vanilla mercenary philosophy done wrong. Again, I'd rather have the old philosophy done right than a new one done wrong.

If your idea was to take effect, special attention would have to be given to the mercenaries - mainly variety and strict regional recruitment, which I imagine is very challenging with map this huge.

I leave it to the devs. They know what they're doing and they'll do justice to the mercs, one way or the other.

[Gigantus]

The mercenary issue will need a review, especially now with the added regional units. A combination of slightly increased cost and replenishment time should do the trick.

Sounds can be worked on, just have to find the right entries. Smoke I'll have to refer to the guy who worked with it.

Monti is working on some stats.

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

Militias vs mercs - in response to YourStepDad

I would also disagree on these two points. 1648 is far better than vanilla or anything else I have seen, on how it currently uses mercs. The campaign AI currently correctly uses militia for its settlement garrisons and mercenaries in the field. This is what the sensible human player would do. If mercenaries were expensive, the CAI would try to raise armies of militia, supply wagons and fanatics instead, as in version 1. Moreover, with the current balancing, the CAI balances its field armies with pikemen, musketeers, cavalry and swordsmen. Not each army is necessarily balanced but overall the AI hires all such types of units at the proportions they are available. Significantly changing the stats from what they were during development may affect the CAI preferences on what to hire (e.g. it may hire only swordsmen or only musketeers, etc). Increasing the cost overall will make the CAI hire militia, fanatics and supply wagons (the last of which it has absolutely no idea how to use) in cities in preference to fielding mercs.

This also answers the question of why you get no pikemen, musketeers, etc right from the start. You have to hire mercs. If you do not hire them you do not get them but they are always there available to you. It is going to be in fact more expensive to build the infrastructure to recruit them in your cities, and the only advantage of that is that you would be able to retrain them and the free upkeep (both actually benefiting the human player since the AI is clueless about what buildings to build, therefore having mercs in the field is better for game balance than having the same units only produced in settlements). Neither the player, nor the AI is hurt by this division of mercs vs militias. At least during development the AI hired both sensibly, as sensibly as the human player.

As for what are these assorted militia - they were men pressed into service in a hurry, sometimes unwillingly or with little training, little payment but a lot of propaganda to defend their land from heretics, etc. One British author at the time who had served as an officer in Germany used for them the word "skumme", modern English "scum". The Incited Rabble is a perfect example of such scum. They have no useful purpose in the field. If you expect serious trouble, raise mercenaries. They are as good as any men you will be able to raise in your own barracks for many years to come. Just you will not be able to retrain them.

Because I have a real job and cannot be on the forum all the time, I will try to write some kind of a tactical manual that will include some of the decisions taken for how the mod models the war and especially about the balancing, which really took a huge amount of time because everytime there is a balancing problem you have to start a new campaign. It may not be very detailed but hopefully will ease peoples' minds. We should step outside the medieval framework. Or previous quasi-solutions to vanilla problems.

[The Kybrothilian]

One option with the mercs could be to make most of them settlement recruitable like the militia. Mercenaries could be much more easily accessible (quick set up of a merc barracks, and 1 turn recruitment) but would cost much more to upkeep and recruit. Meanwhile militias could take longer to be recruited, but so cost less to get and maintain.

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

One option with the mercs could be to make most of them settlement recruitable like the militia. Mercenaries could be much more easily accessible (quick set up of a merc barracks, and 1 turn recruitment) but would cost much more to upkeep and recruit. Meanwhile militias could take longer to be recruited, but so cost less to get and maintain.

But the AI needs mercenaries (i.e. pike and shot units and cavalry) in its field armies, not in its settlements.

[k/t]

Militia shouldn't cost that much less to get and maintain since they have to be provided with training and equipment and as long as they're in the army they're not working and that hurts the economy.

[WhiffOfGrapeshot]

Militia shouldn't cost that much less to get and maintain since they have to be provided with training and equipment and as long as they're in the army they're not working and that hurts the economy.

Very true. Plus, at the time, mercenaries often only got paid if they survived, and even then...

Also, as Geoffrey of Villehardouin said, the game is already carefully balanced so the AI will recruit units properly, and any, even minor, changes can drastically disrupt that.