Printable View
will you, the EB team, make the unit formations for the barbarian factions more disorderly? and make it look more like this. if possible of course.
http://www.totalwar.com/community/rp10.htm
http://www.totalwar.com/community/rp6.htm
i think it would be more accurate if the barbarian warriors wouldn't line up as orderly as the romans. it would also illustrate the difference in mentality on the battlefield.
well the general idea around here is that barbarians werent as disorganized as you think, so i dont think thats whats going to happen, maybe read the FAQ and see what it says. but i dont know....
You can already do this: just make the formation looser, and use "untrained."
BLASPHEMER!!! I hereby request that this barbarian-hater be BANNED from posting on EB!Quote:
Originally Posted by Proper Gander
~D sorry- I just think that sometimes people in Europa Barbarorum get a little too attached to the barbarians. I'm kinda suprised noone has blased you yet.
edit: I just happened to take a closer look at those screenshots, and those roman formations look enormous. Even on huge unit settings, I've never seen anything that size. What is CA trying to pull?
well, i think to recall removall of teh horde-formation.
any general, no matter how dumb, can inmagine that a solid line is best. the barbarians weren't good in forming lines, but probably could form a line. sothe difference between roman and barbarian lines is the spacing between the units.
romans ||||||||
barbarians | | | | | | | |
something like that would sound accurate.
i was fearing replies like these. ~;)
if i am correct, the 'barbarians' were not disorganized but ill-disciplined. they had a completely different attitude to battles than the romas, it was more individualistic for a start. a celtic warrior was desperate to find his opponent and face him in a fight face to face.
i can well imagine a celtic warrior cursing the romans as cowards as they form a testudo. ~:)
i know that you can alter the formation to 'horde' in the export_decr_tralala.txt file. but this is not an option as they simply form a circle, and this is a great disadvantage in battle beside it being general bollocks.
anyway, the question is. is it possible to add more formations beside 'horde', 'square' etc. to add in the named file.
otherwise jerby's suggestion would be good. i know you can change the distance between the men in a unit.
Why is it that in one of the screenshots (the link) has a picture of a working Egyptian wall!?
Proper Gander,
"Untrained" is used to make the formation a bit less regular (and "trained" to a lesser degree, with "highly_trained" being very tidy.) The "untrained" stat doesn't work quite like the name would imply--it doesn't make them green and useless. However, it does make pila release a bit slower, because the men don't sync up to throw nearly as rapidly. To get a feel for both effects, compare vanilla Scutarii (who have wide spacing and "untrained") to the "Spanish Mercenaries" sharing the same skin and animation, but trained and with tighter formation.
An untrained, very deep square with a looser barbarian spacing is what CA appears to have used in the screen shots, rather than "horde" which is awful of course.
One personal opinion opinion on unit formations: you should also take into account the type of weapon that unit is using.For example it takes a lot more(lateral) space to swing let's say a falx than a pike so a falxmen unit should have a much looser formation than a speramen unit.
And about barbarians:I don't think that the barbarians were so dumb that they couldn't even form a line. More likely, their formations would be decent while they are static but, due to lack of discipline, they would turn into a 'horde' as soon as they charge.
I just noticed a horde.tga file in a folder. It looks like a set of simple dots used as a template for the horde formation. So you might be able to study it and do something with it that would make a formation of your liking. (Although I suppose that if this is in use, the engine is drawing a circle of a given radius from the center of the pattern. Still one could draw a more or less rectangular, etc. that could be used in place of the horde...I think.) You might try creating a tga with another name copied from this file into that folder, and give a unit that formation name to see if it crashes or works. If it works, then you know how to make a new formation.
Not all "barbarians" are equal. Many of the "barbarians" were well trained, organized, disciplined warriors. The formations will differ by unit, but at no time would we ever consider a blanket reduction of discipline by virtue of being "barbarian."
its not really a questions of stupidity, more of mentality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drag0nUL
Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
well no. you're absolutely right. i'm talking about the lesser troops. like a simple warband thats been drawn in for battle. not professional warriors.
PS, unfortunately i can't edit tga's Harvest.
Download GIMP, it is free and will let you edit tga's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proper Gander
I've been experimenting with the formations and it looks like RTW will only allow you to change the horde formation geometry this way. Making a new tga name and trying to call it as a formation did not work, so the formation list appears to be hardcoded just like the units file description says.
However, you can alter horde to your heart's content. I stuck a blank area in the center of the file and that is precisely the formation I saw on the field. I could probably make it spell my name if I wanted to...
thanks harvest! i'll look into it. ~:)
Speaking of formations, is there any chance that EB will implement a Quincunx for the early Romans? As a selectable formation I mean? Or even a chequer formation for a single unit?
Hunter
Some time ago I wrote a little guide about the horde formation: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=40931
Perhaps it's of some use to you.