Re: Falling back fighting
This would be great, very realistic. Most accounts I have read of medieval battles like Towton suggest that repeated bouts of 'combat>fall back and rest> combat' was the way medieval battles went, not the 'stand your ground slaughter' that most MTW battles result in.
of course, as you say, you can also finally pull off 'engage and retreat traps' on enemies to lure them into an encirclement. it would make close-in skirmishing and rearguard actions more effective too. It would be more realistic for it only to be made available to well-trained or elite units though, ones with good discipline.
Re: Falling back fighting
Apparently, no such maneuver was used in melee combat. You can't walk backwards with men holding sharp weapons right behind you, and you give the enemy and advantage in thrusting their weapon if you are backing away. It's a basic concept of the gameplay that, once you commit a unit, it's commited to fight. When a unit tries to move back away from the enemy, it becomes disrupted and suffers a morale penalty. If you want to set up a flanking maneuver, you have to do that with an army formation designed for that purpose not try to maneuver units to do that after they are already engaged. However, you might get what you want because the game is now being designed to provide a gameplay that appeals to a wide audience no matter how unhistorical or unrealistic that gameplay might be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matteus the inbred
This would be great, very realistic. Most accounts I have read of medieval battles like Towton suggest that repeated bouts of 'combat>fall back and rest> combat' was the way medieval battles went, not the 'stand your ground slaughter' that most MTW battles result in.
This is possible in the game, but you have to substitute another unit to take the place of the unit that is disengaging because the AI pursues units that try to disengage. In actual battles where men could stop fighting and withdraw, I suspect it's because the enemy didn't pursue.
Re: Falling back fighting
Individual units might have fallen back as losing/tired soldiers tried to pull out. But as a controlled command I do not find it very realistic.
The closest thing would be feigned flight which would be the same as routing your unit or simply pulling out your unit and accept the losses. The main purpose would be to draw out the defender and then have reserves counter attack. That is possible to do in Total War and I have used it a few times against the AI.
CBR
Re: Falling back fighting
Well OK then what about this:
1) You are trying to retreat in order using shields for defence you do not want to show your backs to the enemy. In the game, as is,you cannot do this. Your troops shoulder arms turn around and saunter off, getting hacked down. (Hmm very realistic (I have fought in re-enactment battles for the dark ages and medieval periods and falling back is quite possible to do.)
2) Falling back fighting surely can be done dependant on the unit type. The idea that veteran units cannot be trained to do this maneuver is a bit far fetched. Falling back, when ordered, is nothing like feigning a rout. I know this is a MTW2 forum but examples of units falling back are documented. I believe the Roman Maniple structure was based on falling back and closing up the gaps in the ranks. Are we really saying that this battlefield tactic was not carried out in order?
Re: Falling back fighting
Well the fall back and rest thing in medieval combat was more of a mutual agreement between the two fighting groups, both would drop back and rest and mainly drink lots of water... It was a necessity when everyone was fighting in heavy armour and collapsing from heat exhaustion and/or dehyrdation was not unknown...
Re: Falling back fighting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
This is possible in the game, but you have to substitute another unit to take the place of the unit that is disengaging because the AI pursues units that try to disengage. In actual battles where men could stop fighting and withdraw, I suspect it's because the enemy didn't pursue.
Sure, I expect the complete disengagement was a mutual thing as Bob the Insane says, but being able to fight while retreating is possible, if prone to collapsing into a rout should the enemy force the pace. I don't think very compact units like pike phalanxes could pull it off though. Having also done a bit of re-enactment shieldwall stuff, I agree with Grumfoss that even fairly minimally trained troops are capable of a slow retreat while facing the enemy and still maintaining order.
Possibly if your army charged down a hill and failed to break the enemy, this would be a way to pull back and regain your advantageous position without having to turn your troops around. Similarly, it could come in useful in bridge battles.
There is a small element of this already in MTW, units can get pushed back during combat, especially downhill, but I think this is a more organised concept. Probably too complex for the games designers to bother with, I guess.
Re: Falling back fighting
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Individual units might have fallen back as losing/tired soldiers tried to pull out. But as a controlled command I do not find it very realistic.
Battle of Canne?
The entire center of the line used a fighting withdrawl.
Re: Falling back fighting
Quote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
Battle of Canne?
The entire center of the line used a fighting withdrawl.
That is questionable. Or rather I mean Hannibal placed his lesser troops in the center in the full knowledge that they would be pushed back and as such was a fighting withdraw something that happened on purpose or as a result of his troop placement? And was give the order to fall back just a way to tell his weaker troops to not worry to much about getting their arses kicked and that he fully expected it?
Re: Falling back fighting
Quote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
Battle of Canne?
The entire center of the line used a fighting withdrawl.
We only have limited information from the sources but they are telling us that the center were losing and holes appeared in the line. We are told the Romans were pursuing and were disordered when the African spearmen counter attacked. The Celtic troops, who were the ones fighting in the center, took IIRC about 25% losses which are extreme losses if no routing was involved.
With the limited kownledge (and theories) we have of how battles were fought, and trying to fit all the pieces together, the best conclusion of Cannae is that Hannibal's center ended in a rout after a long and hardfought battle. The disordered mass of Romans pursuing would then have been very vulnerable to the counter attack that Hannibal had prepared.
One thing missing in the Total War is that losing units hardly does any moving back. Soldiers would be less inclined to move forward to replace killed and wounded soldiers, and those in the front would pull back as holes appeared in the front ranks etc.
Re-enactors can certainly teach us a lot of how combat was like back then but there are limits. It was considered dangerous to pull back troops when the enemy was close. Some battles were lost because pulling back ended up in a rout. Re-enactors can always fight another day as they dont die if they lose. Nor are they faced with the confusion and noise of thousands of soldiers and horses in battle.
AFAIK we are not told Romans pulled back while fighting. We are only told how soldiers would retreat through the gaps in the line behind them. If there was a lull in the fighting it would certainly be possible to replace front units though.
Grumfoss wants to pull back fighting troops so he can draw the enemy unit forward and counter attack it. We do have historical examples of how that is done and thats the feigned flight. But the Total War engine does have some limitations that I guess makes it more difficult to do, especially with RTW where routing troops gets slaughtered much faster than in STW/MTW.
But I have seen the routing unit trick done in MTW MP. Its just not often you have a reason to do it.
CBR
Re: Falling back fighting
This seems common sense to me, of course groups of soldiers waver, or ebb and flow, during the course of a battle. I'd very much like a "fighting withdrawal" command, which while penalizng morale somewhat, would not result in a) all my soldiers turning around and running for their lives, or b) all my soldiers being routed in a second after turning around and running for their lives.
Re: Falling back fighting
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGrotius
This seems common sense to me, of course groups of soldiers waver, or ebb and flow, during the course of a battle. I'd very much like a "fighting withdrawal" command, which while penalizng morale somewhat, would not result in a) all my soldiers turning around and running for their lives, or b) all my soldiers being routed in a second after turning around and running for their lives.
I actually like this... The morale penalty would mean that it would be a bad idea to carry this out with peasants or militias, but professional soldier should not have a problem. And having a good general on hand and near by would make the manouvre more likely to succeed rather than turn into a rout...
I also suggested a push forward manouvre were you troops sacrficed some of the defense stat be increased the weight of their attacks in an attempt to push the enemy back by force.
But I don;t think getting excited by things like this is a good idea as it will only guarantee disapointment in the game when it comes out without our favourite fantasy features... :no:
