Is it just me... (unit combat)

[GnG DM]

Hello to all!

I've played Rome TW a long time ago, and just tried out Medieval 2 TW a while back. I reformatted my PC and am in the process of installing some games, but I'm at a loss as to which game to install.

I like M2TW's city/castle feature, but it seems to me that units are easier to move and control in Rome than in M2TW. Specifically, I seem to recall it is easier to march an army (in the battle map, not in the campaign map) in Rome and they tend to march, form, and maintain their formations better. Flanking was easier as well, maybe because of the way "facing" was done in that game (IIRC, facing was done rather simply compared to M2TW's "stretchable" facing option).

Moving units through a gate or wall breach seemed easier in Rome, as well as charging with mounted units. In Rome, I had an "army" full of mounted units just to harass and patrol my lands, and they were a force to be reckoned with. I once had 3 mounted units take on 7 pikemen units and I won with all 3 mounted units intact... hurting, but intact (traingle formation, charging from behind, picking off each pikemen unit one by one). In M2TW, not only is it confusing to charge (double click? no, it's just a run... let the unit attack by itself? ha! it needs a LOT of room just to get up to speed), but it seems weaker as well. I loved the way bodies would fly up when the Roman cavalry hit an enemy unit. I don't recall seeing that in M2TW.

Is it just me or am I correct in saying that units were easier (more disciplined??) to move in Rome? And what about the cavalry charges?

Please note that this is not a "my game is better than your game" thread, nor is it trolling or looking for a flame. I am simply stating my "impressions" and would greatly appreciate comments on whether I am wrong or not, and why.

So, please post away and help me decide on which one to install and enjoy up to the wee hours in the morning (one-more-turn-itis).

[Kobal2fr]

It's not just you :)

Although you're wrong about facing (RTW, as well as all TW games, also has the stretch facing), it's true that on the whole, M2 units are a bit unresponsive (they take a few seconds to move once ordered) and their cohesion while marching is painful - apparently they love nothing more than switching formation randomly.
All of that can be viewed as a bad thing from a gameplay p.o.v., but it's probably more true to history. Except that reforming thing, and the silly clusterfrick that happens when you have a unit make a 180 turn on the spot. But you get used to it.

Cav charges are indeed harder to pull off successfully than in RTW, but 1) it's a feature :grin: and 2) there's a good reason for this, in that they are VERY powerfull in this game. I'm serious - even the most basic of cav units will obliterate any footman who hasn't got a spear in seconds if they manage to get a solid charge. Horses were good in RTW, but in M2 they are death incarnate.

All that being said, I'd say M2TW is the better game of the two - the strat aspect is richer what with religion and crusades and all, the AI is a tad better both on and off the field (a TAD I said :grin:), there's more variety in units, less gimmicky/fantasy units, and no clearly overpowered faction/unit (like Roman families and phalanxes were in RTW). Also, the eye-candy is nothing to sneeze at either. Once you get used to the changes that you've witnessed on the battlefield, it's all good.

[John_Longarrow]

Also pikes against cav is a very different case. Cheap pikes can beat veteran heavy cav unless the cav can get in a hit from the sides/back. Head on even a solid charge results in lots of dead horses.

In all the whole "Cav takes out everything" is changed a bit and the variety of units can make for a very fun fight.

Plus there is just something fricking cool about fricking elephants with fricking cannons on their heads. :evilgrin:

[PapaNasty]

Plus there is just something fricking cool about fricking elephants with fricking cannons on their heads. :evilgrin:

:laugh4: I'm going to use that in my sig...

Sounds like something Dr Evil would say.

The one bit that kind of dissapoints me about M2TW is the lack of variety in the early game between units of the Catholic factions. Aside from the Danes, there is no great difference between the various early spear units, not like in RTW where the factions had Phalanx, Falxmen, swordsmen etc etc fairly early on. For me playing as "france" or "HRE" early on doesn't feel any different... if anybody understands my logic :shame:

[GrandInquisitor]

To the OP -- What version of Rome were you playing? My cavalry got massacred by phalanx units from any angle in later patches, wedge or no. You said they were hurting, but I can't imagine taking down seven pikemen with anything less than a lot of horse archers.

As far as M2TW goes, the aforementioned 'death incarnate' covers it for anything on a horse with a lance.

[Orda Khan]

Plus ofc, you will still see foot soldiers thrown into the air by cavalry, even by lighter units such as Cossacks. The formation changes I think are a result of the terrain, though I may be wrong. I noticed when I was play testing my historical battle that drag and drop of army formation turned up some weird changes but when the army reached its destination it reformed to original deployment. Also another drag and drop to another destination saw the original deployment pattern. M2TW has 'no go' and 'with difficulty' areas on the battle maps

.....Orda

[atheotes]

I also feel that unit control in RTW is better than M2TW. Dont even talk about the deployment in siege defences and inside cities/castle!!!

[John_Longarrow]

PapaNasty,

I only posted that because no modder has added in fricking sharks with fricking lasers on their heads! :devilish:

[Husar]

In M2TW units change formation when ordered to march over a long distance.
Usually(and always if you drag at their destination), they will reform at the target position, but especially cavalry tends to keep their marching formation which can be a bit weird, when ordering a charge from a long distance away you can also end up having them charge in their long marching column. I can't decide whether I like that feature or not, it's a bit like Age of Empires 2, where I liked that, but it should at least not be used when an attack order is given.

[atheotes]

Problem is, in the battlefield i consider movement more akin to advancing the battle line than marching from one city/place to another... in short I hate it :furious3:

[Orda Khan]

If you advance the battle line to or through an area where some ground is impassable or passable with some difficulty, the affected unit will adjust its formation. What else would you expect? A unit that is deployed in a wide formation that comes across marshy ground, for example, will adjust to a narrower formation to avoid being bogged down. I can't see the problem with that, it makes perfect sense

......Orda

[atheotes]

I am ok with example you cited... but even in that case i would prefer they come back to their battle line formation if and when they come to halt in normal/passable ground.
And even in grassy plains - i deploy them in a formation and aske the whole army to advance. There are no visual hinderances in the terrain. i have seen them change formation. i have to redeploy them to get the same battle line.

It probably would help if we are not allowed to drag in unpoisitionable areas... this is most problematic inside the city/castle.

[Orda Khan]

This is very strange. Forget towns and cities, model textures have always been a cause of poor pathfinding, units getting stuck, etc. I am curious about the problems occuring on maps like Grassy Plain. The drag and drop feature was a new introduction to TW when RTW was released, it caused a few problems for those familiar with the old alt/ left or right click commands. I tried many times to replicate the issues that some people were posting but my armies always carried out the commands correctly, even when using multiple groups and alt/left click.
I mentioned play testing my historical battle earlier and first noticed the change of some unit deployment while doing that. At first I thought it was one of the problems I'd read about but I was wrong. The drag and drop command allows you to easily redirect your army, for whatever reason, by simply scrolling out a new destination; I did this and found my original deployment pattern was restored. When I looked into this a little closer I found that my army had altered its formation due to terrain and its current formation showed up with drag and drop, however when it arrived its original deployment was maintained.
I've never witnessed a problem like this on Grassy Plain or any other fairly standard terrain maps (after many MP battles) so please don't take offense when I ask you exactly how do you issue commands?

My method....

Deploy army
Group army
Select group
Drag and drop

Division of army into into sub groups can be done near to engagement.

Another method but slightly more work....

Deploy army
Sub group certain units
Select all
Alt/left click to location
Use < and > change facing

Both methods see my army line up in original deployment at their new destination point unless there is an obstacle

........Orda