[EB] Walk/Run-Throughs...Fight-Throughs?

[vartan]

Hi all,

I'm no expert on the ground-level details of melee fighting of ancient times, so I write to y'all (that's the plural 2nd person...)

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=415711

That thread is a discussion on the ethics, one might say, of a tactic that may have many names: walk-throughs, run-throughs, or as I see them, fight-throughs. Traditionally, in the online scene for EB I've met more of a consensus such as:



And so I ask, in light of the recent thread linked above, what are y'all's thoughts on the issue?

Thanks.

[The Celtic Viking]

Well, I personally doubt that they would have put themselves in Hollywood battle scenes, with 100% individual fighting, regardless of whether it's a frontal charge or one in the back. That is even if they could - tight space, spears being in the way and enemies prone to stabbing you in the back if you pass them would give some level of deterrent. Could you imagine the conversation? "Excuse me, sir, but could you scoot over just a little bit to the left? We're trying to infiltrate your lines and kill you from the inside. Thanks!"

I don't like it, and it's not like we need it to defeat phalanxes. The rules should stay as they are IMO.

[vartan]

Thanks TCV. I think along the same lines, but I would like to see what you and others think. Thanks for your input; I look forward to further insight by other players as well.

[VikingPower]

I really wish there was some kind of compromise, like that your unit should get some special bonus when attacking the enemy phalangists from the sides or rear to balance it out how the phalanx units are deadly to the front. For when you are fighting against the phalanx factions with a western infantry faction then the enemy outnumber you and you will still need a two units for every one enemy phalangist unit in order to break them. So even that you have some expensive infantry then they are still inadequate when fighting against some cheap levy phalangists. I know that you have to divide and conquer in order to defeat the phalanx factions but it can be very hard against when the enemy uses enemy cretans and their deadly cav.

But about the question itself then I always hate it when players exploit the game engine and win even that it has nothing to do about tactics.

[vartan]

Indeed, as you may see in Gamespy's vanilla RTW multiplayer scene, arguably a majority of the success is derived from the use of game engine details, while tactics come in a close second. With EB we've tried to not allow game engine details to have as much say. In fact, some might say there are too many regulations/restrictions we've imposed regarding game engine (ab)use. So this in and of itself is a form of compromise.

As for the lack of special bonuses for attacking from the rear of the phalanxes (maybe there are some? I don't know), I think it's one of those sad facts we have to live with. Perhaps if one goes to develop an indie battle engine he or she may take your point into consideration.

[antisocialmunky]

Its too bad we can't make unit cohesion totally screwy like the Lordz did in NTW3 where you can't even move units through one another.

[Lazy O]

I vote for Run Throughs. Since they can be countered and are used everytime in almost every game I Play. Deal with it. Its a game. Should be allowed since its stupid to keep an eye on every cm of movement