The two most needed commands

It seems like the two most basic and useful commands that would be used in battle have always been missing from TW games. Where is Advance and Pull Back?

I can't say how many times I've setup a perfect large formation and would like them to simply advance a few hundred feet. It was possible using the CTRL and ALT click movements to keep the formations intact while moving but it was very easy to screw it up. (Is it just me or are Alt/Ctrl movements not working in RTW?)

Not being able to simply Pull Back while maintaing a forward facing makes it almost impossible to do some often used tactics. How many times have you wanted to suck the attackers into a trap so you could easily flank them but without being able to Pull Back your frontal units you are forced to move up the flankers and possibly expose their flanks or lose your height advantage.

I would love to play with the new General view but not being able to use those two commands makes it extremely difficult.

I agree. That's Sid Meier's Gettysburg style command and I liked the way it was implemented. It is something I've missed in all the TW series.

I've noticed that in group formations RTW does a bit better job of preserving the formation while advancing, what I dont like is that I have to make my entire army a group to use the formations. And yes pull back needs to be added. I don't think these will see the light of day though unless in an expansion pack or CA bestow upon us a really great patch.

THE most essential command is a "do not pursue enemies" command

Yes, "advance" and "pull back" would be very nice to have. They were among my favourites in SM Gettysburg.Speaking of groups, I do like the way the cursor changes to include a "+" sign when you hold down the CTRL key to add units to a group. It is a nice little confirmation that you have the right key. In STW/MTW, I'd often mentally stumble over which key (is it ctrl, shift or alt?) to use to group units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GFX707

THE most essential command is a "do not pursue enemies" command

---

Yep, make that three most needed commands. Try out one of the mods with a full Roman army. It disintegrates rapidly chasing routers. It is not that it loses, but it scatters to the winds. I was clicking and moving as fast as I could just trying to hold it together, but I would have had better luck herding cats in a field of catnip while riding a greased pig with its tail on fire.

My vote for a 4th command is an order specific to the General's unit: "don't commit suicide." My first mod was to test normal level phalanx vs. various Roman units. It was spoiled by the Roman cavalry general doing a suicide head-on charge into my left phalanx. He did get the distinction of being the first casualty, and I am nominating him for the 2004 Darwin Award in the computer animation category. Who wrote the AI routine that said the general and his cavalry unit should impale themselves on spears?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GFX707

THE most essential command is a "do not pursue enemies" command

---

I disagree

To have a "do not pursue enemies" command would be a dummies way out. Any natural instinct for troops in combat when the enemy is running away is to pursue. In many battles of the ancient times and later, we see batles won or lost because the commander was able to either rein in his troops pursuing routing enemies, ie Cannae, and battles was lost because generals couldnt control his troops pursuing routing enemies, ie Raphia.
Hell I even wish that once troops is pursuing enemies it ought to be around a 50% chance that they will even ignore your commands as they are to wrapped up in killing the enemies.
It is more realistic that you have to rein in your troops when they pursue the enemies, if you forget to, they chase the enemy to the end of the world, hihgly realistic.

Well done CA not to fall for a dummies move to include an option that troops follow your orders blindly, and at least follow their instincts a bit better. :thumbsup:

The idea of a fall back command is nonsense. We had a long discussion about this before. It didn't happen historically in this period. Armies that go backwards are defeated ones. It's not possible to move the formations backward facing forward, unless they're being forced backwards by an enemy force.

if you want this as a feature then you're going after mafde up tactics. You might as well wish to give your army wings. That'd be useful too. Ancient armies, which this game is designed to model, were designed to go forward, especially the Romans. They were a meat grinder - you pointed them and pressed go. Good generals could do more with them, but it will always involve changing direction and formation, never dropping back in formation.

If you want to go backwards you deserve everything you get :)

Before anybody cites Cannae or Zama go and read Polybius properly.

Agreed Catiline, there was a massive argument over this before, but the only example people have of a withdrawing centre is Cannae. Yet even this is flawed when we look at the sheer numbers of Romans who were trying to PUSH through the lines.

The Fighting withdrawl is mainly a tactic that evolved with Gunpowder, where units no longer had to remain in a solid compact formation to be effective...

Added into all of this is the physics that armies would push together so their weight could really be put behind their blows... Troops that are moving backwards cannot put momentum into their blows and are less effective, while their enemies will bear down on them with the advantage of momentum.

This is one of the reasons why there is a pushback penalty and increased kill chance for the attacking unit in TW.

Retreating armies are losing armies in this timeframe.

Right both the withdraw and the do not pursue are not realistic. It was the destinction of the elite disciplined units that they did not always pursue routers, but rather looked at the overall battlefield situation.

The advance and charge straight ahead command would be highly appreciated however, as thats basicaly the only command ancient leaders could convey to their troops on the battlefiled by using trumpets and horns.
The this unit charges that way of controling, has often opened gaps in my perfectly aligned army setup, and with the run at a place behind the enemy lines trick I was never sure if the carge bonus would apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Try out one of the mods with a full Roman army. It disintegrates rapidly chasing routers. It is not that it loses, but it scatters to the winds. I was clicking and moving as fast as I could just trying to hold it together, but I would have had better luck herding cats in a field of catnip while riding a greased pig with its tail on fire.

---

The problem with some of the mods to allow you to play as the Romans is that the modder has simply switched the playable factions, however they've left in all the battle scripting that would normally tell the AI how to manoeuver the Roman army against the player's Carthaginians. The script is full of commands directing certain units to attack specific targets, or to run forward - often in unit type groups, so that all the hastati run forward after X seconds, the princeps after Y, the triarii after Z, etc - or to attack the nearest enemy unit within a certain range.

There are a couple of really irritating scripted commands if you're playing the Romans and they've been left in: the velites will rout once they reach a certain number of casualties or have used most of their javelins, even if they otherwise still have good morale; and after a certain amount of time the Roman general will automatically try to attack Hannibal if he's still alive, no matter where he is on the field - which can send him straight into a deathtrap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Emperor

Agreed Catiline, there was a massive argument over this before, but the only example people have of a withdrawing centre is Cannae. Yet even this is flawed when we look at the sheer numbers of Romans who were trying to PUSH through the lines.

The Fighting withdrawl is mainly a tactic that evolved with Gunpowder, where units no longer had to remain in a solid compact formation to be effective....

---

It makes sense that trying to pull back while engaged would put you at a big disadvantage. I'd at least like the option to be able to do it before engagement. That way you could still have your front line fall back while you flanked but they wouldn't have their backs to the enemy and be in total disarray.

Charging armies should be able to push back a defenders lines. That is probably what is missing from the game that makes the battles so fast. I would assume in real life that even disciplined troops would have a tendency to be pushed back at least 10-20 ft. In the game instead of giving or taking ground and continuing to fight the soldiers just route or die.

There sorta is a "Do not pursue" mode. If you put the units on Guard it's the same as Hold Ground in S/MTW. I set almost all my units to that at the beginning of the battle.

The generals should have some type of Skirmish mode so they could make some effort at evading the 200 spearman that managed to pull a flank.

When legions fought, wasnt it the strategy that the first row should fall back to the second row? then the second row could fall back to the third row, trarii - last line of defense?

just tell your troops to 'guard' and they will not pursue.

only when they were defeated. The principes moved up to replace the hastati, the hastati didn't fall back on them. If the triarii were involved it ussually mean the proverbial excrement was hitting the fan.

I can accept the lack of fallback if it is historically accurate. I wasn't in on the earlier discussions. You might want to distinguish between backing up slowly in formation (not in melee) vs. falling back while in melee though. I would be willing to bet a large sum that a unit commander could get his troops to fall back slowly a few feet without changing facing (again, not while in melee.) It is hard to imagine not being able to redress your lines like this.

The craziness of watching formations run off chasing routers isn't right. PERIOD. Sure undisciplined units would do that (and yes I would support them not following all commands--something I've felt TW has lacked on the realism side), but I'm not buying it that whole units of Hastati, Principes and Triarii would run off as a matter of course. Their officers would be trying to get them to reform. Individuals might be chasing routers, but the units as a whole would be less inclined to do so. This is a disciplined vs. undisciplined matter.

Sid Meier's Gettysburg was bloody incredible!!

The AI from that game STILL impresses me, and it's over 6 years old!!