Fight to the Death, and Heroes's Special Ability

I just compared my experience played M2TW Kingdoms Crussader, and British Islands. They are quite different in tactics... In Crussaders, soldiers are more prone to fight to the death, rather than routs, but in the British war, soldiers are more easily rout than usal... Can it implied on EB II? (Spartans and Princepes-upward will fight to the death, but most troops routs)


How to give each generals (or at least each faction Leader) a great rallying ability as Richard the Lionheart, Philip of France, Saladin, or Alex Commenos in Crussader's campaign. It could be used only once in each battle...

I was read that Julius caesar has this kind of ability, when he saw his enemy's troops breaking into his line and his troops has allready begin a mass rout.... only to be cancelled when he yelled loudly, and personally charge the line, while cursing his own soldiers as coward...:furious3:

Or Maybe we can emulating bribing enemy troops, as the Emperor Alex Kommenos, bribing is a very regular activity indeed... especially if U playing a huge economic monster such as Kardhastim.

The Barbarians could get the "Jihad-esque" ability, they will start fighting to the death when their leader's called...

It would have to be a phenomally inspirational leader. It also depends on the experience of the troops as well; I've seen units of 3 gold chevrons Levy Hoplites fight to the man (Literally, one guy left). I doubt there's many elite troops which would do that.

:inquisitive:

The default rally ability doesn't satisfy you? It kind of sounds like you're supporting the inclusion of superhero generals...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

The Barbarians could get the "Jihad-esque" ability, they will start fighting to the death when their leader's called...

---

... Why?

I wouldn't mind if the one for Antioch was given to the AI generals(assuming they could use it) because it gives a stamina and attack bonus. And we all know how bad the AI is at managing stamina.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methuselah

:inquisitive:

The default rally ability doesn't satisfy you? It kind of sounds like you're supporting the inclusion of superhero generals...



... Why?

---

i think thats exactly what he proposes only for all generals
thats what i understand

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theoldbelgian

i think thats exactly what he proposes only for all generals
thats what i understand

---

:no: Cute Wolf's a weird kid...

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by theoldbelgian
i think thats exactly what he proposes only for all generals
thats what i understand

---

Cute Wolf's a weird kid...

---

LITERALLY: YES.... The general's Rally ability are sooo bad in M2TW (Better in RTW)... I had an unpleasant experience wen my full stack Lithuanian army in Teutonic, Spanish army in America, and Scottish army in British.... Routs and keep routs when my general's trumpetting them... even with no enemy unit nearby, and they just suffer 20% casualities...:furious3:

In vanilla M2TW too.... In RTW, we can hope 90% chance that routing units will back when Generals trumpetting them, but that M2TW gives ridiculous rout rallying ability, that';s why exactly I purpose to give all generals one-time rally ability(or other ability), or gives units more penchant to fight to the death...

It would be better if the AI didn't fight to the death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

It would be better if the AI didn't fight to the death.

---

Hi, first post ever in anything related to EB, at all, and this kind of entrance may not have been the best, but I was tired, drunk, and bored, so I decided to anyway!

The AI fighting to the death is a catch-22 in M2TW. It really depends on unit balance, for if the unit balance is good, then yes, it would be bad if the AI fought to the death, for it would make it rather hard to achieve a win without massive casualties on both sides. However, players are known for being able to rout an entire AI army with ease - I do so myself, even on EBI - and take minimum casualties while the AI suffers massively, from no fault of it's own but a lazy CA programmer. Giving the AI an advantage in morale (or fatigue) would help it immensely.

Nonetheless, I expect the EB team will have both unit animations, statistics, and overall AI competence at a level that should be tolerable, if not enjoyable.

I thought "fight to the death" basically just means that the unit is broken but cannot rout as it is trapped in combat, and the troops hardly cause any more casualties then anyway. Or should I understand that you want the units to be tougher to break in the first place? Cos if so then is that not just a function of morale? The balance seems about right in EB1 in that case.

In M2TW you get those massive routs because cavalry charges are so ridiculously overpowered and can take down 50% of a unit in 2 seconds or less. With other morale bonuses thrown in such as having killed opposition general, attacking from rear, nearby troops routing, exhausted etc then yes, the whole line just melts. It doesnt help that militia troops have very low morale values either.

Im pretty confident that in real life troops running away (and subsequently rallying) was much more common than represented in the game, but with the limitations of the TW engine, especially re casualties for the routers and the inability of the AI to hold a proper line in the first place, the system used in EB1 seems like a good bet.

btw, in M2TW when chasing down routers they drop dead if a horse even breathes on them. Is it possible to make the cowards harder to kill?

Fight to the death either means the unit either won't rout(pain in the butt) or has routed by is trapped(good).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses

I thought "fight to the death" basically just means that the unit is broken but cannot rout as it is trapped in combat, and the troops hardly cause any more casualties then anyway. Or should I understand that you want the units to be tougher to break in the first place? Cos if so then is that not just a function of morale? The balance seems about right in EB1 in that case.

In M2TW you get those massive routs because cavalry charges are so ridiculously overpowered and can take down 50% of a unit in 2 seconds or less. With other morale bonuses thrown in such as having killed opposition general, attacking from rear, nearby troops routing, exhausted etc then yes, the whole line just melts. It doesnt help that militia troops have very low morale values either.

Im pretty confident that in real life troops running away (and subsequently rallying) was much more common than represented in the game, but with the limitations of the TW engine, especially re casualties for the routers and the inability of the AI to hold a proper line in the first place, the system used in EB1 seems like a good bet.

btw, in M2TW when chasing down routers they drop dead if a horse even breathes on them. Is it possible to make the cowards harder to kill?

---

I think that's the issue Cute Wolf is trying to bring to bear. Your units, once routed, rarely rally in M2TW, even if they are far an away from the enemy or any danger. It's not so much initial morale, as it is bringing that morale back. An AI army, or almost any army for that matter, once routed, is finished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

I think that's the issue Cute Wolf is trying to bring to bear. Your units, once routed, rarely rally in M2TW, even if they are far an away from the enemy or any danger. It's not so much initial morale, as it is bringing that morale back. An AI army, or almost any army for that matter, once routed, is finished.

---

The problem is that in reality you would have further gradations in behaviour. In TW it's fight or flight, but in reality, troops could attack on their own initiative, obey orders, refuse to move but not flee, move backwards, retreat until safety, or rout completely.

It's also too easy to mop up routers, allowing you to wipe out entire armies. In reality, it was rare if armies lost more than half of their men (as far as we can tell, at least). Off course, a defeated army would be in sorry state all the same, and most likely their morale wouldn't allow them to attack their enemy another time, barring special circumstances or very charismatic commanders. In TW this can't be simulated, so a defeated army needs to suffer large casualties in order to disable it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

The problem is that in reality you would have further gradations in behaviour. In TW it's fight or flight, but in reality, troops could attack on their own initiative, obey orders, refuse to move but not flee, move backwards, retreat until safety, or rout completely.

It's also too easy to mop up routers, allowing you to wipe out entire armies. In reality, it was rare if armies lost more than half of their men (as far as we can tell, at least). Off course, a defeated army would be in sorry state all the same, and most likely their morale wouldn't allow them to attack their enemy another time, barring special circumstances or very charismatic commanders. In TW this can't be simulated, so a defeated army needs to suffer large casualties in order to disable it.

---

Of course you would, and I wouldn't argue against that at all, I agree with it, and wish we could simulate that. But I'd argue that having a better rallying ability would at least allow me to try an organized retreat once, instead of just losing the army period. Testing needs to be done to see if it will actually work that way.

Also, speaking of "mopping up" have any of you played N2TW? Routed units will run in battle until an enemy unit touches them, then they stand still - to simulate being "captured", because as it is now, it look like I am killing every last one of my enemies soldiers rather then capturing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

The problem is that in reality you would have further gradations in behaviour. In TW it's fight or flight, but in reality, troops could attack on their own initiative, obey orders, refuse to move but not flee, move backwards, retreat until safety, or rout completely.

It's also too easy to mop up routers, allowing you to wipe out entire armies. In reality, it was rare if armies lost more than half of their men (as far as we can tell, at least). Off course, a defeated army would be in sorry state all the same, and most likely their morale wouldn't allow them to attack their enemy another time, barring special circumstances or very charismatic commanders. In TW this can't be simulated, so a defeated army needs to suffer large casualties in order to disable it.

---

Well you can do that with traits. After a defeat, give a temporary trait that lowers morale. Afterwards, increase it to show a desire to get even.

The problem is how to make the AI withdraw well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Of course you would, and I wouldn't argue against that at all, I agree with it, and wish we could simulate that. But I'd argue that having a better rallying ability would at least allow me to try an organized retreat once, instead of just losing the army period. Testing needs to be done to see if it will actually work that way.

---

I am not sure: the morale of rallied units is so fickle that an organized retreat is almost an impossibility. Still, it might be worth trying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Well you can do that with traits. After a defeat, give a temporary trait that lowers morale. Afterwards, increase it to show a desire to get even.

---

That doesn't work with captains. I am also not sure whether the A.I. takes morale traits into account, so you could score easy insta-rout battles. Anyway, a demoralized army wouldn't just rout quicker: it would simply refuse to go near the enemy, maybe even mutinying and killing the general if he tried. Accurately simulating morale is simply beyond the current TW engines.

Well, in RTW - if the enemy loses really badly and the army doesn't disappear, they'll run away to the nearest town. The problem is that it usually gets totally annihilated and disappears instead.

If only enemy armies actually could withdraw right. I know in Empire, they've worked on that so the AI will try to fight a rear guard action if it all hits the fan. Another possibility is to create some sort of script that will bolster defeated armies with mercs or some such thing. Gamey solution but it'd work well within the TW engine.

Also what you could do is make some sort of army disciplinedness trait so that a undisciplined army will halt to loot everything for a turn after a heroic victory. That way the player can't chase a defeated army around. Also you can increase the movement of a defeated army so they can hot tail it to a settlement to retrain.

I think that idea might work well, if there was a truly significant difference in ability between new and experienced troops, but Im not sure that can really be built into the TW engine. I mean irl a unit that had been recruited and trained 5 years ago, would be significantly better in combat, could march farther and would probably be more self sufficient than a newly recruited unit. With the limitations of the TW engine, your experienced winning unit from that big battle could be confronted by a new or "retrained" opponent unit 1 turn later that might well have superior stats.

Another issue is that, in game play it is probably overall more satisfying for the player to have frequent small scale decisive victories rather than what tended to happen in real warfare, where there was lots of marching around, jockying for position, one side refusing to give battle on the other's terms, with lots of low level skirmishing - eventually a major battle might take place with the main forces of each side, sometimes these events were decisive (often due to political will as much as actual casualties or the victor's ability to follow up), frequently they were not.

Unless the game was totally redesigned I think we are stuck with the system we have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses

Another issue is that, in game play it is probably overall more satisfying for the player to have frequent small scale decisive victories rather than what tended to happen in real warfare, where there was lots of marching around, jockying for position, one side refusing to give battle on the other's terms, with lots of low level skirmishing - eventually a major battle might take place with the main forces of each side, sometimes these events were decisive (often due to political will as much as actual casualties or the victor's ability to follow up), frequently they were not.

---

I myself would love to see at least small skirmishing matches to get a good place for a battle. Alas, as there is at most 2 fights per turn and the AI cannot cope with such a behaviour, we can't have that. But it would be really cool, and make the battles even more decisive, not just lopping a hefty stack around the map and trying to catch the other stack. Sequent small skirmishes that would give you an advantage in the big finale. *Sigh* It would be so cool....

I think that a deserving general should get the special ability and that the requirements should be pretty high for him to get the trait. This would encourage people to groom their heirs (too bad you can't choose the heir, thanks CA.) to try to gain these abilities.

It could be cool too if a non heir general picked it up and made him prone to rebelling against the current leader. I have yet to have anything like this happen in any of my games though they have just left the faction while wandering through the wilderness before.

Are the EB team going to be changing the way rebellion works? Make it more like BI for instance? I remember MTW where they had civil wars....pretty cool...but I have read in the forums this cannot be recreated in M2TW so what are the alternatives?

.. NO SHADOW FACTIONS ... *AHEM*

It would fun to give Roman Generals a special ability when clicked makes them kill themselves when everything goes to pieces. Ya know, for the Brutii of the world.

They should just port in Kensai from Shogun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HayGuy

I think that a deserving general should get the special ability and that the requirements should be pretty high for him to get the trait. This would encourage people to groom their heirs (too bad you can't choose the heir, thanks CA.)

---

Uhm, if you can in RTW, doesnt it mean automatically you can in M2TW Kingdoms?

No.

From Tacitus Annals, Book I, LXV, I shall expose the relevant passage, but it is all definately worth a read. Lots of insight into Arminus' tactics.

Germanicus, however, pursued Arminius as he fell back into trackless
wilds, and as soon as he had the opportunity, ordered his cavalry
to sally forth and scour the plains occupied by the enemy. Arminius
having bidden his men to concentrate themselves and keep close to
the woods, suddenly wheeled round, and soon gave those whom he had
concealed in the forest passes the signal to rush to the attack. Thereupon
our cavalry was thrown into disorder by this new force, and some cohorts
in reserve were sent, which, broken by the shock of flying troops,
increased the panic. They were being pushed into a swamp, well known
to the victorious assailants, perilous to men unacquainted with it,
when Caesar led forth his legions in battle array. This struck terror
into the enemy and gave confidence to our men, and they separated
without advantage to either.

Soon afterwards Germanicus led back his army to the Amisia, taking
his legions by the fleet, as he had brought them up. Part of the cavalry
was ordered to make for the Rhine along the sea-coast. Caecina, who
commanded a division of his own, was advised, though he was returning
by a route which he knew, to pass Long Bridges with all possible speed.
This was a narrow road amid vast swamps, which had formerly been constructed
by Lucius Domitius; on every side were quagmires of thick clinging
mud, or perilous with streams. Around were woods on a gradual slope,
which Arminius now completely occupied, as soon as by a short route
and quick march he had outstripped troops heavily laden with baggage
and arms. As Caecina was in doubt how he could possibly replace bridges
which were ruinous from age, and at the same time hold back the enemy,
he resolved to encamp on the spot, that some might begin the repair
and others the attack.

The barbarians attempted to break through the outposts and to throw
themselves on the engineering parties, which they harassed, pacing
round them and continually charging them. There was a confused din
from the men at work and the combatants. Everything alike was unfavourable
to the Romans, the place with its deep swamps, insecure to the foot
and slippery as one advanced, limbs burdened with coats of mail, and
the impossibility of aiming their javelins amid the water. The Cherusci,
on the other hand, were familiar with fighting in fens; they had huge
frames, and lances long enough to inflict wounds even at a distance.
Night at last released the legions, which were now wavering, from
a disastrous engagement. The Germans whom success rendered unwearied,
without even then taking any rest, turned all the streams which rose
from the slopes of the surrounding hills into the lands beneath. The
ground being thus flooded and the completed portion of our works submerged,
the soldiers' labour was doubled.

This was Caecina's fortieth campaign as a subordinate or a commander,
and, with such experience of success and peril, he was perfectly fearless.
As he thought over future possibilities, he could devise no plan but
to keep the enemy within the woods, till the wounded and the more
encumbered troops were in advance. For between the hills and the swamps
there stretched a plain which would admit of an extended line. The
legions had their assigned places, the fifth on the right wing, the
twenty-first on the left, the men of the first to lead the van, the
twentieth to repel pursuers.

It was a restless night for different reasons, the barbarians in their
festivity filling the valleys under the hills and the echoing glens
with merry song or savage shouts, while in the Roman camp were flickering
fires, broken exclamations, and the men lay scattered along the intrenchments
or wandered from tent to tent, wakeful rather than watchful. A ghastly
dream appalled the general. He seemed to see Quintilius Varus, covered
with blood, rising out of the swamps, and to hear him, as it were,
calling to him, but he did not, as he imagined, obey the call; he
even repelled his hand, as he stretched it over him. At daybreak the
legions, posted on the wings, from panic or perversity, deserted their
position and hastily occupied a plain beyond the morass. Yet Arminius,
though free to attack, did not at the moment rush out on them. But
when the baggage was clogged in the mud and in the fosses, the soldiers
around it in disorder, the array of the standards in confusion, every
one in selfish haste and all ears deaf to the word of command he ordered
the Germans to charge, exclaiming again and again, "Behold a Varus
and legions once more entangled in Varus's fate." As he spoke, he
cut through the column with some picked men, inflicting wounds chiefly
on the horses. Staggering in their blood on the slippery marsh, they
shook off their riders, driving hither and thither all in their way,
and trampling on the fallen. The struggle was hottest round the eagles,
which could neither be carried in the face of the storm of missiles,
nor planted in the miry soil. Caecina, while he was keeping up the
battle, fell from his horse, which was pierced under him, and was
being hemmed in, when the first legion threw itself in the way. The
greed of the foe helped him, for they left the slaughter to secure
the spoil, and the legions, towards evening, struggled on to open
and firm ground.

Nor did this end their miseries. Entrenchments had to be thrown up,
materials sought for earthworks, while the army had lost to a great
extent their implements for digging earth and cutting turf. There
were no tents for the rank and file, no comforts for the wounded.
As they shared their food, soiled by mire or blood, they bewailed
the darkness with its awful omen, and the one day which yet remained
to so many thousand men.

It chanced that a horse, which had broken its halter and wandered
wildly in fright at the uproar, overthrew some men against whom it
dashed. Thence arose such a panic, from the belief that the Germans
had burst into the camp, that all rushed to the gates. Of these the
decuman gate was the point chiefly sought, as it was furthest from
the enemy and safer for flight. Caecina, having ascertained that the
alarm was groundless, yet being unable to stop or stay the soldiers
by authority or entreaties or even by force, threw himself to the
earth in the gateway, and at last by an appeal to their pity, as they
would have had to pass over the body of their commander, closed the
way. At the same moment the tribunes and the centurions convinced
them that it was a false alarm.

Having then assembled them at his headquarters, and ordered them to
hear his words in silence, he reminded them of the urgency of the
crisis. "Their safety," he said, "lay in their arms, which they must,
however, use with discretion, and they must remain within the entrenchments,
till the enemy approached closer, in the hope of storming them; then,
there must be a general sortie; by that sortie the Rhine might be
reached. Whereas if they fled, more forests, deeper swamps, and a
savage foe awaited them; but if they were victorious, glory and renown
would be theirs." He dwelt on all that was dear to them at home, all
that testified to their honour in the camp, without any allusion to
disaster. Next he handed over the horses, beginning with his own,
of the officers and tribunes, to the bravest fighters in the army,
quite impartially, that these first, and then the infantry, might
charge the enemy.

There was as much restlessness in the German host with its hopes,
its eager longings, and the conflicting opinions of its chiefs. Arminius
advised that they should allow the Romans to quit their position,
and, when they had quitted it, again surprise them in swampy and intricate
ground. Inguiomerus, with fiercer counsels, heartily welcome to barbarians,
was for beleaguering the entrenchment in armed array, as to storm
them would, he said, be easy, and there would be more prisoners and
the booty unspoilt. So at daybreak they trampled in the fosses, flung
hurdles into them, seized the upper part of the breastwork, where
the troops were thinly distributed and seemingly paralysed by fear.
When they were fairly within the fortifications, the signal was given
to the cohorts, and the horns and trumpets sounded. Instantly, with
a shout and sudden rush, our men threw themselves on the German rear,
with taunts, that here were no woods or swamps, but that they were
on equal ground, with equal chances. The sound of trumpets, the gleam
of arms, which were so unexpected, burst with all the greater effect
on the enemy, thinking only, as they were, of the easy destruction
of a few half-armed men, and they were struck down, as unprepared
for a reverse as they had been elated by success. Arminius and Inguiomerus
fled from the battle, the first unhurt, the other severely wounded.
Their followers were slaughtered, as long as our fury and the light
of day lasted. It was not till night that the legions returned, and
though more wounds and the same want of provisions distressed them,
yet they found strength, healing, sustenance, everything indeed, in
their victory.

Was it greed I wonder that saved the Legions from another defeat? The division amongst the Cherusci?? Whatever the case, I love reading Tacitus account of the wars in Germany.

I do not know or remember if M2TW have or not , but if it has like EB, at least we can give the ancillaries of his father before he dies.
otherwise old pals may save us a bit; kill_character, suicide ships...

I was annoyed the last time I tried to use faction heir as ancillary but it did not work in M2TW.....

Well, I'll just finished my Scotland's campaign (M/VH) on Kingdoms. And all that I learn from that campaign was you just need a neat line of highland pike men, guard the flanks with another melee troops. Bait the enemy troops with a cavalry charges / arrows, and look, they'll rout massively when they touch my pike line...

Looking from that result, I open my crussader campaign, giving flemish pikemen as available mercenary for both antioch and jerusalem, making them available for recruit in churches (abbey-up, just for recruitment in EDB) and I use them against muslims... in the exactly same manner...


and



The Muslims fight to the death, even their backside is opened, they just foolishly push their way into my pike line...

And now I'll just curious, what file and what line that I need to modify, when I want them to fight to the death more often? The crusade seems to had more "fight to the death"...

I heard it has to do with the unit stats

there was somethin like how fast morale recovers and so on
i think thats where you want to be

If it's similar to morale from RTW, just switch the morale value (ranged from 1-14) to 100. I did that with the Spartans a while back...

Or lower it so that almost everything has morale below 10.