Cavalry and archers

[King Philip II]

Do you think the romans will have competent heavy cavalry and deadly archers in the early republic period i.e. at game start? I hope not, but I fear they might. I also think that the balance between cavalry and spear will be as wacky as it always is. My reason: CA's history of neglecting history in favour of gameplay that is attractive to teenagers with a short attenion span.

In M2TW "the age of heavy cavalry" - a significant period in military history - was transformed into "the age of the peasant spearman". One of the lead developers in this area for Rome II used to be a firm believer in a rock-paper-scissors balance. Let's hope they have changed their minds, so we get some competent Macedonian and eastern cavalry ... and archers with bows instead of GPMG's

[Maleventum]

in the first Rome in the early Republic the Romans hadn't any archers units (only javelinmen : the velites) and their cavalry th Equites were quite bad...........

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Ehum in the original RTW cavalry was completely overpowered, they beat up anything except phalanxes and chariots.

[nomercysniper]

My reason: CA's history of neglecting history in favour of gameplay that is attractive to teenagers with a short attenion span.

Please tell me where they were catering to "teenagers with a short attention span"? I'm sure they said a larger audience.. Please don't start insulting groups because you think it helps your post or makes you feel smart, when it doesn't

[Eofor]

Please tell me where they were catering to "teenagers with a short attention span"? I'm sure they said a larger audience.. Please don't start insulting groups because you think it helps your post or makes you feel smart, when it doesn't

"Teenagers with a short attention span" is gamerspeak for "anyone who doesn't share my exact tastes". In other words meaningless emotional drivel intended to score cheap points with people with the exact same opinion.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Yeah what does spears beating cavalry have to do with short attention spam? It seems more like short attention spam if every battle could be ended quickly with a dramatic cavalry charge a la Return of the King.

Plus the cavalry in M2TW was extremely strong, they even frontally charged braced pikemen and destroyed the whole unit so what is the OP talking about?

[Dude with the Food]

Excuse me? I'm a teenager with a short intention span but that doesn't mean I agree any less with what you say. Whether you think you know how to make the game better or want to voice a concern, to get support with your ideas can you at least try to keep your offensiveness to one side.

[Kushite]

Yeah what does spears beating cavalry have to do with short attention spam? It seems more like short attention spam if every battle could be ended quickly with a dramatic cavalry charge a la Return of the King.

Plus the cavalry in M2TW was extremely strong, they even frontally charged braced pikemen and destroyed the whole unit so what is the OP talking about?

Excuse me? I'm a teenager with a short intention span but that doesn't mean I agree any less with what you say. Whether you think you know how to make the game better or want to voice a concern, to get support with your ideas can you at least try to keep your offensiveness to one side.

How did you both **** up "attention span" and post right after each other?

Anyways, I'm fine with RPS. No need to go over the top with realism. Realism =/= Fun
If you want historical accuracy, go play some Paradox Games. Never rely on TW for history.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

Do you think the romans will have competent heavy cavalry and deadly archers in the early republic period i.e. at game start? I hope not, but I fear they might. I also think that the balance between cavalry and spear will be as wacky as it always is. My reason: CA's history of neglecting history in favour of gameplay that is attractive to teenagers with a short attention ...........

and again I know what way this thread is going.............

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

What about senior citizens with short attention spans?

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

What about senior citizens with short attention spans?

or pups with weird eyes with their tongues out to the side its so cute what was I suppose to do with this sentence??

[Michadon]

I do think that the rock-paper-scissors is not the best solution and 'more historical' is better. However, if they do that some factions in the game would be wiped out quickly all the time because they happen to have only light infantry whilst their neighbours have heavy cav. There have to be some concessions. And if you don't like ploughing through barbarian warbands with your equites, don't use them.

[RGA]

Roman cavalry in early period was competent and at least on par with other cavalry forces. They gave the Gallic cavalry quite a beating for not just once. Only Carthaginian cavalry under Hannibal consistently won, but superior number contributed as much to these victories as prowess.

BTW, cavalry, in any period, was a psychological weapon. They never achieved much when infantry kept their nerve and hold formation. Psychological aspect is always a weak point of Total war games, and it requires a great deal of thinking and modelling, so I won't expect any new morale system any time soon. Until then, the RPS system is actually the best we have.

[LordInvictus]

Rome's unit balancing was really weird. Cavalry could destroy infantry from the front, but would die when charging from the rear. And the Romans were OP. RPS is a simplified way of showing what should be complex combat.

[Argon Viper]

Do you think the romans will have competent heavy cavalry and deadly archers in the early republic period i.e. at game start? I hope not, but I fear they might. I also think that the balance between cavalry and spear will be as wacky as it always is. My reason: CA's history of neglecting history in favour of gameplay that is attractive to teenagers with a short attenion span.

In M2TW "the age of heavy cavalry" - a significant period in military history - was transformed into "the age of the peasant spearman". One of the lead developers in this area for Rome II used to be a firm believer in a rock-paper-scissors balance. Let's hope they have changed their minds, so we get some competent Macedonian and eastern cavalry ... and archers with bows instead of GPMG's

As much as noble historians and romantic poets want you to think otherwise, medieval warfare generally was the age the peasant spearmen. No matter how powerful a horse army is, it can't (or won't) charge a thickly packed unit of infantry bristling with spears. Most medieval battles involved peasants slogging away at each other until one formation broke open enough for the knights to charge in and end the battle.

[King Philip II]

Thanks all for your comments. I'll reply to the only post that actually adress the issue I raised.

As much as noble historians and romantic poets want you to think otherwise, medieval warfare generally was the age the peasant spearmen. No matter how powerful a horse army is, it can't (or won't) charge a thickly packed unit of infantry bristling with spears. Most medieval battles involved peasants slogging away at each other until one formation broke open enough for the knights to charge in and end the battle.

It's a valid point, but there are other historians who support the traditional "Age of Heavy Cavalry" understanding. We discussed it at lenght in multiple threads here on TWC after the release of M2TW. The results of these discussion can be seen in many of the Mods for the medieval time period. Could I kindly suggest that you post a reliable source for this, if we are to discuss the historical significance of heavy cavalry vs levy soldiers with poor equipment and training. My take on this is that it's more about the morale of a unit to be able to stand fast when charged by heavy cavalry.

[Eien]

Those "elitist, matured" ones should bugger off making their own perfect realistic game, form a studio, get kickstarter backing, and see how well their game actually go.

Seriously.

[SamueleD]

As it is a game it needs to be somehow balanced. As it is at least "inspired" by history it should have at least some degree of historical accuracy and realism.
RPS mechanics may seem arcade, but you can't just put in the game a unit that has no way to be countered effectively, that would make it overpowered and does not make the game enjoyable, only frustrating, also you can't leave a faction without the ability to counter a type of unit, at least in some way, for the same reason.
RPS can also be watered down, with "middle of the way" units, and counters that, though effective, don't just slaughter instantaneously their designated target. Or by making it so that say a low level spearmen unit won't defeat a top-tier heavy cavalry unit most of the time (though it may last longer that say, swordsmen), but a high-tier spearmen unit, instead, will defeat them easily.
That said we want to keep at least to some degree the historical strength and weaknesses of factions, so Roman cavalry should be bad early on and they shouldn't have archers (at least not particularly good archers), and they should have better than average infantry, but the difference between those units and the average should not be so great that the game is unbalanced, just enough to show that one has the advantage and will win most of the time.
Essentially you want all units not to get too far from the average, to keep good balancing, while getting far enough from it to portrait historical strength and weaknesses. Also if one unit really has to be overpowered and difficult to defeat (but not impossible) it should be limited in some way, be it through a hard limit or a very high cost.
Also the tech tree and the ability to develop in somewhat non-historical, but still historically possible ways, can help making faction more balanced, without sacrificing their historical strengths and weaknesses, as an example the Romans could lack good cavalry in the beginning, but have the ability to research better one, if so they see fit.