unit formations?

[drupy]

Hi there this is my first post, so if the questions have already been answered then I apologise.

Almost all of the units in EB1 seem to be in a rank and file formation, even the units that would have had little or no training, like some of the levy units. Would it not be more realistic to have them in a mob formation (think peasant units in RTW) to represent their lack of training

In the case of the levy units the individual men would have been farmers, traders etc. who would have been called up, given a weapon and just enough training so that they might do slightly more damage to the enemy than to themselves and then pointed at their foes and told to go nuts. They probably would not have been taught how to march and drill in formation.

I think that this was one of the advantages Roman legionaries had over fighting tribal groups – the romans were in formation and fighting as a unit the tribes were in a mob and fighting as a individual.

Also possibly for the more elite tribal units such as the Gaesatae a mob formation might be more accurate as they emphasised individuals fighting-not a whole unit fighting as one.

Finally the mob formation might be more accurate for some of the skirmishing units. They too were the lowest in society and were not given much training in the way of standing and fighting in ranks. The bravest would have gotten as close to the enemy as possible and the most cowardly would have held back.

Obviously this is not true for all levy and skirmishing units but it is probably true for some of them.

Thanks and keep up the good work

[moonburn]

most society´s were accostumed to low intensity warfare so they knew their ways around the batlefield wich includes iberian german dacian skytian and keltik warbands

what distabilises the game in terms of historical accuracy is that you can control all the "regiments" with one mind while in those days people would create a batleplan and the higher general was the only one who had total flexability

there´s many examples of iberians making complicated tactical manouvers particulary in terms of ambush and as for the horse archers it was their daily bread and butter to be highly skilled in tactical manouvers (wich in this example shows badly since the old batlefields had no limitations while in here you can trap them in a corner)

also the kelts always placed themselfs in a batlefield line and charge their opponents even a dumpkoft can understand the entire concept of forming a batleline if you stay in front of it you get pelted to death by javelins if you stay way behinde you get beaten by your village partners and get your lands stolen (the last man to arrive the batlefield was sacrificed according to cesar i think)

[geala]

Quite a lot of the EB timeframe the Romans fielded a militia army. Most of the Greeks who had defeated the Persians two hundred years before EB started had also been not professional soldiers but urban levies. Nevertheless they were able to contain a certain kind of order. But you are right in many aspects, low level units and skirmishers should have a more loose and irregular unit form. In M2TW this is already more the case than in RTW, so I think it will be satisfying in EB II, in the restrictions the game engine sets.

[drupy]

Thanks for that. Most of the history that I know is from the Simon Scarrow Eagle books, and of course EB, so I bow to your superior wisdom. Thanks again.
D

[Ludens]

Also, we can assume that militia soldiers did get some training even when there was no war. The citizen-hoplites of Greek city states certainly did; even if it was very basic. Given the frequency of inter-poleis or tribal warfare, every free man could have expected to be called up at least once in his lifetime; and it does not take a philosopher to realize that an ordered formation works better than a mob.

BTW, the state did not usually arm the militia troops (late Athens and Rome are exceptions). This was something the tribesmen/citizens were supposed to look after themselves. They were freemen after all, and they were expected to be able to defend themselves. A Roman received his weapon-training from his father, presumably Celts, Germans, Greeks and so on did the same.

[drupy]

The reason I had thought that a mob formation would have been more realistic was that I had been watching the news reports of the rioting in Belfast last week, and had thought that it looked like the way I imagined a ancient battlefield would have been – the regulars in a line, and the skirmishers running around, using cover, some getting up close and others hanging back a bit and throwing things, not standing in a line.

I appreciate that they would have had training, but for the skirmishers to stand static in line to throw things seems unreal, if they could have something like the circle and shoot ability like the horse archers, it might be more sencible, but I am not a modder so not sure if it is possable and it may not be very important in the grand scheme of things.
D

[bobbin]

I think that for some javeliners and slingers it might be a good idea, I'll put it to the rest of the team.

[Blxz]

Doesn't the cantabrian circle special ability require a unit to be able to move and fire? Only horse archers in the engine have that ability to my knowledge. Every other unit is required to be standing still before they can loose their shot.

[bobbin]

I meant the formation, I'm pretty sure infantry cannot use the Cantabrian Circle ability.

[HFox]

Only if armed with two empty halved coconuts

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

Only if armed with two empty halved coconuts

Hear hear! Also armed with the holy hand grenade of Antiocheia! Never venture into Bartix, they have legions of bunnies.

As for the skirmishers, aren't the psloi's formation pretty scrambled up already?