phalanx/anti-phalanx [Archive]

Ptah

12-23-2004, 04:58

Deploy your lines in an echelon formation, and start attack from one corner first. Never deploy it parallel to the enemy lines and have all your men start attacking/defending at the same time.

This is because as a single unit the armoured hoplites are one of the most reliable and cost-efficient units in the game, and they will rarely break when fighting against just one or two hastati or principes, even if you got them locally surrounded.

Assuming both the Greeks and Romans have 10 units each, to quickly rout powerful hoplites in defensive posture you need to pit at least 3~4 hastati/principes against one of their armoured hoplites all at once. However, if you try to flank the enemy from both left and right sides, that will effectively take 50% of your total units. That leaves only about 5~6 of your Roman units to defend the center against 8 hoplite units.

What typically happens is your center is shattered before your flanking forces get their job done. So your center routs, then each of your flanking forces are isolated and destroyed.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/232_1103772662_pic1.jpg

....................

So, if you want to avoid that and strengthen the center so they will hold long enough, that means you have less number of units to use to flank the hoplites - which of course, means that it's not gonna work at all.

Besides, even if you stregthen the center it's still about the same number of hoplite units vs Roman units. Pre-marian Roman infantry has no chance against hoplites from the front, so eventually, the center is gonna rout anyway.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/232_1103772783_pic2.jpg

....................

Therefore, this dilemma is solved by deploying your units in an echelon formation, where the wing that is protruded at front(forward wing) is stronger than the other wing that falls back(rear wing).

Advance to the enemy in that formation, and use all of your strongest units in the forward wing to hit one corner of the enemy first. The rear wing needs to be prepared to counter the movement of the rest of the phalange.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/232_1103772894_pic3.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/232_1103772957_pic4.jpg

....................

* If the hoplites army breaks its battle line to go save that corner which is under attack from your forward wing, disengage your forward wing a little bit and form a new battle line there. At the same time, quickly move your rear wing, isolate the phalanx unit at the rear end, and hunt it down one by one.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/232_1103773011_pic5.jpg

....................

* If the hoplite army chooses to advance, retreat your rear wing so they avoid combat, and buy more time for your forward wing. Keep retreating, so that your battle line always stays in an echelon against their lines.

Since in this case the phalange chose to advance, the units consisting their right wing are now dissipated and routing. Reposition your forward wing units so they repeat the same attack again.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/232_1103773156_pic6.jpg

....................

* If the hoplite army chooses to respond in orderly fashion, retreat your forward wing and form a new battle line. Your Forward wing now becomes the new rear wing, and redeploy your rear wing so it becomes a new forward wing. In other words, the roles between forward and rear wings switch.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/232_1103773236_pic7.jpg

These series of tactics are known to be developed by Epaminondas. Since your troops aren't strong enough to to face all of the enemy troops at the same time, form an echelon, and always secure a local but huge numbers advantage over the enemy at one side, and "cut the corners" off one by one.

The problem is that TR mods are heavily influenced by "infantries are turtles" school of opinion among RTW gamers, and uses an overly penalizing unit terrain speed modifiers. So in TR mods where the units are all put in slow motion (so that ham-fisted people can meddle around during battle to make pretty formations and lines and think they are doing something 'tactical', instead of instantly react and respond to whatever is thrown to them on a dynamic scale) it is pretty hard to flank anything in the first place.

So personally, I recommend you restore your original "descr_battle_map_movement_modifiers.txt" file to use with TR4.0(it's possible). It makes a good experience with all the wonderful changes and kill rate reduction TR4.0 has to offer, combined with the dynamic tactical approach of original RTW.

Red Harvest

12-23-2004, 07:29

While the echelon description is on, the ham-fisted comments are way off the mark. Last I checked it took more than a second or two to order a mass charge or completely reorder a line in real life. In fact, the actual front was often a mile or two or three across. It took hours just to deploy battle lines for major battles. Such battles would not be decided in seconds as in RTW. It took time for battles to play out, partially because of the distance (that and armed and armoured men in formation don't usually subdue one another in 3 seconds...but that's another matter.) Command lag was much, much longer, but units were more likely to follow some general group type commands such as advance/hold/flank/wheel. They wouldn't have to wait for micromanaging orders from the field commander before following some basic maneuvers.

Mouzafphaerre

12-23-2004, 07:48

-
Hey Ptah,

Any Pharaoh or CotN connection?

:medievalcheers:
-

Ptah

12-23-2004, 08:05

Nope, sorry to disappoint. No affiliations.

Ptah

12-23-2004, 08:21

Last I checked it took more than a second or two to order a mass charge or completely reorder a line in real life. In fact, the actual front was often a mile or two or three across. It took hours just to deploy battle lines for major battles. Such battles would not be decided in seconds as in RTW. It took time for battles to play out, partially because of the distance (that and armed and armoured men in formation don't usually subdue one another in 3 seconds...but that's another matter.) Command lag was much, much longer, but units were more likely to follow some general group type commands such as advance/hold/flank/wheel. They wouldn't have to wait for micromanaging orders from the field commander before following some basic maneuvers.

In real life one did not have a birds-eye view of the battlefield with mouse-pointers giving out 'winning' or 'losing' info neither. As fast the pace of the battle within the game is, it is correspondingly easy to make tactical judgements from the info which is instantly obtained. Not to mention issuing orders are done with a mere movement of a hand and a finger, in the game. These opposite factors effectively cancel each other out and thus have no real relevancy when in discussing a validity of how an abstract depiction of a battle is done within a game.

Messing with the movement modifiers was flat-out bad judgement with poor reasoning. The reasoning behind it was that the game was too fast paced to make 'tactical judgements', which basically only showed that some people's of grasp of 'tactics' would suit a construction of a Maginot line rather than an open-field battle where everything is dynamic.

The complaints about the kill rate and its effect on gameplay I fully agree with. But essentially this has nothing to do with the movement speed of the troops. Thus, when the kill rate was dropped to a manageable level so a commander would have enough time to analyze the results of his action that was OK. Messing with the movement speeds is a step too far with a reason too wrong.

Mouzafphaerre

12-23-2004, 17:26

-
No problem, no disappointment at all. I figured that you might have taken your name for an Egyptian themed game first, that's all. ~:)
-

Red Harvest

12-23-2004, 18:02

Messing with the movement modifiers was flat-out bad judgement with poor reasoning. The reasoning behind it was that the game was too fast paced to make 'tactical judgements', which basically only showed that some people's of grasp of 'tactics' would suit a construction of a Maginot line rather than an open-field battle where everything is dynamic.

Messing with the movement speeds is a step too far with a reason too wrong.

While I have not adjusted movement speeds myself, I can't say that the reasoning for doing so is bad. Part of the reasoning for doing so is spot on. The player is forced to micromanage (as the AI is doing--only the orders given often are nonsensical). You can't give generic orders and have groups respond independently. So arguments about viewing the whole field are moot. Friendly fire really shows the level of micromanagement required and how much speed effects it. Slowing down movement speed is one way to get some control. It is better than using pause all the time.

Scale is a major factor. Units could not turn so rapidly in real life. That is another reason it took so long to deploy. The speed with which units zip about, particularly cavalry is crazy. Schooling fish has been an apt description. Since the human is stuck micromanaging 20 units independently (since there is no option for the AI to do so) and the distance scale of the lines is and order of magnitude less than actual because of unit size (resulting in faster resolution speed) the movement speed doesn't fit well with the game engine. I'm not at all certain how much it should be detuned. MTW's speed seemed about right as a compromise, so I can understand why folks have wanted to go back to that.

Actually, hoplite battles were single line affairs--moving Maginot lines. The "open field" comment does not fit the dynamics of that. The reason for the single line was that they were more "closed" positions (borrowing chess terminology.) When gaps opened, resulting in open field dynamics, bad things happened to the hoplites. This was the strength of the duplex acies and maniple system used by the Samnites against the Romans, and later adopted and modified by Rome into the triplex acies.

Most of the desire to adjust movement speed probably has to do with what happens when you try to engage the enemy line in a straight forward fight. You order your units to charge the unit across from them--simple enough. Then watch in dismay as your line criss crosses if the AI pivots its units at all. So you have to pause and alter orders. In reality this would be a general "advance and engage" order rather than being unit vs. unit every time. But RTW doesn't give you these kind of options, so "lead computing" results in a completely ridiculous mess as your units try to plot intercepts. The AI units do the same and utter chaos results. Adjusting movement speed is again a way to try to fix some fundamental flaws in the battle/command and control engine.

I am not saying that adjusting movement speed is the best way to confront RTW's shortcomings, but I can see why it is being done and agree with elements of it.

Ptah

12-23-2004, 23:58

It basically comes down to how much of 'management' we players can take as 'fun', and how much we take as 'burden'. Given an objective analysis, the amount of 'management' needed in RTW does not exceed MTW with any kind of significance. The unit roster size per army has seen an increase from 16 units total to 20, but if we recall what the players have been wanting so much in the MTW days(more unit spaces, larger armies, more variety of action..etc.) an increase of just four more units space per army cannot be anything serious.

The overall requirements for managing remains the same, but the workload has increased a bit due to the fast pace of battle. However, if management was so troubling enough to ruin gameplay itself(in that one cannot manage his army to win) people would not be asking for a better AI(not just about the suicidal generals..) behavior on battlefield, or make a habit of playing on VH/VH settings. Most people already view the AI as 'easy opponents'.

It is only when they are pit against a superior AI army of some sort, that they come down to the forums and start a complaint on how the game is too fast paced for one to adapt. Empirically, it can be seen that most of the posts on this very issue (where people complain how some enemy movement is too fast for them to cope with) are assuming conditions where the enemy forces are superior to their own, and a certain need for advanced tactical maneuvering on the battle field arises.

The question is this: if people have no problems in dealing with AI armies of roughly simular prowess to their own, but they do have problems with dealing with superior enemies because they cannot force faster judgement and response in controlling the units.... how much of it can be faulted to the troublesome micro-management, and how much of it is faulted to individual incompetency?

...

One thing I have learned about gamers is usually, they have a tendency of vastly overestimating their personal skill in that game. Every judgement they make about the game is based on their own personal account, and basically bears no objective quality at all. Since they themselves cannot be 'poor in skill', they tend to assume that it is the system and the game that is wrong.

Ofcourse, this attitude is more often than not immediately subdued, when they enter multiplayer games and see what kind of things other people can do. Such experience is not all that unfamiliar to me, since I also play a lot of MP games of all sorts. It becomes pretty clear that some people, obviously really can do things which others have previously stated was impossible. In the MP games it never ceases to amaze me how good some people can manage their soldiers with precision, like some chess piece on a board.

Ofcourse, not everybody can do that. Not everybody can become a super-jock in a certain game. However, there is no denying that the people who can do that, are truly skilled.

So, it comes down to this.

If the precision skills required to accurately manage an army, is to be considered a burden rather than fun, and if we remove that burden from the game by slowing the pace so everybody regardless of personal skill, experience, practice, is given enough time to think through everything before making their move, then why bother creating a real-time tactical simulation at all? Why not just make it a turn-based tactical sim with 3D graphics?

Slowing the game down is basically removing the all of the positive traits (think fast, make bold judgements, immediately carry out what needs to be done, and do it effectively by commanding each units to utmost precision)that would make a good 'virtual general' out of the game.

These very traits are what makes the difference between a 'good general' and a 'bad general' in multiplayer games. Needless to say, the problems of 'micromanagement' is non-existant in the MP games since the conditions are equal for each of the adversaries.

Ofcourse, we are talking about the single player campaign modes. However, the MP experience gives us a profound view on what exactly is possible, and impossible in the game. It is obviously very possible, to manage an army exactly the way one wants. These people who can do that, went through the time and trouble of trying to perfect what needs to be perfected.

For instance, when somebody having trouble with the phalanxes as stated in the initial post, sees the Echelon formation and its tactical maneuvering, he will soon find out that it's actually very hard to control the Roman infantry in that manner. A slip of concentration or slow judgement(not to mention a slow hand) will ruin the maneuvering and get the hastati and principes isolated and routed. But ofcourse, it is very possible. I've given it enough practice to beat 20-unit full army of Armoured Hoplites with just Roman infantry and no cavalry at all.

In short, in the above case the tactical maneuvering as suggested is effective only when you have the basic skills to accurately control the army precisely in the formation required.

So, is taking the time to aquire that much skill supposed to be a 'burden', or 'fun'? If it is considered a burden, and my troops are consequentially slowed down to the rate that they'd be practically travelling at 2m/sec on a full charge speed(so other people who obviously don't seem to want to adjust to the learning curve can take leisurely time in thinking through stuff), how the heck is anyone supposed to be doing anything 'tactical' with it?

Ptah

12-24-2004, 00:21

"You see a small gap forming in the enemy lines. Driving a cavalry charge into that gap will have a devastating effect. You muster the horsemen and charge.. except these guys are travelling so slow, that by the time the cavalry approaches the enemy lines the gap is already closed. The enemy general noticed the cavalry move, took enough time to think over it, and then decided to move some more spears to close the gap.

And thus, under the slow movement modifiers, Alexander and his companions are rounded up and destroyed. Darius 3rd wins the battle of Gaugamella."

A funny story? Actually this is precisely the kind of 'tactics' some people want from the game. The very drive to victory Alexander achieved that day, was that he found a gap and made the first move on what to do with it. Charged full speed into the gap with his companions before Darius could react, and routed the entire central command. You don't wait and see what the enemy is gonna do. The moment a general sees enemy cavalry movement is when he should react, not after watching where they go and how they move. By the time a cavalry has reached a flank it is already to late, and that's how it should be.

The comparison between MTW and RTW can be readily stated as a comparison between 'stagnant' and 'dynamic'. The changes of RTW has brought speed and aggressiveness onto the battlefield that was yet unseen in the TW series. STW and MTW alike, was a battle of formations. One stagnant defensive line pitted against the other. In the above mentioned situation, in STW and MTW you could wait and see all you like, what the enemy was doing, and then decide on the final moment whether to send spears to stop the cavalry or not. It doesn't work that way in RTW. It doesn't work that way in real life either.

The real deal is this:

1) People didn't like the way that their 'fail-proof' formations were crumbling, when they found out the guy who takes the first initiative will hit the flanks or rear with lightning speed. In MTW or STW, there was no such thing as an unexpected hit from unexpected direction, since everything was so slow that nothing was unexpectable.

2) The 'tactics' these people were used to, were about making solid lines of defensive formations, and passively waiting for the enemy to make a move so one could counter it. In RTW, things don't work out that way.

3) In short, their grasp of 'tactics' are limited to something akin to WW2 generals thinking about WW1 style trench-hold warfare, when the Germans were already blitzing everywhere. Basically they are thinking the same things as Greek commanders and their phalangites were thinking, when they were crushed by the Roman legion system which specifically emphasizes speed and maneuverability.

4) Since they don't like this change, they revert the game to the old status, where 'tactics' once again meant passiveness. Obviously it never came into their minds the tactical geniuses of military history were always the ones who made the first move, relentlessly repositioning and managing their units to maximum efficiency, instead of make a 'standard army formation' and keep their units that way.

Ofcourse, some of the complaints and requests do make sense. There should have been made a difference between 'breath' and 'overall endurance'. As it is, infantry could move at full speed over huge distances as long as they are not fatigued. However, fatigue itself acts differently in a real battle. It was possible for the soldiers to charge full speed upto some 400m upon account, but they would be out of breath when done so. The momentary burden of fatigue, as opposed to overall fatigue, should have been modelled in the game, so the overall fatigue level slowly rises over time, but momentary fatigue quickly fills up and just as much quickly relieved.

The various bugs and issues concerning the game which increases the burden of immediate action upon requirements, is also a reasonable pointer.

However, none of these reasons are powerful enough to justify a slowing down in the movement of troops to such penalizing degree. Under such conditions not even Alexander, Hannibal, or Scipio would have achieved uch great success in their campaigns. These generals make it a habit of moving quickly and precisely, and passive defenders were usually the people who fought them and lost.

Basically the whole deal's a sham. The decrease in movement speeds were requested out of personal gratification, not out of reason.

aw89

12-24-2004, 01:12

wow, you sure do know how to make an argument...

i couldn't agree more though, it makes perfectly sence. if they want slow paced tactics, where they can think about jugments before acting, go to some turn based strategi game.

Puzz3D

12-24-2004, 02:48

Ptah,

If movement speed is reduced, it's reduced for both players, and proportionally for both cav and inf so the relative speed stays the same. If cav was 2x the speed of inf before, it will still be 2x the speed after. If the cavalry unit is 2x the distance from a gap than is an inf unit that might block that gap, the cav unit will beat the inf unit to the gap if it moves first. The player who moves first can be further away by the distance his unit can travel during the time it takes his opponent to react to his move. As movement speed is increased, that distance increases. The question is from how far away should these unblockable offense moves be possible? In STW and MTW, you have about 5 seconds to react to a cav charge on your skirmishers with cav of your own which is a consequence of the speed of the cav, the range of the shooters and how far behind them the protecting units have to stay so as to avoid taking losses.

From a gameplay perspective, unit speed can't be divorced from ranged unit effectiveness, melee fighting speed or fatigue rate. Simply slowing down movement speed would make ranged units more effective, reduce flanking tactics and deter running. In addition to that, the movement speed in RTW is determined by the speed of the animations which are not easily changed. So, I think the movement speeds were probably one of the first parameters frozen, and the gameplay then built up around them. However, it's unfortunate that they somehow decided upon unrealistically fast movement speeds. It looks silly for the scale of the game, and, although it's tolerable in single player, the combined 25% increase in unit slots and 50% increase in running speed means significantly less ability to coordinate your units in multiplayer. You're right on target when you say there is less management in RTW. Gone are the days when superior coordination of units was how you won these games, and it's replaced by first strike type of tactics.

Now I'm going to try to make those damn phalanx units work in multiplayer after the v1.2 patch is released, but if RTW turns out to be just a cav/archer thing, then I won't be playing RTW multiplayer. I'm sure a lot of players will love it like that, but I don't see a big reduction in the defensive aspect of the game as an improvement. Alexander's charge up the middle worked at Guagamela because first he drew the potential blocking unit to the flank and tied it up there. What I hear you saying is that you want to be able to make a charge like that without diverting the defensive unit, and succeed simply because the opponent can't react to your move. I always attacked in STW and MTW, and I was able to exploit gaps and unprotected flanks, and they were exploited on me if I had them. The reason MTW became a slow moving game was due to the fatigue being optimized for the smallest size maps, but battles were almost always on larger maps.

Red Harvest

12-24-2004, 08:28

Ptah,

I think you've missed it entirely. In MTW the battlefield AI was better, period. RTW has probably also shot itself in the foot by high kill rate offensive stat favored play, but the AI is weaker too. On expert MTW could and did hand me my hat at times. That isn't happening in RTW. Yet, I still find the RTW command and control far more annoying than MTW. When you require *more* commands per unit (just look at missile units) to achieve the same effect, and you compress it into a shorter clock time the result is operator overload.

In MTW I had the AI flank me at times--usually when I was stretched too thin or lacking heavy cav counter. Sometimes they would come through the trees or what not. Trees were one instance where the AI had an advantage because its vision was not obscured. In RTW the trees are of almost no consequence and other than height, terrain effects are miniscule (look at the unit stats for confirmation.)

But if we use your comparison of misguided players to WWII generals trying to fight WWI style, then why is cav the answer to everything in RTW? Because they fly across the field, steam rollering flanks and causing group routs. It isn't historical, but the game engine drives you to cav heavy armies because the king of RTW is speed. You don't have to worry about enemy movement speed because you engage bits at a time on the flanks, picking the enemy apart at your leisure.

I am not concerned about camper's formations failing to work with RTW. In fact the RTW time period should be more inclined to favor "campers" compared to MTW, which turns your argument on its ear. The hoplite armies were more static by design--hence the single line. I have not heard the supposed "real deal" complaints you list expressed by players--at least not in any substantial amount

Try playing RTW using Roman armies in triplex acies with historical quantities of cav. Then tell me about how you fought with velites, withdrew, then sent in hastati, then principes and perhaps finally resorted to triarii in a closely run affair. Good luck!!! Most times you will end up having to use them nearly all simultaneously. It's back to that darned speed again...

As Puzz3D has said, all the various aspects are linked: missile kill rates, movement speed, melee kill rates, and charge kill rates, as well as flanking modifiers, morale effects, mount effects, you name it. If you have high kill rates, then movement speed becomes even more critical.

Red Harvest

12-24-2004, 08:45

Basically the whole deal's a sham. The decrease in movement speeds were requested out of personal gratification, not out of reason.

And that is simply malarkey. You might not agree with their reasoning (or mine), but calling it a sham and saying it is for personal gratification appears as a shallow, completely subjective analysis. You are impugning their character because you disagree with their reasoning? ~:confused:

...and again, I'm not changing movement speeds at the moment, just noting the impact they have on the game as it is. I see merit to some of your points about battles but they don't jive with the engine we have to work with. Your impression of other players seems so harsh (and far from the mark) as to make me wonder who peed in your wheaties. ~:eek:

If a game doesn't grant some personal gratification, then it isn't fun... :book:

Ptah

12-24-2004, 11:46

If movement speed is reduced, it's reduced for both players, and proportionally for both cav and inf so the relative speed stays the same. If cav was 2x the speed of inf before, it will still be 2x the speed after. If the cavalry unit is 2x the distance from a gap than is an inf unit that might block that gap, the cav unit will beat the inf unit to the gap if it moves first. The player who moves first can be further away by the distance his unit can travel during the time it takes his opponent to react to his move.

True. But reduction in speed is rarely just about relative and numerical performance in maneuvering between units, nor is it just about linear increase/decrease in management loads. To parapharase a certain Mr.Gates, it is all about "speed of thought". The relative speeds may increase/decrease in proportion, but human reaction is different. And the those very differences in actual response time is what is fundamentally different between RTW and STW/MT.

As movement speed is increased, that distance increases. The question is from how far away should these unblockable offense moves be possible? In STW and MTW, you have about 5 seconds to react to a cav charge on your skirmishers with cav of your own which is a consequence of the speed of the cav, the range of the shooters and how far behind them the protecting units have to stay so as to avoid taking losses.

There is no such thing as 'unblockable defense'. The seemingly 'unblockable offense' is not resulted from a change in the gameplay system, but rather resulted from the tendency of players to rely on out-dated styles of tactical preference. For one thing, the very instance you've mentioned itself derives from STW/MTW tactical habit of forming standard skirmisher lines ahead of the main battle line.

There are basically no problems in retreating the skirmishers from the front whatsoever. Like you've said above, the increase in movement speeds are proportionate. The cavalry moves fast, but the skirmisher infantry also moves much faster than before. The only real problem is that a 'decision' is required much earlier in the phase in RTW. Many people retained the old MTW habit of 'watch enemy movement until enemy intentions become clear'. Only when it becomes clear that the cavalry was rushing for the skirmishers people pull them back, which, in most cases is too late. The decision should have been made earlier, or at least, the player should have been ready the moment the cavalry made a movement towards the center.

From a gameplay perspective, unit speed can't be divorced from ranged unit effectiveness, melee fighting speed or fatigue rate. Simply slowing down movement speed would make ranged units more effective, reduce flanking tactics and deter running.

Exactly. You may not realize it, but this really is EXACTLY what some people want. Contest of two stagnant battle lines with little change in both sides, both sides relying heavily on archers and basically "waiting it out" until attrition has dealt its blow. The gripes and complaints of RTW MP being unbalanced by the Egyption faction, is at heart because their unit stats are ideal for tactics suited for MTW-ish behavior.

In addition to that, the movement speed in RTW is determined by the speed of the animations which are not easily changed. So, I think the movement speeds were probably one of the first parameters frozen, and the gameplay then built up around them. However, it's unfortunate that they somehow decided upon unrealistically fast movement speeds. It looks silly for the scale of the game, and, although it's tolerable in single player, the combined 25% increase in unit slots and 50% increase in running speed means significantly less ability to coordinate your units in multiplayer.

Make a rough scale and measure how fast the infantry and cavalry are moving when running, and compare it to real life. They are not 'unrealistic'. 'Unrealistic' is when the infantry or cavalry moves like it did in MTW - slow.

Also, people have a very bad habit of defining realism on their own basis, which, I will talk about in the next paragraph.

You're right on target when you say there is less management in RTW. Gone are the days when superior coordination of units was how you won these games, and it's replaced by first strike type of tactics.

This is it. This is exactly the problem.

Just what exactly is 'coordination'? How did 'coordinated' troops move on the battlefield?

Many people confuse 'coordination' with 'tidyness', as much as they confuse 'tactics' with 'management'. This is also a tendency that was inherited down from STW and MTW.

Battle columns and lines are clean, square, and tidy BEFORE the battle starts. Once the battle starts, it is total chaos, with lines breaking up and reforming everywhere simultaneously. Partial routs and advances make it very hard for the commanders to make judgements on whether they are really losing or winning.

The legendary generals of history are 'legendary', because among that chaos they could still make accurate judgements on what to be done, not because they made clean formations and reacted passively to every first move and countered the enemy. Legendary generals always took the first initiative on the battle field and never lost it. The only time they went passive and waiting for the first strike, was when they were disadvantaged. With enough men they always made the first move, forced the enemy to think, forced them to make wrong decisions. And with blinding speed, they did so. Bold and daring maneuvers derived from accurate judgement of the state of battle, and often the enemy had little time to counter it. Grabbing the first initiative and not letting go was THE most important thing in battle.

Formation of battle lines are merely there to help carry out the initial plan they have thought of before the main lines clash. A plan is only a plan, and every bit of it changes according to the situation once the main lines collide. For this very reason Alexander the great himself has said, "a battle is dynamic", and Julius Caesar firmly states, "you cannot win by following manuals".

However, sometime after the STW and MTW experience, which at that point the people considered the game as 'most realistic battle experience'(and rightfully so.. at least, at that point), somehow the exact trimming and catering, clean-cut micromanagement of pretty-looking battle formations uring battle, has become confused with "overall coordination".

"Coordination" in former TW series, has come to mean;
1) managing tidy formations DURING battle
2) controlling everything in a precise manner DURING battle
3) battling as if it was a board-game, SHUNNING chaotic states

This is a serious bast*rdization of the meaning of "coordination".

Why is the 'first strike' considered 'uncoordinated' in the first place?

Because people got the wrong notion that you're not supposed to draw first blood. The first charge, first move is what 'barbarians' were supposed to be doing. Waiting out, maintaining clean formations, countering every enemy move as if playing chess - that is supposed to be 'tactical' and 'coordinated'. (which the irony is, even in chess the winning player is the one who usually grabs hold of the first initiative, and forces the opponent to become passive)

They also got the wrong notion that if the lines become messed up and does not look 'rectangular', it means the troops are 'uncoordinated'. Or if the battle lines are disrupted and bent, it means its an uncontrollable slugfest.

This is a battle. It's supposed to be messy and chaotic.

Think of it as American football. People who don't know football, at first glance think it's a barbaric game of pure brawn. By that standards the team which got the biggest line backers would be always winning. Except, football is all about tactics. The 'formations' may look pretty before the hut-hut, but once the ball moves it's total chaos. Linebackers don't manage clean-cut 'defense lines' as one may think. There are holes and opening everywhere, with people tumbling and tussling around, initial formations warped and bent and augemented. Despite that chaotic state, if the coach, and the players make correct judgements, receivers will successfully flank and afford a new 1st down. So, is football an 'uncooridnated' sport?

'Coordination' is the ability to contol units despite the chaotic status they are in. Stopping the units from entering such dynamic state, and pushing them forward in an orderly rank-and-file to battle out that way - that's not 'coordination'. You don't do that in when the battle really starts. You do that when you march in a parade.

The first move is powerful, because the people who move first has got the first initiative. It's supposed to be like that. If "A" makes the first move, they take the first initiative. The passive "B" must observe, analyze, and then come up with a countering plan to A's movement. This worked in Roman's vs Barbarians, because while the barbarians had the first initiative, they did not know how to use it.

Things are different in a battle of peers. It's gonna be too late when the enemy cavalry is already riding up your left and right. They are supposed to be stopped before they reach that position in the first place. That's why the 'standard' formation always has cavalry at the right and left. The moment the enemy cavalry advances, this side's cavalry must also make a move. You don't wait out and see if the enemy will flank you or not. You're supposed to make the first move, or at least react immediately if you've lost the initiative, and try to get it back.

None of this is present in STW or MTW. All of it is present in RTW.

Granted, the quick routs and quick kills has seriously done the basic system injustice. More often than not the first move becomes the only move, because the fast kill rates make an already fast paced game much too demanding even for veteran players. That's why I don't object in slowing down the kill rates and make the process of duking out in the main lines much longer. But like mentioned before this has essentially nothing to do with the tactical importance of the first initiative.

RTW battles have "coordination". It has "tactics". Much moreso than STW or MTW can every be.

It's just that the truth about 'coordination' and 'tactics' is so shockingly different from what people have imagined that they felt they were slapped in the face. The irony is the more RTW comes to resemble 'reality'(at least much more real than STW or MTW would ever be), the more the people reject it on grounds of 'not being realistic'. The 'realism' perceived by gamers, is seriously flawed.

Now I'm going to try to make those damn phalanx units work in multiplayer after the v1.2 patch is released, but if RTW turns out to be just a cav/archer thing, then I won't be playing RTW multiplayer.

The 'archer thing' has nothing to do with tactics. It simply a problem of misbalanced units in case of Egypt. In case of 'cavalry', their tactical importance is nothing irregular. Despite all their weaknesses cavalry was one of the most important units in ancient times - in some occasions, even more so than the Medieval ages.

I'm sure a lot of players will love it like that, but I don't see a big reduction in the defensive aspect of the game as an improvement.

Well, it's everyman's own. But playing defensive is supposed to get you lost. You're supposed to defend when it looks like you're disadvantaged, not bring out an army and set it up in defensive lines the moment you see the enemy forces.

Alexander's charge up the middle worked at Guagamela because first he drew the potential blocking unit to the flank and tied it up there. What I hear you saying is that you want to be able to make a charge like that without diverting the defensive unit, and succeed simply because the opponent can't react to your move.

All of the 'blocking units' that tried to flank Alexander were cavalrymen. They weren't even supposed to be flanking Alex's right wing. The miscommunication and poor judgement created a gap left of Darius, which Alexander immediately realized and decided to drive a nail into.

And no, I don't want a cavalry that just charges through everything. I want a cavalry that's fast enough approach and drill through a gap, and not have the enemy watch my cavalry move for some 20 seconds just to close 200 yard distance, think about what they are gonna do, realize that his line has a gap, and merrily reinforce it before the cavalry even get there.

What's the use of ingenuity that recognizes an enemy weakness, when no matter how fast you recognize it the enemy can counter it eventually?

I always attacked in STW and MTW, and I was able to exploit gaps and unprotected flanks, and they were exploited on me if I had them. The reason MTW became a slow moving game was due to the fatigue being optimized for the smallest size maps, but battles were almost always on larger maps.

Guess why people had to move so much in the larger maps.

It's because each side decided to tuck into the highest ground possible, furthest away from the enemy, in the most defensive position attainable with those units. And then, wait and wait and wait and wait until the enemy came to them.

One side gets bored, starts the long(and slow) march to the end of the map where the enemy lay, and then wait again for arrow exchange. Run out of arrows, and then start moving around. The guy who got bored and moved his troops first, also has more fatigued troops, more hurt by arrow fire, and more likely to lose the battle.

If you consistently won in STW and MTW as the "guy who would not wait, and actually try to do something instead of being a couch potato", then I salute you. Evidently, the way STW and MTW was made, you did something that was seriously disadvantaging and still won the day.

Ptah

12-24-2004, 11:54

And that is simply malarkey. You might not agree with their reasoning (or mine), but calling it a sham and saying it is for personal gratification appears as a shallow, completely subjective analysis. You are impugning their character because you disagree with their reasoning? ~:confused:

You are right. I apologize.

...and again, I'm not changing movement speeds at the moment, just noting the impact they have on the game as it is. I see merit to some of your points about battles but they don't jive with the engine we have to work with. Your impression of other players seems so harsh (and far from the mark) as to make me wonder who peed in your wheaties. ~:eek:

If a game doesn't grant some personal gratification, then it isn't fun... :book:

Just got frustrated with the 'wave of comments' regarding this issue since the introduction of RTW. Evidently the influence of some 'opinion leaders' on this matter has got the forumspeople making totally wrong conclusions based on an inherently flawed analogy. Guess I got to carried away with objecting to that.

Attalus

12-24-2004, 11:58

I'm with Ptah on this one...
Slow down the movement speeds and you miss out on the whole point of this particular game.
Realism? Who knows...
Anybody here ever see a game of Rugby Union?
Large lads with optional necks moving very, very fast straight into the opponents 'battle-line'.

Bone crushing stuff...no American plexi-armour either!

Now, through some huge horses in there and a couple of sharp sticks and I think we're pretty close.

Sure, communication lags were long, runners only run so fast...
Commanders have even less time to make a decision these days...with usually less than perfect information. At least we have radios.
I would have liked to have heard a few bugle/trumpet/cornicen calls in the game. 'Ware the Cavalry!!

Much better than "The day is Ouuuuuuurrrrrs!!!!"

But these Armies (okay..the Romans anyway) were TRAINED.

Drilled. Rehearsed. Over and over and over again.
They really did know their stuff.
Who's ever seen a military tattoo or a parade?
As a soldier, I can perform these manouvres in my sleep, when you learn them the first time, I almost think you do!! I didn't need to know why I did them...I just responded. Same for the legion.
Although I think hearing something like 'Prepare to receive Cavalry' may have been a bit more emotionally significant... ~:eek:

BTW all off topic, I know.

Great slides Ptah...I learned something today.

-Attalus-
Fool me once...shame on you
Fool me twice...prepare to die

ah_dut

12-24-2004, 12:10

I disagree, heay cav is waaaay overpowered insomuch as it can hit a phalanx head on and win...a tad unrealistic no? especially as the phalanx actually holds it's formation.
in real life, if you want to win battles, you simply don't attack, you usually watch, wait and learn. This is normal. With just a charge attack, most units in the game become obsolete. Missile troops are overpowered in the game but most argue not because cav is even more overpowered, I mean in real life even the hetaroi never managed to defeat Iphraktian Hoplites in a head on collision. They can beat silver sheilds head on in this game. It has been tested that horses refuse to charge a solid wall of pointy things. this happens where the horses actually jump over the pointy things...it doesn't happen.
Most heavy cav win by making their opponents run away or lose formatio beofre impact....or hit the flanks.
As to your claim...I did rountinely hit the flanks in mtw and stw, this was done relatively simply by holding up the enemy centre, this is realistic...in my view. Cav is simply too fast in this game, it leads to unbalancing as you don't need as much skill to take the flanks. It takes incredible skill to command a historical roman army against a heavy horse nation...it simply hurts too much in this game.

Rurik the Chieftain

12-24-2004, 13:16

Whoa! I'm sure jerby got a lot more than he bargained for on this thread! ~:eek:

CBR

12-24-2004, 13:46

It basically comes down to how much of 'management' we players can take as 'fun', and how much we take as 'burden'

With MTW you wouldnt find many modders who increased or decreased movement rates. I guess that means a majority felt speed was fast enough and those who found it slow could use the speed slider.

Given an objective analysis, the amount of 'management' needed in RTW does not exceed MTW with any kind of significance

Lets analyse it then: 25% more units = 80% time per unit compared to STW/MTW. Infantry run speed has been increased about 60%. So when battle lines engage and units start running, you might have less than half the time per unit compared to STW/MTW. And lets not forget the special abilities like phalanx or warcry that players now have to fiddle with too. If you at some point were hardpressed in a battle to control all 16 units then you can expect to control less than half your army in RTW.

how much of it can be faulted to the troublesome micro-management, and how much of it is faulted to individual incompetency?

When I played a Seleucid campaign and used lots of heavy cavalry against infantry dominated Roman armies the game was incredible easy. When I played the Romans and focused on mostly infantry the situation was suddenly reversed as it was extremely difficult to handle as enemy cav coming in on two flanks made the battles way too fast.

Against an equal AI army in MTW battles could be pretty tough actually as controlling 16 units was fast enough, even at the "slow" pace, . Remember some people actually used pause in MTW too.

One thing I have learned about gamers is usually, they have a tendency of vastly overestimating their personal skill in that game

And one thing I have learned about gamers is that some have a tendency to ridicule others for lack of skill just because they find a certain gameplay good and dont understand why others disagree. ~;)

But its true some people will always look for faults in the game and will not adapt to new features. The problem is what can you adapt to? People cant suddenly grow faster reactions. As I said in a thread on .Com: I can buy better upgrades for my PC but I still cant buy cybernetic implants to upgrade my brain.

Yes its "easy" to adapt to RTW gameplay. Just get loads of cav and use simple tactics and you have a sure winner against the incompetent players. There is no longer a place for fancy combined arms as you dont have time to use it.

.... then why bother creating a real-time tactical simulation at all? Why not just make it a turn-based tactical sim with 3D graphics?

So now a game has to be either a turn based game or a click fest?

Slowing the game down is basically removing the all of the positive traits (think fast, make bold judgements, immediately carry out what needs to be done...

Thats strange.. I thought STW and MTW had that but I guess Im wrong.

CBR

Puzz3D

12-24-2004, 14:34

Ptah,

My question was from how far away should unblockable offense moves be possible? I think it is possible to make moves that can't be countered because I did it in MTW. I'm not saying it was easy to do because it took planning. I also feel that that the reaction time a player typically needed in MTW was in the range of 5 to 10 seconds rather than the 20 seconds you claim. In RTW, the distance from which uncounterable moves can be made is greater than in MTW because the reaction time of the player is the same in both games, but units move faster in RTW and there is an additional 1.5 second delay in RTW before a unit responds to a command. However, you stated very clearly in your last post that "playing defensive is supposed to get you lost". My understanding of military doctrine is that the attacker has to have a considerable advantage if he expects to succeed. In other words, it's easier to defend than to attack.

When you play this game online, the attacker and the defender have equal strength, so I think the prospects of success for both should be balanced to get the best gameplay. In this way, battles can have move, countermove, counter to that, and again to that, etc. making for a more interesting game than just attack, and it's decided because the countermoves are practically guaranteed to fail. In RTW, it's easier to attack. In STW and MTW it was easier to defend. It may have been a bit too easy to defend in MTW, but I think that was related to the fatigue not being optimized for large maps.

I have made speed measurements in STW, MTW and RTW, and the running speeds of both infantry and cavalry in RTW are 50% faster than is realistic for the scale of the game. It doesn't look right for the scale, and I don't believe it was done for any gameplay reason beyond getting the battles over with quickly for what CA percieved as their new market. However in making that design decision, the player cannot now use his units in as coordinated a fashion as in the previous games which you can argue isn't realistic, but it sure made for a more interesting gameplay than RTW. It's too bad you can't play with huge units to slow down the combat resolution, and thereby give both the attacker and the defender more time to issue orders to their units. GilJaysmith of CA even recommended that as a way to improve the gameplay in RTW.

I agree with you that RTW battles are a chaotic mess. The previous games in the series approached the quality of chess in their gameplay, but RTW doesn't even come close to achieving that.

CBR

12-24-2004, 15:44

Make a rough scale and measure how fast the infantry and cavalry are moving when running, and compare it to real life. They are not 'unrealistic'. 'Unrealistic' is when the infantry or cavalry moves like it did in MTW - slow.

And we went through all that back in RTW demo days. My posts are near the bottom of the page and on page 2 along with SpencerH that added some extra info:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=35875&page=1&pp=30

And Duke John calculated movement based on the animation files. And its pretty much the same as tests we did both for the demo and the actual game(and RTW inf running speed is actually even faster as the old tests was done with fatigue on that reduced overall speed):

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=40742

CBR

Red Harvest

12-24-2004, 18:35

Thanks for reposting the speed threads. They are a good read. At the time I was not ready to come to a conclusion about movement speed--was letting the whole thing "sink in." Right now, after much play, I agree with the basic thrust of those posts, movement speed is a bit higher than it should be.

Ptah

12-25-2004, 02:37

I disagree, heavy cav is waaaay overpowered insomuch as it can hit a phalanx head on and win...a tad unrealistic no?

I've wrote several articles about this on the Colosseum. The 'cavalry are overpowered' comments are also borne out of popular misconception where people do not take the specific situation and factors into account.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=40949&page=2

in real life, if you want to win battles, you simply don't attack, you usually watch, wait and learn.

The cadets watch, wait, and learn. Generals take action upon situation and how make quick judgements. Just standing ground and waiting for the first window of opportunity to rise is what losing generals do. Winning generals make the first move and force the enemy to react as he expected. Besides, who says the first attack is 'simple'?

Ptah

12-25-2004, 03:18

My question was from how far away should unblockable offense moves be possible? I think it is possible to make moves that can't be countered because I did it in MTW.

My answer was that when a certain 'offense' is perceived to be unblockable, it is because indeed the defending side lost the proper timing at which the offense could have been blocked or countered.

I'm not saying it was easy to do because it took planning. I also feel that that the reaction time a player typically needed in MTW was in the range of 5 to 10 seconds rather than the 20 seconds you claim. In RTW, the distance from which uncounterable moves can be made is greater than in MTW because the reaction time of the player is the same in both games, but units move faster in RTW and there is an additional 1.5 second delay in RTW before a unit responds to a command.

The reaction time of the players need not remain the same, and the increase in movement speeds is not something we cannot manage. The whole bit about the multiplayer experience was to come up with a point that there are people who do react at a proper timing, and these people are not rare.

However, you stated very clearly in your last post that "playing defensive is supposed to get you lost". My understanding of military doctrine is that the attacker has to have a considerable advantage if he expects to succeed. In other words, it's easier to defend than to attack.

I'll rephrase it, I've wrongly expressed my intention - "you can't win by defense".

When you set a policy of defense, your goal is to "not lose", not necessarily "win". An army which is set in a defensive position simply chooses to defend until it has forced enough attrition on both sides, so the attacker may choose to withdraw and fight another day.

However, in both the MP and SP games a battle assumes a status of open-field confrontation where many factors which can be disadvantageous to the side which simply takes a defensive measure. For one thing a standard defense is severly hampered in general mobility of the troops, and the passive state of the defender suggests that he will not be able to properly counter a move when it needs to.

The defensive formations are generally set up in a way that the defender needs not move much at all, so the formation is pretty much ready for anything at any direction. However, if the attacker will find an opening, gap, opportunity, or whatever one may choose to describe it, and starts a coordinated action towards in exploiting that weakness, the defense usually has a hard time countering it.

In STW/MTW, this point was not emphasized enough. Both sides would retain defensive positions, and choose a more or less passive method of fighting, often right 'til the end. Since attacking was so much harder, however ingenius or creative an individual would get, that would still avail him naught. One still had to use 'standard' formations of certain variations, emphasize on archer strength, and etc etc.

Remember the Warlord clan, many of whom specialized in the Turks and Egyptions. They have tried out many different and creative variations of how to utilize the Muslim factions to their strengths.

However, none of their methods and tactics really survived to become a new standard(or at least an alternate one) throughout the days of MTW, because in the end, no amount of thinking and experimenting alone would overcome the basic limitations in the conditions of the battle. The wall of European spears, the massive ranks of superior swordsmen, the powerful European knights, were impregnable and unpenetratable. While seeing many variations, still at heart the 'standard method of formations' never changed at all. There was no need to change it. Nothing really could overcome that. Any other form of battle line was a waste of time and just asking to be crushed by the 'standard formation'.

All because, simply, nothing beat the basic setting defensive position, with the player passively reacting to just counter the enemy. 'The guy who first moves loses' became a silent, but profound motto in STW/MTW games.

Ptah

12-25-2004, 04:10

Thanks for the posting the links CBR.
Let's take a more closer look at the set of data.

Infantry walking 100% 3.7 mph 100% 3.7 mph
Infantry running 280% 10.4 mph 166% 6.2 mph
Infantry charging 348% 12.9 mph 183% 6.8 mph
Fast infantry running 337% 12.5 mph 200% 7.4 mph

Cavalry walking 127% 4.72 mph 150% 5.6 mph
Cavalry running 470% 17.5 mph 333% 12.4 mph
Cavalry charging 716% 26.6 mph 367% 13.7 mph
Fast cavalry running 630% 23.4 mph 400% 14.9 mph

The left column is the set of measured data from RTW, and the right column would be from STW/MTW. All the 'percentages' exaggerates the 'problem' much more than it really is. When perceived from a more smaller increments of time and distance, RTW makes much more overall sense than STW/MTW.

Movement Distance per second

Infantry walking 1.7yd(1.6m) 1.7yd(1.6m)
Infantry running 3.5yd(3.2m) 2.9yd(2.6m)
Infantry charging 5.3yd(4.8m) 3.1yd(2.8m)
Fast infantry running 5.9yd(5.4m) 3.5yd(3.2m)

Cavalry walking 2.3yd(2.1m) 2.6yd(2.3m)
Cavalry running 8.4yd(7.9m) 5.9yd(5.4m)
Cavalry charging 12.8yd(11.7m) 6.7yd(6.1m)
Fast cavalry running 11.4yd(10.4m) 7.2yd(6.6m)

Please excuse the metrics since I'm much more accustomed to using them over Imperial mile/yards.

A tall man of about 6' 1" stature usually takes over a meter in a single stride in a regular march, two strides in a second, which makes of over 2yd/s speed. Provided he is fit and healthy he could do this for hours.

A fit man covers 100m(109yds) in 15 seconds at full speed(7.2yd/s). Standard atheltics testing in high schools show kids in their late teens do 13 seconds(8.4yd/s) average. Olympic records are inside 10 seconds(12.11yd/s).

A race horse carrying a rider is typically timed and quoted at 60km/h(37.2mph). I don't know how other countries measure it, but in horse races of our country, we measure the race track by 'horse strides', defined as an average distance a horse will cover in 1 second, with one 'HR' being 12m(13yd). A typical race horse in race tracks would average in at 43km/h(26.7mph), which is a lot slower than the theoretical 'full speed' - which, almost exactly corresponds with the full speed of cavalry charge in RTW.

Ofcourse, the above figures are for people in track and field athletics, over very short distances, no armament/equipment whatsoever. The 60km/h quoted for a horse, is assuming a well-breeded, top-class race horse, tall and fit, and carrying a short and light person.

Thus, assume the horse is not a thoroughbred, the man is not so tall, carrying armour and shield, and the speed will become correspondingly lower as can be measured in RTW.

Now, take a look at the STW/MTW values on the right.

An infantry "charge" is merely 3.1yd/s(2.8m/s), which is a distance a normal person can cover in three strides, 1.5 seconds. Are we really supposed to believe that a soldier carrying equipment, running at his full speed, travels only 3 yards in one and a half second? I could carry a 80kg duffel bag behind my back and run faster than that - granted, I'm not going to be running for over 30 seconds with that load. A trained Roman soldier carries about 90 pounds of equipment including rations, tent material, and tools in a march. A typical 'combat load' is only about half of that load. It is highly likely he won't be able to run at the top of his lungs for long, but to think his 'charge' is worth only 3.1yd/s is folly.

The problem, if there is one, is one I have already mentioned in previous posts:

There should have been made a difference between 'breath' and 'overall endurance'. As it is, infantry could move at full speed over huge distances as long as they are not fatigued. However, fatigue itself acts differently in a real battle. It was possible for the soldiers to charge full speed upto some 400m upon account, but they would be out of breath when done so. The momentary burden of fatigue, as opposed to overall fatigue, should have been modelled in the game, so the overall fatigue level slowly rises over time, but momentary fatigue quickly fills up and just as much quickly relieved.

I fully agree to implementing this sort of system in the game, which momentary stamina and overall stamina is differentiated. However, essentially this has nothing to do with speeds, and the speeds shown in RTW are well more realistic than what STW/MTW suggests, and that's a fact. Neutering the movement speeds to address this problem only warps the game twice, with two wrongs not making a right.

CBR

12-25-2004, 11:55

Thanks for the posting the links CBR.
Let's take a more closer look at the set of data.

I dont think you understand the problem. Read my posts in the first link I provided. It is not so much what an individual soldier or horse can do but what a unit can do while still preserving formation as well as conserving strength. We have lots of info on how units would attack and as I concluded in one of the posts MTW speeds are actually much closer to realistic speeds than RTW.

If anyone ever did a full run it was the last few meters only and that is really the same as with cavalry units. A cavalry charge would use a trot for most of the distance. If they started making a full charge at too far away from the enemy the formation would be completely scattered and it would be a severe disadvantage if facing an ordered enemy. And any control with the unit would be lost too.

RTW has a charge speed that can only be achieved for the last few meters before hitting an enemy while in MTW you could actually do it whenever you wanted. So its perfectly fine if charge speed in RTW is higher than in MTW. But infantry "running" for a longer distances can really only be the double quick march and that would be around 150-180 meters/minute.

And yes the lack of proper fatigue when doing fast maneuvers means its basically a no-brainer to use it even when enemy is 200+ meters away. In MTW we had a problem with too high marching fatigue and now its the other way around as you dont have to worry too much about fatigue.

CBR

Ptah

12-25-2004, 12:53

I dont think you understand the problem. Read my posts in the first link I provided. It is not so much what an individual soldier or horse can do but what a unit can do while still preserving formation as well as conserving strength. We have lots of info on how units would attack and as I concluded in one of the posts MTW speeds are actually much closer to realistic speeds than RTW.

CBR, most of the soldiers portrayed in the game are trained soldiers. They are part of the citizenry with high morale and regular training. From the ancient times and upto modern military, the first thing soldiers learn in boot camp is to move and respond as a unit. Rectangular tactical formations on the battle field has been discarded since 1875, and still the modern military boot camp drills and trains soldiers to carry out such maneuvers. I should know so - our military relies on regular conscripts, I've also seen service for two years in my early 20's. The army drilled us to carry 30kg worth of equipment and jog around for miles for hours. Granted, I wasn't running at the top of the lungs. But it was still a lot faster than the so-called 'realistic' values as suggested by some.

Ofcourse, even trained soldiers don't just start a maneuver at whim. That's why RTW units have the so called 'command lags'. Some people condemn them as a game-flaw, others are just plain frustrated with it. But more or less it correctly portrays the process of the unit leader shouting orders, preparing the troops for an all-out maneuver, and then 'going for it'.

If anyone ever did a full run it was the last few meters only and that is really the same as with cavalry units. A cavalry charge would use a trot for most of the distance. If they started making a full charge at too far away from the enemy the formation would be completely scattered and it would be a severe disadvantage if facing an ordered enemy. And any control with the unit would be lost too.

I don't necessarily object to that analogy.

However, again as I mentioned, that is a problem to be solved with a separate modelling factor on how units respond to a command. The differentiation between momentary fatigue and overall fatigue should have been in the game, but it is not. However, overall neutering of the movement speeds in no way solves any of the problem perceived. It just warps the 'reality' twice, in a very awkward manner.

Also, troops refraining from a full out charge from the start, was out of necessity. The fact that ancient soldiers didn't like to do that, doesn't mean they can't do that.

RTW has a charge speed that can only be achieved for the last few meters before hitting an enemy while in MTW you could actually do it whenever you wanted. So its perfectly fine if charge speed in RTW is higher than in MTW. But infantry "running" for a longer distances can really only be the double quick march and that would be around 150-180 meters/minute.

While the lack of fatigue does allow too much leniency in maneuvering upon occasion, there is no reason to believe that full speed maneuvering should be allowed for 'last few meters'.

Take note that stamina training was a regular part of the ancient military. The Greeks even adopted special training which purpose is to heighten the physical stamina of the individual soldier up to a level that they may maintain a speedy running status over hundreds of meters.

Some battles would indeed start out with a slow march and approach. Others involve the attacking soldier covering some 400 meters in a full charge, along with full equipment and armour. In describing the battle of Pharsalus, Julius Caesar compliments the prudence of his soldiers and comments, "At this point the individual experiences of the soldiers came alive. Running hundreds of yards in a charge to meet Pompeius' army, they realized that the enemy was not moving. So they halted to grab a breath, and when the lines were reformed, they started the charge again."

And yes the lack of proper fatigue when doing fast maneuvers means its basically a no-brainer to use it even when enemy is 200+ meters away. In MTW we had a problem with too high marching fatigue and now its the other way around as you dont have to worry too much about fatigue.

It isn't any more 'no brainer' than to decide to cut back the speed to seriously pathetic levels in the name of 'realism'. 'Selective realism' is more like it.

Again, the analogy I agree with, is that the fatigue levels should have been differentiated.

It should have been modelled so that the soldiers could cover about 200~300meters in a full charge status, but would go from "Fresh" to "Exhausted" almost instantly, when they do that. However, as quickly as they tire out, this would be 'momentary fatigue'. A minute of rest would be enough for them to 'recharge' back to "Fresh" - the soldiers are catching a breath.

The overall fatigue levels would rise in a slow rate, and the higher the "overall fatigue" grows, the threshold of "momentary fatigue" would move with it - soldiers would tire from "Fresh" to "Exhausted" more quickly, and recharge more slower.. and etc etc.

The lack of this specific fatigue modelling, however, cannot be artificially 'compensated' by any other alteration. Killing the movement speed may seem like a reasonable solution to this, but in reality it kills the overall dynamics of the battle completely and turns battles into a state of 'pseudo-realism' which sprung out of someone's imagination. Basically, the suggested 'solution' is itself pretty much nonesense.

Basically the whole deal is like this:

1) A unit of soldiers can do "100" for a limited time. Other times, they would do only about "50".
2) In the game, the duration which the soldiers can do "100" seems a bit too long.
3) So, the 'solution' people come up with, is to use an "average point" and neuter the maximum performance of the soldiers to "75" !!

How in the world can this make any kind of sense, or even be considered 'realistic'?

Puzz3D

12-25-2004, 14:55

My answer was that when a certain 'offense' is perceived to be unblockable, it is because indeed the defending side lost the proper timing at which the offense could have been blocked or countered.
I'm asking from what distance you want attacking moves to be unblockable? How far away must a unit be before the defender can react in time if he immediately sees the attacking unit move? The distance will be greater for cavalry than for infantry because cavalry is faster.

This is the scenario. A player sees an enemy unit start to move. He has a unit in a position to intercept it and immediately knows he wants to make the intercepting move. He has to move his mouse to his unit and select it. Then move his mouse to the enemy unit or to some point of intercept and select it. Then there is a 1.5 second delay before his unit starts to move. The player who made the attacking move has already gone through all those steps. The question is how far is the attacking unit going to travel in the time it takes the other player to get his countermove going? Clearly, as movement speed increases this distance increases because the time it takes to select a unit, select a destination and then wait 1.5 seconds for the unit to start moving is a constant. This distance is determined by the game mechanics, and has nothing to do with military tactics or how fast someone thinks.

Once units get within this distance they are vulnerable to first strike killing. The only chance of saving the unit would be if it can hold out long enough for another unit to arrive. If the killing rate is fast, there won't be much chance of relief unit getting there in time. If the cavalry is too strong, then there will be lots of fast, relatively small cav units on both sides which will shift the gameplay to favor offense over defense. I don't think an unbalance between offense and defense is good for the game over the long term.

CBR

12-25-2004, 20:17

CBR, most of the soldiers portrayed in the game are trained soldiers. They are part of the citizenry with high morale and regular training.

And I doubt they trained harder than a lot of western armies have done the last couple of hundred years. A lot of ancient armies (like the classic Greeks) would be considered amateurs today.

The army drilled us to carry 30kg worth of equipment and jog around for miles for hours. Granted, I wasn't running at the top of the lungs. But it was still a lot faster than the so-called 'realistic' values as suggested by some.

Well what "realistic" values is it you dont like? The USMC have the 180 step/minute double quick march as the fastest march rate. The UK army back in the 1930's had the same but used 40 inch paces (1 meter) instead of the USMC's 36 inch (90 centimeter) So thats a movement rate of about 160-180 meters/minute or around 10-11 km/h. And that is without akward shields as well as doing it on road in columns.

Modern day experiments with men equipped in hoplite armour and shield found that a jog of about 5-6 mph (8-10 kmh or 130-165 meters/minute) would fragment a 2 file column after about 300 yards. And now try and imagine how disrupted a wide line formation would be if you were not careful with the maneuvering.

US Civil war infantry under fire would use a double quick march of 165 steps/minute or faster (150+ meters/minute) and only run the last few meters when they assaulted a position. Maintaining the formation was not as important as trying to reach the enemy position as quickly as possible.

Here is a list of infantry movement rates from Napoleonic times:

Country Paces per Minute Yards per Minute
Austria Ordinairschritt 90-95 63-66
Geschwindschritt 105 73
Doubleirschritt 120 83
France Pas ordinaire 76 55
Pas de route 85-90 61-65
Pas accelere 100 72
Pas de manoeuvre 120 87
Pas de charge 120 87
Britain Ordinary Pace 75 63
Quick Pace 108 90
Prussia Ordinaire schritt 75 52
Geschwindschritt 108 63
Russia Tchyi szag 60-70 50-58
Skoryi szag 100-110 83-92
Udwonyi szag 140-160 117-133

Most armies back then did not use the same rapid advances as in the US Civil war and its noted how the French Old Guard could do a 300 yard charge (120 paces/minute) while maintaining formation and it was considered remarkable.

French cavalry regulations has the following numbers:

Walk 97-107 meters per minute
Trot 194-214 meters per minute
Gallop 300 meters per minute

The numbers are pretty much the same from what we know of knights in the middleages and how say the Polska Husaria did they charges. Only the final 50 meters or less would they go into a fullblown charge

Now look at the running speed in MTW: A whooping 10 kmh (166 meters/minute) for standard infantry and double that for heavy cavalry. All that and they still maintain formation. Sounds pretty good to me and if its unrealistic its because its too fast!

Take note that stamina training was a regular part of the ancient military. The Greeks even adopted special training which purpose is to heighten the physical stamina of the individual soldier up to a level that they may maintain a speedy running status over hundreds of meters.

Or more like a speedy jog and perhaps a final run if they actually wanted to crash right into their enemy.

In describing the battle of Pharsalus, Julius Caesar compliments the prudence of his soldiers and comments, "At this point the individual experiences of the soldiers came alive. Running hundreds of yards in a charge to meet Pompeius' army, they realized that the enemy was not moving. So they halted to grab a breath, and when the lines were reformed, they started the charge again."

That doesnt sound like the translation I have:

[3.93]But our men, when the signal was given, rushed forward with their javelins ready to be launched, but perceiving that Pompey's men did not run to meet their charge, having acquired experience by custom, and being practiced in former battles, they of their own accord repressed their speed, and halted almost midway; that they might not come up with the enemy when their strength was exhausted, and after a short respite they again renewed their course, and threw their javelins, and instantly drew their swords, as Caesar had ordered them.

We dont get exact information of the movement rate they used nor how long they did it. Only that they definitely didnt like to do the full distance as Pompey didnt advance so they had to cover the whole distance. As formation and stamina is important, a jog for a few hundred meters would be enough to make them stop up and reform for another charge.

It isn't any more 'no brainer' than to decide to cut back the speed to seriously pathetic levels in the name of 'realism'. 'Selective realism' is more like it.

I wonder who is being most selective?

As I wrote in another post: That people like the new speed...fine by me, just dont use the realism argument plz

All the information we have on how units behave and on human endurance points towards MTW as having speeds closer to realistic levels.

CBR

Hasdrubal giscon

12-25-2004, 21:03

the hoplites and other phalanx units are very strong in street combat.perhjps s one have a tactic against them

Ptah

12-26-2004, 03:23

Ptah

12-26-2004, 03:58

CBR, those are average values attained on a battlefield. They are not the absolute limit. According to that data a French 'charge' is only worth about 4 feet per second, and a horse 'gallops' 5m a second.

They are also Napoleonic values in which melee combat is losing ground at an accelerated rate, in cohesion with the overall decline of the importance of melee over fired/thrown arms that's been underway for hundreds of years.

In ancient times, if you see an enemy 100m out which need to be stopped, you close the full 100m to meet them and halt them there. In ever modernizing warfare, you need close only upto the firing distance. Maintaining an orderly formation to maximize fire power and fire rates was considered to be more important, than moving soldiers as fast as possible. So (while exaggerated by Hollywood movies) one observes in this era, the seemingly bizarre doctrine of battle lines drawn up and firing guns at each other's noses face to face, with soldiers falling down at both sides like rag dolls after each volley, and doing that again and again. In this era, you sacrifice speed if it means you can hold the formation of guns together. A broken formation means irregular and dispersed rate of gunfire.

Maneuvering speeds on a battle field do not follow a chosen set of data or 'soldier's manuals'. It allows us to observe a certain 'ideal' the soldiers try to attain on a battlefield. The officers would also probably want to try to keep the soldiers under control of the 'manual', and hope they(or even the officer himself) do not succumb under the pressure of wanting to move faster in the midst of cannonfire and bullets whizzing by. However, it does not give out an actual representation of how people moved about during battle.

When you have a certain tactical point to reach no matter what purpose, you will drive your soldiers to run at full speed. A cavalry will not 'trot' all the way, when you see an opportunity to break through enemy lines which may vanish after a few seconds. When a melee is already commenced, and you need to send in local reinforcements, shift the unit positions, block here and there, see a new opportunity, and etc etc.. there is no such thing as 'last 50m'. Every meter is the last meter.

The only reason you'd consider MTW levels 'at least closer to realistic levels' is that they are closer to the "manual". Manuals are wishful thinking, not the reality.

ps) I apologize the Caesar quote. You are absolutely correct. I'll refrain from quoting things from the back of my head from now on.

Red Harvest

12-26-2004, 06:18

I've wrote several articles about this on the Colosseum. The 'cavalry are overpowered' comments are also borne out of popular misconception where people do not take the specific situation and factors into account.

And there we go with the "everyone is deluded" view again. Look, steamrolling with low level cav on VH/VH is easy. It's not some sort of "popular misconception." Hoplite armies are a breeze to mow down. That's despite the AI getting +7 to attack and morale bonuses as well. I learned pretty quick: leave the infantry at home or bring what I must as bait/for seiges. Let the cav do the fighting. You don't need great cav, I use the light greek lancers or simple round shields. The nemesis of cav? Other cav of course.

I have watched heavy cav (non cataphract) tear up my sacred band infantry in a frontal charge. The longer pike units do better, but the other phalanx units don't do decently at all. In this time period, cav didn't rule. In fact they got the worst of it when attacking heavy infantry.

Another problem with cav: upkeep is much too cheap. Most of the non-barbarian cav of the time was made of wealthier men who could afford the horses and upkeep. They were not numerous partly for that reason. And often they were rather lightly armoured and armed. So RTW encourages cav heavy armies.

Red Harvest

12-26-2004, 06:48

Ptah,

Men under stress are going to do what their training has taught them (or just freeze or panic.) We execute what we know we can do. That is the reason for those drills and the speeds chosen. You know what happens to a bunch of fools that do their best 100, 200, or 400 meter sprint to the enemy line to commence hand-to-hand? They get cut down because they are out of breath when they reach the objective (and they also will hit the line piecemeal.) They cannot afford to go into severe oxygen debt THEN commence melee. Formations need to move at speeds that allow maintaining cohesion and at a pace that nearly everyone can manage while maintaining formation. They need to do so without exhausting man or beast.

One thing that RTW does seem to incorporate that has some merit is some power to the charging unit vs. a unit standing there turtled. It seems overdone because of many other offensive bonuses and sheer kill speed (and charge bonuses should be much reduced in some situations like cav vs. spears, cav vs. elephants/camels, frontal charges by any unit vs. phalangites in formation, and stacked "snowball" attacks), but the basic idea has goal has merit. Caesar preferred to meet a charge with a countercharge and there is terrific logic in that.

Didz

12-26-2004, 12:34

Ptah,

Men under stress are going to do what their training has taught them (or just freeze or panic.) We execute what we know we can do. That is the reason for those drills and the speeds chosen. You know what happens to a bunch of fools that do their best 100, 200, or 400 meter sprint to the enemy line to commence hand-to-hand? They get cut down because they are out of breath when they reach the objective (and they also will hit the line piecemeal.) They cannot afford to go into severe oxygen debt THEN commence melee. Formations need to move at speeds that allow maintaining cohesion and at a pace that nearly everyone can manage while maintaining formation. They need to do so without exhausting man or beast.

I agree, the headlong charge is a thing of myth, misjudgement, poor discipline, penniless battlefield artists and Universal Studio's.

Effective charges required unit cohension and that in turn meant a control forward movement at a regular pace. Those officers and units who ignored such rules were ridiculed throughout history as fools and yet we contiue to fantasize about their expliots.

As for Phalanx's

The simple answer is missile fire.

If attacked by phalanx's then pelt them with everything you can lay your hands on from arrows and javelins to rocks. I used this tactic to wipe out 3,000 Greek Hoplites with an army of slingers, horse archers and skirmishers.

If attacking with phalanx's then make damned sure they are supported with as many missile units as you can gather on both flanks and across their front. Keep the enemy occupied with these as your pikement close the distance and then use them to pin the enemy in place as your phalanx line engages and pursue them once broken.

jerby

12-26-2004, 16:33

my my my, did I start a topic or what??

thanks ptah, great info. got any mroe of those slides/tactics-> teach me!! train me!!

about rome total realism, how do I change back teh movement speed, its a great mod. but teh shouldn't mess with teh core of the game.

I'm really thankfull for teh info, and to the rest: 2 words: off topic...

if anyone has more info about strategy with, or against phalangites, tell me.

I found a nice thing in city's: when phalanxes turn for a corner, they lift up their spears, when timed right, you can really disrupt the phalanx in that critical moment--> if unit speed is not reduced...

King_Etzel

12-26-2004, 17:19

I dont see anything wrong with Turks fighting silly crusading spearmen and swordsmen. Those Turkoman horse work like a dream, though i wouldnt want a WHOLE army of them. Armenian heavy calvary and a couple of camels finish what the horse archers leave behind.

About this movement speed thing... i also think that the units should move a bit slower. They run awfully fast even with all that armour they carry. Armour is not like duffel bags you carry on your back. It restricts your range of movements and wearing heavy chunks of metal on your legs will make it incredibly tiring to run as you can imagine. I suppose those little soldiers dont look like they wear much armour, not as much as those medieval walking tanks at least. Maybe CA decided to make it different from MTW because of that. I dont know about STW though.

Puzz3D

12-26-2004, 17:34

Let's use the prior posted values, and multiply it with the response time(5s judgement time + 1.5s 'command lag'). If we're assuming enemy cavalry which was already placed at one wing, is advancing at full speed, they will have covered 55yd(51m) by that time(6.5s).
You haven't allowed time for the game mechanic of selecting a unit and then selecting the target unit and possibly having to move the camera as well.

1. If the battle lines are further apart than 109yd(100m) distance(hereafter "engagement distance"), and we want to counter that with our own cavalry and halt them at a middle point, we have to start moving our own cavalry the moment enemy cavalry starts a move. Ofcourse, that is assuming our cavalry is also placed at the wings.
But you can't move your own cavalry at the moment the enemy starts to move unless you give the order 1.5 seconds before his cavalry moves. Therefore, you can never meet the enemy at the midpoint. If the battlelines are 100 m apart, attacking cav will likely cover half the distance before any enemy unit responds. That's a pretty big advantage to give to someone just because they move first. In that case, I should be able to give a standing order to my cav units to attack incoming cav. It's not as though my units, which are standing there in a battleline ready to move, can't see the enemy movement.

2. If the main battle lines are closer than the engagement distance, then you can't halt enemy cavalry flanking at a middle point. The closer the distance between the lines, the closer to us enemy cavalry will be halted.
Given the almost instant destruction of units by cavalry, any supporting cav unit has to be 50 meters closer to the unit the enemy targets with his cav. Any supporting anti-cav infantry unit has to be 0.33 * (x - 50) meters closer to the unit the enemy targets with his cavalry where x is the distance the cavalry is from the target unit. For instance, if the enemy cavalry is 100 meters away, the supporting infantry unit must be within 16 meters of the target.

A supporting infantry unit would have to be 25 meters closer to the unit the enemy targets with his infantry, but could be further away depending on how long the target unit can hold out.

3. If our cavalry isn't placed at the wings to adequately meet the enemy cavalry trying to flank us, or if we don't have any infantry units at the wings to defend the flanking, then it comes down to poor judgement. What were we doing when enemy lines were advancing towards us? (Or, why were we advancing to them when we were not ready for that?)
You have to defend your flanks. The key word here is "defend". You should be able to do that, and not be defeated by a game mechanic.

4. Obviously, when each side's main line closes in inside 109yd(100m), it's the last chance to make final adjustments in formations and lines. Anything closer than that and basically its too late. The battle's gonna be carried out in that formation you've made.
At that point it's too late to defend at all. You aren't going to be able to respond to multiple threats. You're basically forced to attack.

5. Thus, what becomes important, is that you don't have to wait and see the enemy cavalry actually making a move. There's no written rule you should wait and see if they are gonna do something. For instance, before approaching the engagement distance you could send all anti-cavalry infantry to group at one wing, and gather all your cavalry at the opposite wing. This is effectively another form of 'making the first move'. It sends out a message to the enemy, "I'm gonna stop you at one wing, and use all my cavalry to overwhelm you on the opposite wing".
You're still missing the point. It's not supposed to be easier to attack than to defend. RTW makes it easier to attack than to defend because of a game mechanic. It has nothing to do with military strategy or speed of thinking. In this game, prospects of attack and defense should be balanced for the best gameplay because you go to the field with equal armies if the units are balanced, but unit balance is a different issue.

6. If the enemy is smart(at least, if it was in MP), he'll stop his lines from advance, and try to come up with a new plan to his formations to adapt to this new change in our ranks. However, with each step drawn closer, the window of opportunity of making adjustments becomes smaller. That's why making the first move so important. To keep forcing your opponent to become passive.
You could do that in MTW as well. What hindered moving was the fatigue.

7. If both lines are already inside the engagement distance, and the enemy starts a move, it is no surprise you can't stop him. You should have foreseen that coming, and devised a plan to counter it long ago. Or, make other small shifts and changes in your own ranks from further distance away, so you can confuse the enemy and discourage them from doing what they've initially planned. The real battle starts the moment the troops are deployed. Actual clash and bout is only final confirmation of what was already laid out, before the two side's soldiers actually exchange arms.
We just went though this in this post. From within a certain distance, it's not possible to make reactive moves. That distance is about 50 meters for cav, and cav is the name of the game in RTW. And, 50 meters is just a 1 on 1 situation. Give the guy who's trying to play in a defensive manner 20 units, and see how easy it is to to overwhelm his management ability in RTW.

In MTW the cavalry only covers about 38yd(35m) in that 6.5 seconds (5 second judgement/analysis + 'command lag'(although MTW doesn't have such a thing)). Assuming both lines are at the engagement distance, the cavalry reachs your flanks in 19.5 seconds, full 6.5s slower than RTW. You can watch them move(6.5s expired), see where they are going(13s expired), and still stop them 38 yards in front of your lines(19.5s, 114yd) - hence, "20 second reaction time". If the distance bewteen the battle lines are closed to mere 60 yds apart, you still have enough time to stop enemy movement.
And that's why you can't succeed with a simple direct move like that unless the defender's attention was diverted. You need a more sophisticated maneuver utilizing multiple units moving in different directions all timed correctly to get an advantage.

Engagement distance is less than 100 meters in MTW. It's more like 80 meters, so you can't wait 20 seconds to react and still stop them 38 yards in front. The fast cav in MTW can cover 80 meters in 12 seconds. The cav knights will cover 80 meters in 14 seconds. Why shouldn't I be able to stop a flanking movement well out in front if I see the enemy cav moving?

aw89

12-26-2004, 18:17

OK, Ptah, Red Harvest and CBR. remember that the cav needs tuning, cost and upkeep. and since your doing game against reality, you got to remember that such large amounts of cav couldn't be recruited in most empires.

and a cav charge against phalanx would cause the first line of cav dead, (probably 95% or something) and those dead horses would "fly" to the hoplites first line and kill some of them, disrupt the phalanx a little and then the rest of the cav arrives, but would die quickly i suppose.

and those of you that say that "I have watched heavy cav (non cataphract) tear up my sacred band infantry in a frontal charge." (not just you Red Harvest) you were playing on VH/VH weren't you?

we all know that phalanxes need tuning, and so does cav...

Red Harvest

12-26-2004, 22:50

and those of you that say that "I have watched heavy cav (non cataphract) tear up my sacred band infantry in a frontal charge." (not just you Red Harvest) you were playing on VH/VH weren't you?

That dog won't hunt. It really shouldn't even matter *that* much on VH. And I've seen the same cav unit tear up one sacred band, one poeni, and one libyan spearmen frontally like that, sequentially in the same battle, so I won't yield an inch on this.

The real killer to blaming it on difficulty is that cav are still awesome for the human as well. I'm wiping out phalangite armies with light cav. However, I am not idiot enough to charge my general's cav into phalangites frontally with my general as a matter of course (unlike the AI), but when I have experimented with it, I have been surprised at how much headway the cav make. They are often half surrounding and penetrating the phalangites because of the leaps. If they have any support, the phalangites will usually crumble.

Some folks love to blame everything on difficulty level, but these arguments fail when the human can accomplish many of the same tricks when taking the other side, despite massive penalties associated with difficulty. That's why many of us are looking deeper.

aw89

12-26-2004, 23:14

Red Harvest

12-27-2004, 01:46

playing on VH/VH is a factor, and why didnt you quote the "we all know that phalanxes need tuning, and so does cav..." part too?
and lets not forget the "you got to remember that such large amounts of cav couldn't be recruited in most empires." part

Then what was the point of your post exactly? I had already discussed those other aspects. You appeared to be trying to dispute the point. I've seen this brought up the same way a dozen times. It's not like I'm unaware of it being a factor. On the other hand I'm not having much trouble using the supercharged cav on the same settings to kick around the AI...so once again: the argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

12-27-2004, 10:40

One of the issue I face with RTW and that I find to be problematic is not so much the speed at which units run, but the difference in speed for fight between cavalry and phalanx/ infantry.

The infantry fights are rather long, maybe even longer that in MTW. If units engage properly and frontally, it can take a long times before seeing a proper end.
Infantry flanking other ordered infantry is not always decisive quickly. Flankers seem to come in "blob", only a few soldiers are actually fighting.

For cavalry on the other hand, fights are a matter of second. Cavalry vs cavalry fight are over very quickly.

So, in the unlikely case I have a battle with 2 infantry based army (like 10 infantry) and a few cavalry (5?), the fight between the cavalry wings will be over very quickly, the infantry line will engage, and the one player with remaining cavalry will be able to engage his cavalry wherever he wants to get local superiority/ flanking.
The cavalry battle is all too often more decisive than the infantry melee. I can't get any decent infantry superiority to achieve anything before whoever got the remaining cavalry wins.

Historical? Probably. Fun, not really... It drives people to buy more and more cavalry, and there were no need for that...

Problem: I don't want the infantry melee to become "more decisive" by being faster, or as fast as cavalry fight. I don't want either cavalry to be nerfed to the point where cavalry fight becomes as slow as in MTW (when a cavalry would take ages to run down a pavese unit); I like cavalry "behaviour" in RTW, but I don't like cavalry to be that prevalent in RTW armies. But I sure would like to see much less cavalry in game, and some proper infantry counter to cavalry. I feel like it's time for price increase for cavalry ~D

Louis,

Puzz3D

12-27-2004, 20:27

One of the issue I face with RTW and that I find to be problematic is not so much the speed at which units run, but the difference in speed for fight between cavalry and phalanx/ infantry.
A price increase on cavalry won't change this dynamic. What you need is anti-cav infantry decisively beating cavalry. If you had that, then someone taking mostly cavalry couldn't beat someone taking mostly anti-cav infantry, and that would push the army selection away from mostly cavalry which in turn would push the other army selection away from mostly anti-cav infantry.

Arrowhead

12-27-2004, 20:44

Kill all of them with my archers!Kill! KILL! KILL!
Make them all hide and surrender! :hide: :surrender:

Puzz3D

12-27-2004, 21:02

Kill all of them with my archers!Kill! KILL! KILL!
Make them all hide and surrender! :hide: :surrender:
That's not an ancient warfare game. Supposedly, the Persians blackened the sky with their arrows at Guagamela, but it didn't win the battle. The English had thousands of longbows at Agincourt, and that didn't win the battle there either. Hand-to-hand combat determined the winner.

Attalus

12-28-2004, 03:01

That's not an ancient warfare game. Supposedly, the Persians blackened the sky with their arrows at Guagamela, but it didn't win the battle. The English had thousands of longbows at Agincourt, and that didn't win the battle there either. Hand-to-hand combat determined the winner.

Erm...are you sure about that?

Guagamela...Alexanders' tactics won the day...with Cavalry :charge: .

Agincourt? Archers, Archers, Archers! (And Kenneth Branaghs' St Crispin day speech! ~D )

Historically, Alexander consistantly charged enemy formations with his companion cavalry, Phalangites included, and crushed them.

As for Phalanx/Anti Phalanx...an old Australian saying explains everything.

'It's not the dog in the fight...It's the fight in the dog'

Troops to tasks, lads!!

-Attalus-
Fool me once...shame on you
Fool me twice...prepare to die

Ptah

12-28-2004, 06:26

You haven't allowed time for the game mechanic of selecting a unit and then selecting the target unit and possibly having to move the camera as well.

How much time does that take? And how much should we lay its importance as a gameplay factor, as opposed to the fact that repeated training and practice can significantly cut down the time spent for something that is so basic? I certainly seem to have no problems in managing my 20 units, or stumble over the controls and fiddle with the camera and mouse clicks when I need to be controlling my units. It takes less then two seconds for me to pick out 4~5 units and reposition them on the field.

What's the extent of individual difference in controllability does the developers have to consider in modelling a game? Do they have to assume the lowest standards of players?

But you can't move your own cavalry at the moment the enemy starts to move unless you give the order 1.5 seconds before his cavalry moves. Therefore, you can never meet the enemy at the midpoint.

1.5 seconds amount up to 13 yards(11.8m). Assume the "I'm a ham-fisted player" status and add 2 seconds, and that's still only 17 yards(15.8m) plus. You won't meet the enemy cavalry at the middle point. But you'll still meet it at least 20~30 yards in front of your lines.

If the battlelines are 100 m apart, attacking cav will likely cover half the distance before any enemy unit responds.

If the battle lines are apart, and the enemy cavalry covers already half of that before any response, that gives out a response time of 6.3 seconds. The enemy cavalry is starting to move. What are you doing for the 6.3 seconds after that? Watch them run?

That's a pretty big advantage to give to someone just because they move first.

If someone gazes at the enemy for 6 seconds until thinking to respond, then practically whatever the other guy/AI does is gonna be an advantage. That's simply unexcusably slow.

In that case, I should be able to give a standing order to my cav units to attack incoming cav. It's not as though my units, which are standing there in a battleline ready to move, can't see the enemy movement.

Right. So why take 6 seconds to give out the order?

Given the almost instant destruction of units by cavalry, any supporting cav unit has to be 50 meters closer to the unit the enemy targets with his cav. Any supporting anti-cav infantry unit has to be 0.33 * (x - 50) meters closer to the unit the enemy targets with his cavalry where x is the distance the cavalry is from the target unit. For instance, if the enemy cavalry is 100 meters away, the supporting infantry unit must be within 16 meters of the target.

A supporting infantry unit would have to be 25 meters closer to the unit the enemy targets with his infantry, but could be further away depending on how long the target unit can hold out.

You have to defend your flanks. The key word here is "defend". You should be able to do that, and not be defeated by a game mechanic.

At that point it's too late to defend at all. You aren't going to be able to respond to multiple threats. You're basically forced to attack.

So, if the enemy has cavalry placed at the left and right wing, and ready to attack and ride up the flank.

1) Why close within 100m without any support infantry near the flanks?
2) Why couldn't you reform the lines from further out, and ready the anti-cav infantry at the sides, before closing in to 100m in the first place?
3) With RTW running speeds it takes the enemy at least 12 seconds to cover 100m. You're saying 12 seconds is not enough for your infantry to get ready?
4) If the anti-cav infantry and your own cavalry is not in a sufficient position to intercept their movemnt, and thus has to move so much more distance to get into position, that it can't stop the enemy flanking at time, then (it goes back to 2). ), why in the world would anyone place those units so far away and march near enemy lines, when it is clear that the enemy will try to flank you(judging by how the enemy placed his units)?

You're still missing the point. It's not supposed to be easier to attack than to defend. RTW makes it easier to attack than to defend because of a game mechanic.

No. RTW makes it easier to attack than defend, because people play RTW like they used to play MTW.

Understand the mechanic, make corresponding changes, and a flexible defense is still much easier than a creative attack. Rarely does an actual clash start immediately after troop deployment. There's plenty of time to observe the enemy lines and think about what they might try to do, and reform the lines accordingly.

However, people don't do that. They deploy defensive lines and 'standardized' formations like they used to in MTW. They don't watch the other guy and try to estimate anything. They just make up their own line of preference, and then try to change that line and respond to enemy movement AFTER the battle actually starts. That's what people used to do in MTW, and that's what's failing.

You're supposed to make changes in the lines BEFORE the attack starts. You carry out the battle as you have laid your formations out. That is supposed to be your whole battle plan. If for some reason you have your anti-cav units or interceptor cavalry placed at the opposite wing or so far away from the place that's gonna be flanked, and the enemy cavalry just crawls up your sides unopposed, then the failure comes not out of the game mechanics, but one's own foolishness in inadequate battle formations. Like said before, you see the enemy has cavalry placed at one wing. Then why the heck would you place your own cavalry or anti-cav units in some other place??

It has nothing to do with military strategy or speed of thinking. In this game, prospects of attack and defense should be balanced for the best gameplay because you go to the field with equal armies if the units are balanced, but unit balance is a different issue.

The 'balance' you mean here in fact does not mean any kind of 'balance' at all. It simply refers to 'stagnance', in which no pre-battle estimation or management is required. The old habits of placing "spears front, archers behind, cavalry sides", and then making corresponding, passive changes to actual enemy movement during battle phase.

You could do that in MTW as well. What hindered moving was the fatigue.

What hindered movement was movement itself. With two battle lines facing each other at 100m distance, MTW cavalry needs 18.5 seconds to cover that 100m - as I have numerously hinted in my "20 seconds to respond" comments. You could watch for 6 seconds, think for 6 more seconds, and then start moving for 6 seconds and you'd still stop them before they smash into your own flank.

We just went though this in this post. From within a certain distance, it's not possible to make reactive moves. That distance is about 50 meters for cav, and cav is the name of the game in RTW. And, 50 meters is just a 1 on 1 situation. Give the guy who's trying to play in a defensive manner 20 units, and see how easy it is to to overwhelm his management ability in RTW.

And that's why you can't succeed with a simple direct move like that unless the defender's attention was diverted. You need a more sophisticated maneuver utilizing multiple units moving in different directions all timed correctly to get an advantage.

How could anyone not able to overwhelm anyone, when the guy takes more than 6 seconds to respond to anything?

Engagement distance is less than 100 meters in MTW. It's more like 80 meters, so you can't wait 20 seconds to react and still stop them 38 yards in front.

It takes 15 seconds for the enemy cavalry to close 80m. You could watch and wait for 10 seconds, and still stop them out at the final 30 meters, with a total reaction time of 15 seconds.

The fast cav in MTW can cover 80 meters in 12 seconds. The cav knights will cover 80 meters in 14 seconds. Why shouldn't I be able to stop a flanking movement well out in front if I see the enemy cav moving?

You could stop them if you see them moving in MTW.
You could stop them if you see them moving in RTW, too.

The only difference is you could stop them in MTW whether you're in a prepared formation or not, as you have extra time to move and manage units that might have been in inadequate places.

In RTW you need to be expecting their move, and already in a formation ready to withstand the charge. You won't be able to pull off infantry or cavalry from some other corner and swing them all the way to one of your flanks, because you don't have that much time, and you were supposed to have done that the moment you've seen what their formation looks like.

Or better yet, instead of wait for them to make the first move, and worry about if they'll move like you thought they would, you could always be the one who starts the first move and forces them to think and worry about stuff. That's what we call "tactics".

Ptah

12-28-2004, 06:45

A price increase on cavalry won't change this dynamic. What you need is anti-cav infantry decisively beating cavalry. If you had that, then someone taking mostly cavalry couldn't beat someone taking mostly anti-cav infantry, and that would push the army selection away from mostly cavalry which in turn would push the other army selection away from mostly anti-cav infantry.

Anti-cav infantry already does decisively beat cavalry.

Try push a non-elite, normal sized cavalry against a phalanx from the front and see if the cavalry tears through that. A four-rank line of three triarii units side by side can stop a mass of some four~five elite cataphracts for a long time before they finally die out and rout.

Now, what the anti-cav cannot do in RTW, is withstand an overwhelming charge of massive cavalry units with just a few units.

In MTW you could lay out (let's say) Saracen Infantry in a single line, with each units about 4~6 ranks deep. Gather a huge horde of European knights and charge the Saracen Infantry lines, and the line will still hold. Eventually the attacking power of the numerous knights, and low morale of the Saracens, will kill off the Saracens in that single spot, and rout them. However, at least upto some time, the entire mass of cavalry will be halted as if it just hit a stone wall or something.

In RTW, a thin line like that will buckle and crumble if a massive number of cavalry decide to charge it. You need to place more infantry, upto two~three extra lines behind it, to stop something like that.

Puzz3D

12-28-2004, 14:55

Anti-cav infantry already does decisively beat cavalry.

Try push a non-elite, normal sized cavalry against a phalanx from the front and see if the cavalry tears through that. A four-rank line of three triarii units side by side can stop a mass of some four~five elite cataphracts for a long time before they finally die out and rout.
A triarii at 500 denari is a 7/17 (att/def) + anti-cav bonus. A cataphract at 890 denari is a 7/23. The cataphract beats the triarii in 25 seconds killing 70 while loosing 7. The cataphract beats two triarii simultaneously killing 90 and loosing 20. That's 1000 denari spent on 162 anti-cav infantry that can't beat a 890 denari 54 man cavalry unit. The anti-cav bonus is pathetic in RTW.

ZIM!!

12-28-2004, 17:14

1) are phalanx units any good fighting outside of that formation? playing as the Seleucids..I havent had too much luck figting my units out side of thier phalanx

2) I think Cataphracts have an advantage against infantry even spear infantry because they are so heavily armored the rider is covered from head to toe in scale armor... and the horse where it is typically vulnurable to spears, in the case of catapracts the horse is usually totally covered in a scale covering that would make it very difficult to kill

Puzz3D

12-28-2004, 18:23

How much time does that take? And how much should we lay its importance as a gameplay factor, as opposed to the fact that repeated training and practice can significantly cut down the time spent for something that is so basic? I certainly seem to have no problems in managing my 20 units, or stumble over the controls and fiddle with the camera and mouse clicks when I need to be controlling my units. It takes less then two seconds for me to pick out 4~5 units and reposition them on the field.
You can issue commands to 4~5 units in less than 2 seconds? That's move the cursor to your unit, click on it, move the cursor to the destination and click on that, and do that 4 or 5 times in less than 2 seconds? If you are talking about moving them as a group, then I would say 2 seconds is about right, but, if you have to play the game that way, then I've made my point because reducing control to 4 or 5 groups is not effectively controling 20 units. There are also a lot of special abilities to control which hasn't been alotted any time.

What's the extent of individual difference in controllability does the developers have to consider in modelling a game? Do they have to assume the lowest standards of players?
They should assume the average standard, and not just of an RTS type of game. RTW has less fatigue and more units to control than MTW. It didn't need the 50% speedup on the running speeds. The faster the unit speeds and the more units there are to control the less control you have over individual units. You can't keep on speeding up your gameplay to compensate because there are limits on how fast you can go. If you ask me, RTW has pretty much made speed of action the determining factor in the battles.

I asked for a 10% increase in the running speed of cavalry in MTW, and longjohn refused on the basis that it would be historically unrealistic. Now we have a 50% increase in RTW on all units. Where did that come from? If you look at the new market the game is being aimed at, I think we see where it comes from.

1.5 seconds amount up to 13 yards(11.8m). Assume the "I'm a ham-fisted player" status and add 2 seconds, and that's still only 17 yards(15.8m) plus. You won't meet the enemy cavalry at the middle point. But you'll still meet it at least 20~30 yards in front of your lines.
You claimed you could meet the cav at the mid-point. I'm pointing out that it's impossible to do that unless you actually issue the order before you see the enemy cav move.

If the battle lines are apart, and the enemy cavalry covers already half of that before any response, that gives out a response time of 6.3 seconds. The enemy cavalry is starting to move. What are you doing for the 6.3 seconds after that? Watch them run?
You said 5 seconds reaction time. Are you recinding that now? You also left out the time for the game mechanic of selecting a unit and a destination.

If someone gazes at the enemy for 6 seconds until thinking to respond, then practically whatever the other guy/AI does is gonna be an advantage. That's simply unexcusably slow.
So the reactive player has to know what enemy unit is about to move, be looking at it and already have the unit he wants to counter it with selected? That's unreasonable.

Right. So why take 6 seconds to give out the order?
Because the reactive player has cavalry on both wings, and it's impossible to control both simultaneously. If he's caught with a unit on the wrong wing selected when the attack comes, his best chance is an immediate counter attack on the opposite wing. The alternative is to keep the units closer together which conceeds a positional advantage to the enemy if you pull your cavalry in from the wings. This would be ok if the anti-cav infantry was working better.

So, if the enemy has cavalry placed at the left and right wing, and ready to attack and ride up the flank.

1) Why close within 100m without any support infantry near the flanks?
2) Why couldn't you reform the lines from further out, and ready the anti-cav infantry at the sides, before closing in to 100m in the first place?
3) With RTW running speeds it takes the enemy at least 12 seconds to cover 100m. You're saying 12 seconds is not enough for your infantry to get ready?
4) If the anti-cav infantry and your own cavalry is not in a sufficient position to intercept their movemnt, and thus has to move so much more distance to get into position, that it can't stop the enemy flanking at time, then (it goes back to 2). ), why in the world would anyone place those units so far away and march near enemy lines, when it is clear that the enemy will try to flank you(judging by how the enemy placed his units)?
The support infantry would have to be on the flanks with the cav since it can't come in time from any distance to speak of. You have to engage with the cav first and then bring in the infantry since no one in their right mind is going to do you the favor of frontally attacking anti-cav infantry with cav. Infantry is not a good unit to use to intercept cavalry because infantry is slow. The most anti-cav infantry will do on it's own is deter cav from attacking at that place. The cav will go looking for a weaker spot. That spot will be the center if the anti-cav infantry is on the flanks. Will the anti-cav infantry get back to the weak canter in time? It will if it's close enough, but that distance is very short in RTW. If you are bringing a phalanx from a distance, you have to switch it out of phalanx formation so it can run, and then put it back into phalanx formation when it gets near the fighting. There are delays associated with each of those commands. You're looking at 3 commands to a phalanx to bring it from a distance. So, a reactive player can't use a spread formation in RTW. He's going to have to stay compressed, and that will probalby cost him the battle.

No. RTW makes it easier to attack than defend, because people play RTW like they used to play MTW.
No. It's easier to attack because the units move a greater distance before a player can react, and the combat resolution is so fast.

Understand the mechanic, make corresponding changes, and a flexible defense is still much easier than a creative attack. Rarely does an actual clash start immediately after troop deployment. There's plenty of time to observe the enemy lines and think about what they might try to do, and reform the lines accordingly.
That's fine, but I'm talking about the ability to react once the fighting starts. RTW is pretty much chaos once the fighting starts.

However, people don't do that. They deploy defensive lines and 'standardized' formations like they used to in MTW. They don't watch the other guy and try to estimate anything. They just make up their own line of preference, and then try to change that line and respond to enemy movement AFTER the battle actually starts. That's what people used to do in MTW, and that's what's failing.
Of course players are not watching the other guy and planning in RTW. That's what you do in MTW. In RTW, you know you have to attack, and you know it's going to be chaos. Of course defensive lines don't work, and standardized formations don't work either. The formation is less important in RTW. The formation breaks down very quickly in RTW which is a shame because there is a nice morale system modelled in the game, but you can't take advantage of it because you have to click, click, click and hurry up to get as many of your units attacking something as soon as possible.

You're supposed to make changes in the lines BEFORE the attack starts. You carry out the battle as you have laid your formations out. That is supposed to be your whole battle plan. If for some reason you have your anti-cav units or interceptor cavalry placed at the opposite wing or so far away from the place that's gonna be flanked, and the enemy cavalry just crawls up your sides unopposed, then the failure comes not out of the game mechanics, but one's own foolishness in inadequate battle formations. Like said before, you see the enemy has cavalry placed at one wing. Then why the heck would you place your own cavalry or anti-cav units in some other place??
I'm talking about a situation where everything is in the right place. If you have units too far away to support outclassed units you will loose. The issue is how far away is "too far away"? That's why I made those estimates of how far away a supporting can be in RTW. For stronger cav attacking weaker cav, a supporting infantry unit has to be right there. Well, I'll be damned if that attacking cav doesn't go and attack somewhere else. Now that infantry out on the flank is going to be useless. It's pretty clear that a reactive player is going to have to keep his units closer together than he did in MTW.

The 'balance' you mean here in fact does not mean any kind of 'balance' at all. It simply refers to 'stagnance', in which no pre-battle estimation or management is required. The old habits of placing "spears front, archers behind, cavalry sides", and then making corresponding, passive changes to actual enemy movement during battle phase.
I said balance between offensive and defensive prospects. RTW doesn't have that, and I think that detracts from the potential quality of the gameplay. Why shouldn't a player be able to make corresponding moves to enemy movement during the battle phase? If he makes the right moves, he shouldn't loose. Within a certain distance, there is no chance to respond, and that distance was dramatically increased in RTW.

What hindered movement was movement itself. With two battle lines facing each other at 100m distance, MTW cavalry needs 18.5 seconds to cover that 100m - as I have numerously hinted in my "20 seconds to respond" comments. You could watch for 6 seconds, think for 6 more seconds, and then start moving for 6 seconds and you'd still stop them before they smash into your own flank.
What hindered movement was players not wanting to run their units because the combat penalties of fatigue were high. In RTW, you can run all the time, and the running is 50% faster. Engagement distance in MTW was 80 meters. Fast cav could cover that in 12 seconds. All the cav had to do was hit the skirmishers, and the defending cav had to stay back about 40 meters behind the skirmishers. That means you had about 6 seconds to react in order to meet the enemy cav at your skirmish line. There is no way you had anything close to 20 seconds to react even with the cav knights. I played over 8000 multiplayer battle in MTW and VI, and I saw what worked and how fast you had to react.

How could anyone not able to overwhelm anyone, when the guy takes more than 6 seconds to respond to anything?
That's right. You can't be successful in MTW with more than a 5 to 10 second response time. I think you need about a 5 second response time to keep up with a strong attack. How much of that is lost to the game mechanics? In MTW, it's about 2 seconds. In RTW, it's 3.5 seconds. If you are going up against someone who is taking 10 seconds a move, and you are taking 5 seconds, you'll build up a cumulative advantage unless you make moves that lose the initative.

It takes 15 seconds for the enemy cavalry to close 80m. You could watch and wait for 10 seconds, and still stop them out at the final 30 meters, with a total reaction time of 15 seconds.
It takes 14.2 seconds for a cav knight to cover 80 meters. In 10 seconds, the cav will cover 56 meters. That's 44 meters out, and you'll meet the cav at 22 meters out. In MTW, the defender will have time to bring up supporting infantry units, so a cav attack such as that has to be supported. If the defender is taking 10 seconds to respond to that first cav move, the attacker will be making another attacking move somewhere else. Very quickly in 2 or 3 moves, the attacker will get a strike with no response at all from the defender.

You could stop them if you see them moving in MTW.
You could stop them if you see them moving in RTW, too.

The only difference is you could stop them in MTW whether you're in a prepared formation or not, as you have extra time to move and manage units that might have been in inadequate places.
In MTW, the morale is too high even at 10k florins, so many units fight too long allowing supporting units to come from too far away. People who play at more than 10k florins, increase the distance from which supporting units can come, and decrease the effectiveness of flanking.

In RTW you need to be expecting their move, and already in a formation ready to withstand the charge. You won't be able to pull off infantry or cavalry from some other corner and swing them all the way to one of your flanks, because you don't have that much time, and you were supposed to have done that the moment you've seen what their formation looks like.
From how far away should a unit be able to come in time? I already showed given 5 second response time that an infantry unit supporting a cav vs cav action has to be within about 16 meters in RTW. That's a very short distance. I think that distance could be longer and still not allow units to come from the opposite flank.

Or better yet, instead of wait for them to make the first move, and worry about if they'll move like you thought they would, you could always be the one who starts the first move and forces them to think and worry about stuff. That's what we call "tactics".
That's not tactics. That's attacking. That's the problem. You always have to be attacking in RTW. You always have the initiative when you attack because the opponent has to respond to your moves. Are you going to give him time to do that? If so, how much time?

I've seen the gameplay in RTW, and it's pretty clear to me that CA didn't balance the temporal gameplay any more than they balanced the unit combat stats. They changed stuff like strong archers, strong cav, fast units and low fatigue, but it just amounts to different gameplay with less control. My position is that less control doesn't make the gameplay better when the basic idea is to win by better coordination the units. There is no way you can coordinate more units in less time. The interface hasn't improved in efficiency of use. One thing that would have helped is a higher angle on the camera, but they didn't provide that. The only answers you have it to think faster, click and move the mouse faster or correctly guess what the opponent is going to do, and most experienced players are already maxed out on all three of those things.

Puzz3D

12-28-2004, 18:48

1) are phalanx units any good fighting outside of that formation? playing as the Seleucids..I havent had too much luck figting my units out side of thier phalanx
Phalanx defaults to guard mode, but that's most effective if taking a frontal cav charge. In all other situations, I think it's best to disable guard mode. However, I would leave them in phalanx because their spear has more combat power than their sword, and they can keep the enemy at bay and avoid casualties with the long spears. They switch to swords automatically anyway if the enemy gets in close.

2) I think Cataphracts have an advantage against infantry even spear infantry because they are so heavily armored the rider is covered from head to toe in scale armor... and the horse where it is typically vulnurable to spears, in the case of catapracts the horse is usually totally covered in a scale covering that would make it very difficult to kill
Maybe historically the cataphracts should do well against spears, but from a cost perspective an 890 denari cav unit is beating 1000 denari worth of anti-cav infantry in frontal assault. So, for multiplayer it's messed up. It looks like the anti-cav bonus is not large enough. In STW, the anti-cav bonus is 400%, but it can't be anything even approaching that in RTW. In MTW, the anti-cav bonus ranges between 200% and 300% depending on unit type. In RTW, if each combat point is worth a 10% increase in chance to kill as measurments indicate and 162 triarii with 24 combat points can't beat 54 cataphracts with 30 combat points, it's clear that the anti-cav bonus is rediculously small. My test showed 90 kills (35 in the charge) vs 22 looses. Subtracting 90 - 35 = 55 kills to 22 looses in the melee. About a 2 to 1 kill rate for the cataphacts in the melee. A 6 combat point advantage is about 177% chance to kill in RTW. So, where is the anti-cav bonus? It's clearly a lot less than 177%.

ZIM!!

12-28-2004, 19:12

I can see where that would be a problem in multiplayer

CBR

12-28-2004, 19:24

1) are phalanx units any good fighting outside of that formation? playing as the Seleucids..I havent had too much luck figting my units out side of thier phalanx

The Seleucid use pikemen that are not very good with their secondary weapons. So always use them in phalanx formation. The Greeks on the other hand has some units that are very good with secondary weapons: armoured Hoplites is one unit that is nearly as good as Legionary cohorts.

2) I think Cataphracts have an advantage against infantry even spear infantry because they are so heavily armored the rider is covered from head to toe in scale armor...

The armor itself doesnt mean anything really. It just adds to the overall defense value. Roman cavalry like Praetorians are cheaper and even better attack/defense stats than Cataphracts. Of course the Cataphracts have armourpiercing secondary weapon, but you need to Alt right click to use them as they dont switch over automatically.

CBR

Red Harvest

12-28-2004, 20:47

Anti-cav infantry already does decisively beat cavalry.

No, it does not. In some cases, swordsmen are more effective than the units listed as being good against cav. There is a lower speed for spear attack (0.73) vs. 1 for most cav--including "spear" or lance armed. It has a very significant impact. These are the non-phalanx spears intended as "anti-cav" units.

The +4 mount modifier for triarii and the like is insufficient to compensate. +8 is what I have modded in for most non-phalanx spears. This makes them dangerous to normal cav although certainly far from "rock/paper/scissors." (I just fought a large battle where I lost most of my units chasing down horse archers and two generals body guard that I had no effective counter too early in a campaign. I then used my remaining single depleted unit of Pontic light cav (jav) and bodyguard (also jav) to attack a flank unit of the remaining TEN enemy spear units and forced a chain rout charging each spear unit in turn. They were weary as were my men, and this was on VH with my modded +8 bonus for their anti-cav.)

Phalanx units were not intended primarily as anti-cav in this period. Yes, they *should* easily stop cav (not that they do), but the anti cav units are other spear units with more mobility. The phalangites were intended and used as single line heavy infantry and presented a wide formation to prevent flanking was a key consideration. Cav were used to protect the flanks/scout/chase down skirmishers. Phalanx units were rarely used in more than a single line...so your suggestion of deploying 3 lines as the proper way is non-historic use at best.

Archers and loose unit skirmisher types sometimes soak up charges better than tight spears (who rout in tight formation and are cut down.) The momentum effects are absorbed in loose formation and kill rate is reduced by lower formation density. Archers are surprisingly effective at engaging cav in melee...and that is a bit strange. Of course, archer missiles are non-historically effective agains most units...except elephants where they are useless...unless you use the questionable flaming arrow ability making them uber. And elephants, they tear things up easily being impenetrable to basic missile units that were historic counters. Interestingly...horses can sometimes charge them effectively...another bass ackward result. Then there are the really fast chariots that zip through the woods like their tails are on fire and turn on a dime. But I'm sure all of this is simply a delusion.

Incidentally, rock/paper/scissors implies a bit more logic and thought to match ups. That logic is very subdued in RTW except for very special weapons/units. I don't know why you would prefer illogical, non-historic outcomes, but it is a matter of personal preference I suppose.

CBR

12-28-2004, 20:48

CBR, those are average values attained on a battlefield. They are not the absolute limit. According to that data a French 'charge' is only worth about 4 feet per second, and a horse 'gallops' 5m a second.

These are the values you get when units march at the steps/minute they have been drilled to. The actual speed might even be less if terrain is rough. Units would do a run for the final few meters, especially for cav that might have double the gallop speed just before impact. We have lots of descriptions on how that was done so there is really no reason to doubt it.

In this era, you sacrifice speed if it means you can hold the formation of guns together. A broken formation means irregular and dispersed rate of gunfire.

And there is no real difference if we go back in time to melee only combat. Maintaining formation was extremly important. One example is the Spartans that were the only Greeks that marched at a step. They were noted for their close formation and ability to keep it that and that was one of the reasons they were good.

There are lots of examples of how units kept a distance of 100-200 meters and shot each other down to less than 50%. Keeping such a distance meant less psychological pressure on the soldiers even with such high losses. In a melee units could collapse quickly and on average looses were 10-20% for the losers before they routed and that included men who couldnt get away fast enough only to get cut down. Any loose ordered formation would lose quickly in a melee but could still work for shooting although not as effective and concentrated.

Maneuvering speeds on a battle field do not follow a chosen set of data or 'soldier's manuals'. It allows us to observe a certain 'ideal' the soldiers try to attain on a battlefield. The officers would also probably want to try to keep the soldiers under control of the 'manual', and hope they(or even the officer himself) do not succumb under the pressure of wanting to move faster in the midst of cannonfire and bullets whizzing by. However, it does not give out an actual representation of how people moved about during battle.

Yes troops could make badly disordered attacks like we see so many times in Classic Greek warfare but the forward jog at 10 kmh is enough to cause serious disruption to a unit. If a 6 kmh advance is difficult for veterans while still maintaining formation for 300 yards then no one can expect to keep the formation for speeds faster than that. Drilled and disciplined troops would keep the "slow" speed to maintain formation while other units would turn into a mob if they just doubled that speed as well as getting tired quickly.

The KRIEGSSPIEL rules published by the Prussian Army in 1824 use same kind of speeds and does not have any type of running speeds as we see in RTW. These rules were made to simulate combat for training purposes.

When you have a certain tactical point to reach no matter what purpose, you will drive your soldiers to run at full speed

And we already have numbers of what units could do if they wanted to move very quickly over shorter distances: the 160-180 paces/minute double quick march. Just dont expect a unit to keep any formation.

A cavalry will not 'trot' all the way, when you see an opportunity to break through enemy lines which may vanish after a few seconds

And even the gallop of 300 meters/minute is slower than cav run speed in MTW..

..there is no such thing as 'last 50m'. Every meter is the last meter.

All nice in theory but the actual battles show otherwise. Clausewitz calls it Friction of War: "Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. In war more than anywhere else things do not turn out as we expect" Looking at what an individual soldier/horse can do doesnt have much to do with what a unit can do. And even theoretical unit performance might be optimistic too.

The only reason you'd consider MTW levels 'at least closer to realistic levels' is that they are closer to the "manual". Manuals are wishful thinking, not the reality.

Yes manuals are always ideal while the reality always slows down things. And good manuals does try and consider the real life effects too.

But lets just disregard all manuals, all tests, all soldiers/officers who wrote about battles they participated in and not the least all the blind historians writing pointless books. No need to bother with all their wishful thinking as long as we got RTW to show us the truth ~:rolleyes:

CBR

jerby

12-30-2004, 16:50

ok, so can we now ALL just get along with the ORIGINEL topic

Puzz3D

12-30-2004, 17:56

How about bringing more slingers? Put the princepes in guard mode and turn on fire at will so they'll throw all their pila, but hold them back until the slingers have done as much damage as possible. Then flank with cav when the princepes engage. Also, build an armorer so the princepes are stronger. If you still can't win, I would avoid fighting them until you are stronger or get a general with a lot more command stars.

KyodaiSteeleye

12-30-2004, 20:28

This is a good and interesting thread - keep it up guys - it helps to keep out disparaging opinions of other peoples views though, i think.

I know this seems to have now gone onto the technicalities of speed, but i'd like to say that I think both Ptah side and the Red Harvest side both have valid points - however, as usual, both are polarized on their side of the argument. Sorry for long post, but peeps have covered a lot of ground here.

From my experience of playing RTW now, whilst playing STW/MTW since 2000, I think it is fair to say that there are some problems with the kill speeds in RTW, as even inf/inf combat is generally over before any counter moves can be deployed.

However, this is more to do with the unit sizes usually used, not necessarily the kill rates per se - so a fix would be to increase unit sizes (unlikely in MP) or decrease kill rates. I think that a cavalry charge to the flank or rear of a formation now has the devastating effect that one should have - this was not modelled at all well in STW/MTW. However, I also think that a frontal cavalry charge against an ordered pike formation is not modelled well in RTW, and this is the key to the apparent over-dominance of cavalry, allowing them to dominate combat even when used poorly (in MP over-dominance is increased by the ability to use many elite cavalry units in an army - however this could be easily fixed by making elite cavalry more expensive, or playing with less money)

After being initially dubious about movement rates in RTW, i am now generally a convert - as Ptah points out, tactically, cavalry now has the role it is meant to have - in terms of its ability to undertake sudden strikes, decreasing the time an opponent has to react to the threat. However, in general my impression is that the differences between heavy and light unit speeds are not great enough, and that light units at run do travel too fast. Both sides in this argument have valid points on speed. It is silly to increase speeds to such an extent that battles become a click-fest where hand-eye reaction times are more important than tactical awareness. However, I agree with Ptah that in MTW cavalry strikes were neutered, partly leading to more static modes of play, and that the ability to change formations imediately before an attack was generally too slow to implement, allowing receiving generals lots of time to counter.

However, i disagree with Ptah on the point about chaos in battles and 'orderliness'. It was quite easy to end up in an aweful lot of chaos in an MTW battle once full melee started - there weren't many battles where i knew what all of my units were doing all of the time. The reason that most MP players used standard neat formations basically came down to morale - keeping a battle line, and maintaining contact with the general unit were keys to winning a melee. I disagree with the Ptah's point about the MTW engine leading to having cavalry on both flanks - this is a standard historical formation, and changes in the game engine/speeds do not change the reason why this is a good place to have them.

So, both sides have good points. However, I think people are missing the main issue with RTW, and that is the hampered ability to command and control units using the new interface. Increased speeds would not be a significant issue for good players in MP if their ability to control groups of units was not so hamstrung. After the months that have now passed, I do not think that this is a point just from old TW players who are simply stuck in their ways. I have yet to talk to anyone in MP who thinks that they have as good or improved control in RTW.

One last thing - Realism is good up to a point. However, in RTW if we wanted more realism then battles would be far less tactically fun than they are now (even more so in MTW). And the reason? - not because of speed, or controls, but because if we were being realistic, then you would not be able to micro-manage units - you would set a basic battle plan, and then to a large extent unit commanders would individually decide on actions after battle had commenced - or their reaction times between command and implementation would be much, much slower than in the TW games (except for units directly next to the general). In most armies you would also have far fewer, much bigger units, reducing tactical possibilities further. It is therefore always good to maintain sight of the fact that we do want a fun game, whilst maintaining a necessary degree of realism to keep it believable for those who have an interest in history.