Influence of military history

[Alastair II]

Lately, I've been studying the campaigns of Frederick the Great, and before that I studied those of Napoleon. From both, I gleaned tactics that, when executed correctly, have worked wonders. Unfortunately, I'm not that fast with the mouse, and often get my units mixed up, so it doesn't make me that good a player. However, the knowledge does frequently make the difference between a closely lost game and a closely won one, as well as that between a total blowout and a hard-fought game. My question to you is this: Do you know much military history, and if so, do you use any of it?

[Shahed]

Yes I do use military history for a tactical knowledge base.

To what extent this can be appplied in MTW is another matter. I have applied standard Ottoman tactics in 1vs1, 2vs2 successfully. The limitataions of the game make it challenging to effectively use real tactics, but it can be done.

[Krasturak]

The companies of troops depicted are too small to really reflect historical battles.

So is game more than history.

Still, historical study of great value.

[Orda Khan]

Yes I agree Sinan. It's fun to try out and sometimes the replay mirrors the tactics/battle somewhat but in general the game limitations tend to prevent them being properly applied.
An example of this...Mongol Cav tire badly ( just as badly as any other cav ) in winter battles.

Just a thought, it may be interesting to arrange historical battles using the 4v4 structure whereby the 4 allied armies act as one and not 4 seperate armies. You could then pick units that best match the actual ones that were fielded, even if they were peasants, woodsmen etc. The outcome may or may not be the same as history. Unfortunately this type of battle is rarely seen in the foyer. We have plenty of tourney type games, for those of us who appreciate a bit of historical accuracy it's an interesting concept and one that would certainly interest me though sadly I doubt many others

......Orda

[Skomatth]

I use historical moves often. Like keeping your heavy cav back and waiting for the right second to charge em, just like in medieval times. Since 2.0 we should all have realized the danger of a disorderly pursuit (sun tzu) and reform our inf and chase with cav, which is more important since foot can rally more easily now. I've also read machiavelli, and sometimes use swords behind spears to "protect them from the fury of cavalry" unless swords are coming when i pass my own swords forward.

[t1master]

i'd be all for attempting to recreate big 4v4 historical battles, but like you've said, the game limitations would make it hard. it would be good fun for teammates and opponents alike to set it up properly from the start, and even let the attackers and defenders line up before the big engagement. start position would seem to be the biggest hinderence. but if we could get enough players to agree on it, it would be loads of fun.

[1dread1lahll]

... degrees in military history/military science (1983) yes i use it, I find most vets do to a large degree, but most are not aware that they do, nor can most discuss tactics/strategy in sientific terminology... their knowledge is experence related rather than subject knowledge related......many could give a good account of themselves in a real 'test of power'...

[Skomatth]

Could you expand some lahll?

[1dread1lahll]

Er... took me four years....to reduce it to a paragraph.....But; Many vets of this game understand the concepts of war through the experience of playing this game, even if they cant state those concepts in terms...example... everyone understands "advantange of terrain" (camped on a big hill) or advantage of position, (being able to go 2v1 aginst someone....these concepts are learned through in game experience, rather than subject matter;(being taught in school)....understanding the concepts is more important than being able to define them. Many a general in the past (well educated in the concepts of war) failed to properly apply the concepts as taught him when the need was upon him, the result was, in most cases, a spectaular victory for his opponent. The vets of this game could certainly do no worse than Hooker or Roskins, both of whom had the advantage of a fine military education.

[Kongamato]

Most vets know what to use, where to use it etc... The differences between this and real life are probably matters of proportion.

BTW, has anyone here ever tried the historical Viking "pig snout" attack? I believe Alrowan might have tried it in a Viking era game, but I could be wrong about that.

[Kalle]

Quote[/b] ]The vets of this game could certainly do no worse than Hooker or Roskins, both of whom had the advantage of a fine military education.

With all respect for ur reallife studies this is just fantasy. This is a game and differs quite a lot from reality. Hooker (the other one i dont think i have heard of i can honestly say) or most commanders in present or ancient time would kill vets and noobs alike in reality though if they had a go at this game most of us would kill them easily. Of course there might be a player or two in here that would make fine generals but they would not be with only the experience from gaming.

This sort of speculation is fun, i think so too, but not to take seriusly. There is a thing the historians call anachronism - the use of ur own times codes on past times - and the sort of speculation in this topic i would like to call gamechronism maybe.

Kalle

[1dread1lahll]

well, plz note I said 'could do no worse' both the above mentioned suffered glorious disasters, commiting errors that only a noob of the game would make, (inaction, and dividing forces in the face of superior foe), I think anyone could equil that mark...however barring a time machine noone playing this game would get such an chance.........in addition our perspective of history could only be considered to be to our advantage, you know you could do at least as well as Hooker because you know he did nothing...

[Lechev]

Quote[/b] (1dread1lahll @ June 08 2003,08:54)]Er... took me four years....to reduce it to a paragraph.....But; Many vets of this game understand the concepts of war through the experience of playing this game, even if they cant state those concepts in terms...example... everyone understands "advantange of terrain" (camped on a big hill) or advantage of position, (being able to go 2v1 aginst someone....these concepts are learned through in game experience, rather than subject matter;(being taught in school)....understanding the concepts is more important than being able to define them. Many a general in the past (well educated in the concepts of war) failed to properly apply the concepts as taught him when the need was upon him, the result was, in most cases, a spectaular victory for his opponent. The vets of this game could certainly do no worse than Hooker or Roskins, both of whom had the advantage of a fine military education.
This argument coincidently reflected some discussion I once posted a long time ago in a galaxy far far away... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Great Player = Great Commander? (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=15;t=4669)

[LadyAnn]

Without getting into the argument on "Is playing this game make you better commander" or "real commander could perform no worst than newbies on this game", here is what Annie's thinking.

1. The military tactics/strategy players applies to this game is not because they figure it out, but more because the game developpers read book about history and try to make the game simulate it.

For instance, the game does not model attack coming from the left different to attack coming from the right. That important distiction was not too obvious at the age of guns, but it was quite obvious at the age of spears/swords and shields, where shields are wielded on left arms and swords on right arms. Historical and art of war texts abound of examples where commanders would place shock troops on the left wings, trying to charge down the opponent's right flank.

The players know that putting troops on high ground is good, but they did it more because the game gave bonus for being on a hill. There are bonuses that are closely related to the physics of warfare: arrows has better range fired from higher point. But the bonuses given on hand-to-hand combats are quite arbitrary. For instance, it was mentioned here that horse behaves differently going uphill or downhill. It was not modeled here.

So I think this game may be a great tool to teach military tactics, rather than knowing military tactics would help in the game. Someone who doesn't know anything about historical warfares may do good here by understanding how the stats, the morale system, etc. work.

There is a corelation, but the cause-and-effect are different, reversed.

Annie

[ShadesWolf]

Yes all the time and I try to re inact correct army setups and formations when possible....

[kyodai-britishbeef]

it is nice to try and use real military tactics to the total war battles, but tactics and strategy were born from the troops commanders used and the land scape/weather on the specific day. One thing not available in mtw that would greatly influence tactics is "the land" i.e wheat fields , muddy ground and long grasses . these things could greatly influence a battle . And one thing i miss from stw that does not seem apparent in mtw is fog/mist , the amount of times i was playing a mp game and it was very foggy and in the whirlwind of battle my apponent had manged to get men behind me and charge http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

[Nikodil]

Quote[/b] (kyodai-britishbeef @ June 12 2003,07:05)]it is And one thing i miss from stw that does not seem apparent in mtw is fog/mist
Yeah, the thunderstorms in STW were really cool. In MTW, you can always try a cold winter battle with heavy snow (remember to use restricted camera). But be warned that it's very lag-prone.

[MK_HenryV]

I've taken part in a number of semi-accurate 4 v 4 Battles at Agincourt in the old 1.1. The English have to use lbow (no pav arb)and few cav, whilst French get loads more horse.

Trouble is, that Lbow aren't as good as they should be, whilst cav (used to be) too strong, also if you notice, the encampments of the two sides are to the right and left of the map and so all four players had to wheel round before we started the battle. Having said that, great fun and everyone really got into it - mocking each other's nationalities, etc, well worth a try some time.

[Alastair II]

I tend to disagree with the concept of using Medieval to simulate medieval battles. It just doesn't make sense. The incredible discipline of the units makes the combat more like eighteenth-century warfare with axes than medieval warfare, and the lack of field works (quickly made fortifications, stakes, etc) makes it an even greater similarity. Just as in the eighteenth century, battles are fought in open fields with very small, well-disciplined, trained armies. Thus, the tactics of Frederick, Napoleon, and Lee are much better suited to Medieval than any medieval general. Other than the name and the widespread use of bows and melee weapons, the game bears no resemblance to the time period.

[Vanya]

GAH

At the end of the day, all the academic insights and all the pursuit of tactical excellence and historical purity matters not when the pointy stick of an enemy lance pierces your gut and you find yourself playing slinky with your intestines.

GAH

[Dionysus9]

I use my knowledge of military history and, as lahll says, "defined phrases" such as "concentration of force", whenever I can.

A lot of the time, though--in the heat of the battle-- a lot comes down to instinct. And that is the "experience" that we gain from playing this game.

Yes, An, this game works to a certain extent only because the developers chose a certain way for the units to respond to different pressures-- but since they have come close enough to what was "real", the game has a life of its own.

Some of us have seen the devs play the game-- and they aint no tactical geniuses. But they have emulated/simulated, at least fairly well, the types of pressures/responses a unit in teh field will experience. To that extent they have replicated all the depth and complexity of actual battlefield tactics.

[Crash]

In a way, deep detailed knowledge of all the units stats, bonuses, and penalties makes the game play less realistic, since no Medieval human commander could fight a battle that way. That's why all the detailed discussions of unit stats disturbs me a little - I think that it might detract a from the "fog of war" situation that real military commanders have to deal with. That's why most good Medieval player wouldn't know how to be a real Medieval commander.

MTW is very educational though, as far as the aspects and concepts of Medieval warfare, and a knowledge of military history does help one pick up on those concepts and mechanics a little faster.