Units on top of each other

[hoom]

In Shogun & Medieval, fairly often and especially on bitterly fought bridge battles, it would often occur that several units would be placed effectively on top of each other.
This incurred a combat penalty for not having enough room to swing a weapon or dodge a blow, but the engine would let you actually fit an entire 3200 soldier army on to one tiny bridge.

Meanwhile in Rome, something I have noticed from the Timecommanders episodes is that in similar situations the soldiers each have their own space and while they can get bunched together pretty tightly (& some of those shots have lots & lots of soldiers in a big melee :D ) they don't appear to be 'standing on top of each other' like in S & M ( http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif you know what I meant).

This should make for a marked improvement over S & M http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

[The Wizard]

The TC build is approx. 10 months old, thus quite outdated. I would think that it was updated already, with this old option included. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif



~Wiz

[CBR]

Well I would love to see fewer units being able to stand bunched up in a group. Also having more disorder as well as easier to get penalties when packed too close.

More than one unit in one place should be bad


CBR

[Oaty]

Too me this seems greatly improved as you can see that when units get too close only a few will weave towards the battlefront. You know those 5 percent that don't mind getting to the action just to kill someone while the rest of the unit waits patiently for there turn, like it would actually be in combat. Makes me wonder if that good ole tactic of stacking peasants behind peaseants and behind peasants again to tie up the enemy for flanking because the guys in the front cant retreat. I remember someone posting that tactic that some general used to defeat his enemy but I cant remember who or what battle.