Printable View
I really like this game. But compared to Rome Total War, the battles are just mass chaos. Perhaps this is true for the period. The average soldiers are not hoplites or Roman legionaries, but undisciplined mercenaries or illiterate nobles with no knowledge or understanding of how to fight as an organized group.
Anybody else miss the organized slaughter of Rome?
My battles are pretty organized except when I'm fighting the Mongols or Timurids. Then, it's a Battle Royale and anything goes. In normal battles, I try to make the enemy adjust to me when possible. It's been awhile since RTW so I can't remember that well. My simple infantry up the middle and cavalry on the flanks is organized enough for me.
I've played all the games from MTW on(except BI) and I don't get the feeling of chaos you describe. Perhaps you could be more specific?
Tactics, discipline, and reading didn't stop with the Romans.Quote:
Perhaps this is true for the period. The average soldiers are not hoplites or Roman legionaries, but undisciplined mercenaries or illiterate nobles with no knowledge or understanding of how to fight as an organized group.
Myths of Medieval Warfare.
The illdisciplined part I get to a point, but what literacy has to do with anything I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by froglegs
I'm positive the virtues of proper formation and order was appreciated by just about every european army of the era, perhaps not to Roman standards, but still armies wernt just rabbles. They didn't all just charge into a big round mass and beat each other senseless, they had shock troops and units which didnt rely on discipline or order, but most infantry and missile units would of been organised as well as cavalry.
Also warfare was a way of life for many noble men in the middle ages, the professional elements of the army i.e knights and including any mercenaries who's livlihood it was to fight and would therefore have to be good at it would of been fully aware of how to fight a battle. The local levies or peasants wouldnt of been to knowledgable, but the knights and nobles, the men who could afford the heavy armour and horses certainly wernt ignorant.
At the same time battles probably looked very little like the images of squares and circles representing infantry and cavalry that we look at today to understand how a certain battle went. I doubt very much everything was in a pretty perfect line and units maintained 100% of their original order, M2TW is probably the most accurate portrayal of medieval combat out there to much knowledge anyway.
Actually, having "perfect lines" is a military thing. That's why soldiers are being drilled. Even today, most combat drills still focus on fighting in perfect lines. And other drills focus on being in the perfect line, and doing things at the exact same time... So I actually think that medieval battles were fought with very nice looking formations, so that the commanding officer could impress the ladies by making a perfect and exaggerated phallus formation....Quote:
Originally Posted by _Aetius_
I don't think medieval battles could remain perfectly ordered for any real length of time as you have two forces pushing against each other, cohesion is bound to steadily breakdown, especially when both sides tire or one begins to buckle.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Not due to a general lack of discipline, but because battles arent fought with both sides standing motionless and doing nothing, there is movement going on, men being wounded, killed, falling down. Gaps opening up in formations. Some units will resist longer than others, there may be varying degrees of ability or quality of armour and equipment or in terms of morale, leadership and god knows what else, there may be a simple lack of combat experience for portions of the battle line.
I imagine armies were formed up very nicely when there was time pre-battle, but once battle commenced things wouldnt just collapse into madness, but wouldn't be perfectly coordinated or controllable either.
Tactical battles in general aren't to chaotic. If you have only one line of infantry that is spread out properly, you will generally engage in a line and may use other infantry not engage to skill out and flank the enemy. It is only if you choose multiple infantry units and tell them to attack on one enemy unit will they lose cohesion. If you choose targets appropriately, most of the time your battles who be that bad, but when things get chaotic and lots of dead bodies start piling up, use that function where your units are green and enemies are red. It really helps you to see where everything is
Well I can only talk from my own experiences.
My battles go in waves, cannons, archers, foot then horse etc...
They are quite organised but get quite messy when the serious work of the foot and horse needs to be done.
I think that this is quite realistic. I was fortunate to see the renactment of Battle of Hastings on its 900 ish odd (correct me if you want) battle. Simple engagement as you will probley know. The start was very odd, quite organised and well mannered, waves of archers, horses, foot then repeat and add to the mix.
I think that the battles renact reality of that time the general wants to win and capture a prize. Be it city or his own skin I dont see them chucking in valuable troops into the blender in a frenzy.
From the OP if its a ruck fest you might want to consider your tactics on how you do things as not all troops can do all jobs !
Of topicQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I really do hope that you are joking cause this statement is way out there. First: Military combat drills in stright lines haven't been practical since the arrival of the machine gun. The reason that the military still practices these drills has more to do with installing discipline then to drill units on propare comba techniques.
Second: "Ladies" on the battle field prior to the Civil War where most likely camp followers. Even in the Civil War the Ladies and Gentlemen that came out to watch the frist battle of Manasas or (Bull Run) were in for a rude surprise when the battle overran them causing mass panic amongst the ladies and gentlemen in attendance.
Third: Formations such as the Terico and the Phalanx, depended on formations and lines as their main strength. The reason the Terico was so devestating was the immense size of the formation, and the only way that it could move was if the soldiers marched in formation in lines under strict discipline.
On topic:
My battles tend to be rather controlled unless I'm in a forest, then it easy for me to lose track of where all the units are. I've actually come close to losing some battles because I wasn't paying attention to some units that were wavering and about to mass route.
formations get you to the melee line and if you can hold yours the longest it will benefit you but war is chaos. and eventually if a battle is prolonged there is going to be utter chaotic melees.
this is why reserves were invented. when a melee turned into chaos the commander could send in a well organized, formed up and fresh reserve that oftentimes would decide the battle.
its nice to think that well formed up blocks of soldiers fought and they usually held some semblence of a "battle line". shield walls and spear walls were used to maintain this type of order. but eventually a battle will turn into utter chaos once all reserves are committed and it is prolonged.
Guagamela according to jfc fuller was a battle that had transformed itself into utter chaos and confusion because of the huge clouds of dusts raised on the dry arid plain of the battle field.
even the phalanx broke up in places enough for iranian cavalry to push through a wide gap and alexander is said to have been utterly disorganized after routing the persian left wing cav. then turning inward to hit the unprotected persian left ran head on into the retreating iranian cav that had eventually been defeated by the rallied pikemen. at this moment it is stated the companions took more casualties than in the entire battle as the iranians fought like mad men fleeing for their lives.
it was after this and an attempt to pursue darius who had already fled before teh companion cavalry drove home their hammer that he recieved the message to aid parmenion.
Guagamela was an utter battle of confusion and alexanders generalship and ability to manage chaos longer than the persians did help him. but it also took tremedous luck to win that battle.
Not quite true. For example, at the most basic of squad level tactics when advancing to contact and coming under effective enemy fire, the first thing a squad does is the old "double-tap, dash, down," then form up in an extended line (under cover if possible) perpendicular to the enemy to win the fire-fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by bach01
Yeah, I was joking :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by bach01
BTW, our combat drills ARE made in straight lines. I finished my military service 3 months ago, I'm quite sure they haven't changed it.... You start out with the patrol line. When you make contact, people spread out to both sides. They spread out left or right in alternating order. ie. first trooper stays, second one goes to his left, third trooper to the right, fourth left etc. The resulting formations looks like a V turned upside down. Then, the advance/withdrawal begins. One of the sides either withdraw or advance, and run up until the trooper in the middle of the formation sits down. The others then position themselves in a straight line out from him. The other side then does the same thing, but goes a little further. Like this(. means air, - means trooper):
----------.............
.............----------
----------.............
.............----------
If that was understandable... There is more distance between the soldiers due to machine guns and grenades, but the lines are still as straight. The reason is that if the line is disorganised, you risk shooting each other in the back...
This is exactly what I thought when I first read HoreTore's comments on lines being a military thing. Certainly there is some application of it in combat situations, but the rigidity of the drilling is not even a remote consideration on the battlefield - you stay in a line, but no one is being super-anal about maintaining the formation absolutely perfectly as if you were on parade. I don't think there's any question that the ultimate goal of such military drills is to relieve a soldier of his individuality, and get him used to doing things the exact way other people want him to do them. The entire basis of the military is that you do what you're told when you're told to do it and don't ask questions, and IMO the tedious drilling is primarily aimed at conditioning you to be able to do that as effectively as possible, rather than actually being aimed at keeping perfect straight lines in battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by bach01
That's the reason behind the boring drills, however, the combat drills are there for another reason. They are drilled until you can do it perfectly in your sleep, and that means keeping the perfect distance, the perfect speed, the perfect angles, the perfect line. The reason for the drilling, is that in a real combat situation, you WILL do it like in a drill. You WILL keep the perfect line, you will do as fast as possible, and you won't shoot your buddy in the back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foz
Believe me, when the blood starts pumping, it's incredibly easy to shoot a fellow in the back if he strays from the line. That's why these things are drilled, to prevent anything going wrong.
Another reason, is to allow the squad leader better control - as he knows exactly where his fellow soldiers are from knowing his own position, he doesn't have to look around.
Sorry for the knee jerk reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Yeah it was understandable, even to a former deck plate sailor. I was more thinking more of the close order rifle drill, which I was fortunate enough to experience in boot camp.
No one keeps a straight line in battle these days. In fact in more advanced combat training excessive regularity in your squad's movement gets drilled out of you. Modern combat has relied on variations of skirmish rules, which have been around at least since the US Revolution. Things like staggering out your squad so one shot can't take down more than 2 people... which just became several times more important with repeating arms.
Getting in a straight line in a combat zone? Don't make me laugh.
now these days there is not a thin battle line. an armed forces formation can be miles deep when all arms are included. but in urban combat especially it is not unusual for units to get isolated by the enemy who in turn can find themselves isolated. this is something that soldiers train for or i hope they do.
i have an uncle who was a bar gunner over in the pacific in world war 2. he said the japanese would oftentimes come across their field telephone lines and cut them. this has also been mentioned in rommels book "attacks" where his battalion would oftentimes find themselves cut off with their communication line cut.a very unnerving experience to have happen to you.
my uncle also told me about when his company found themselves attacked by a japanese bonzai attack and according to his description there didnt seem to be any battle line for that. he said it was tooth and nail, soldiers fighting with bayonet and buttstocks then to knives, fist, rocks. he remembered watching a guy struggling with a japanese soldier after the battle was pretty much over shout at him to shoot the bugger because of the predicament the guy was in struggling with the japanese soldier. so my uncle shot em.
Well, that drill I described is the standard one familiar to everyone who's been in the army. Believe it or not, it IS the way we fight today.
Note that it is in no way a close formation, as I said, there is enough distance(around 10 meters, if I remember correctly) between the soldiers to prevent a grenade killing more than one. The drill is used by patrols caught in an open field. In other situations, like streets, you have different drills.
You do need these drills. They are designed to give the maximum speed, protection, and fire at the enemy. Being able to perform it perfectly drastically increases your chances of survival.
Quote:
Originally Posted by froglegs
i just notice to make up for bad AI they are scripted it seems to charge, pretty much it went from the AI standing there and taking all your missles, to now charging whatever the army makeup
Meh, this didn't really strike me until I read your post. At it's core I agree, RTW felt much more organized and controllable on the battlescape, M2TW feels like a big barfight. The reason I say this and agree is because of the so called "improvements" to the unit blobbing and pathing that have been mentioned by CA, I have the exact opposite view to be honest. My units in RTW responded much quicker to commands and kept their formations much better when moving and in combat. They all seem to do that wierd "spreading out" deal in both RTW and M2TW, it just feels worse and less coordinated in M2TW. Pathing in cities in RTW was... spotty, at best with the 1.5 patch. I still get units caught in/around buildings and formations not staying together well. On the open land though, this wasn't a problem. In M2TW the city pathing feels marginally better, so I will give them that. In terms of unit "blobbing", I think this utterly stinks in M2TW. The inability of units to keep and hold formation well when moving is infuriating, the incredibly stupid "spread out when chasing routers" bug is the first one that always comes to mind when I think about this. All in all I very much prefer the control and mechanics in RTW to M2TW so far, the so called "improvements" in my view... aren't. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by froglegs
And for the record, as others I think have pointed out, organized warfare certainly didn't stop with the end of the Roman empire(s).
:balloon2:
no army of the middle ages had the discipline of a true roman army
gameplay seems the same to me, the new animations may give the impression of more "chaos" but its the effect i think was intended, but the ai is more aggressive, launching its infantry usually without trying to skirmish, resulting in "hmmm thats not how i thought that would go" battles...just as easy, just sloppier
I agree the AI seems more aggressive in battles. It reminds me of the "barbarian" AI of, say, Gauls in RTW. Form a nice long battle line and then charge in. I actually found the barbarian AI about the best in RTW - the results were often poor, because the barbarian units were so poor, but if the AI has an edge in quality/quantity it can be brutally effective. The weakest AI is the "stay out of close combat and potter around" kind of thing that was all too common in RTW and also occurred in MTW to some extent IIRC. As the player is often better at handling missiles, this usually meant you could slaughter the AI with minimal loss. By contrast, in my M2TW English battles, the AI when it attacks only lets me get off a couple of volleys and then it is stuck in. It looks like mass chaos, but the trick is to use a line to hold back the chaos and use your spare troops to bring dignity back to the vulgar brawl (typically by flanking).Quote:
Originally Posted by sabutai
In RTW, it was normally sufficient to have a long line of infantry with calvalry on either side and "hug" the enemy. The major difference I find in M2TW is that the enemy calvalry are much more likely to break through my line of infantry and are more willing to retreat and reform behind my line. In RTW, those calvary rarely broke through and even when they did, they would fight to death in melee whether they're winning or hopelessly outnumbered.
as im sure some people are sick of is when only a few soldiers at a time fight and the rest just stop a good 10-15 yards away an creep up to the fight.
i swamp my oponents with heavy inf. then cav. this is not alowing me to do that!:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :shame:
yeah, but i have come to accept is its just the drawback of having really cool animations in the front. same kill rates, instead of having 50 of your 75 man unit swinging at literally nothing. i prefer the current model.
but like econ said, its somewhat "harder" when the ai plays like gaul, as opposed to me lining up my fully modern skirmishers against a hodge podge missle unit and having them shift around eating arrows till i'm out of ammo
and if the ai does happen to outclass you in unit valor etc it can get hairy
i notice the AI use the godly m2tw cavalry to great effect. after using carls mod, and what i presume will be added in the patch concerning the shield bug, it appears this wont be as effective in the future...and will have a dramatic influence on gameplay on both sides
with the shield bug fixed the kill rates drop by a very large margin, thus allowing the AI more time to add up failures in flanking and menuevring...making its frantic assaults less effective
I'm going back to RTW once version 6.3 of the SPQR mod is out. The battles in RTW are so much more fun. The animations in M2TW I personally dont even like. And I dont like any of the "improved battle" stuff either.
Your have captured the essence of my point. It seems like individual units do not know how to march in a straight line and keep together. Most battles that I win I accomplished by sending cavalry to the deep flanks and charging to the center of the enemy from the flanks and the rear. It looks like some cheap Hollywood epic battle movie in the mode of Cecil B, DeMille or whoever. Rome was quite different. The units practiced dicipline. They kept their lines and fought to the last man quite often.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
romans lost formation cohesian in melee and this will prove it.
the first roman formation used three lines. hastati, principes and triarii.
when the hastati got fatigued and disordered in the battle the fresh principes would restore order to the line and allow the hastasti back out to regroup and reform.
the cohort system could be used the same way if need arose. you cannot keep a unit in combat without it eventually losing cohesion. phalanxes of various sorts from spearwalls to shieldwalls were the best attempt made to do this and usually the formation that broke apart lost.
but with the roman system this is not so since they were given a wider fighting space to use individual fighting tactics. they only used the turtle when attacking fortified positions. their regular fighting formations relied on spreading out so they could have room to use their fighting style.
this also gave them the ability to fall back without getting bunched up with the men behind them. remember cannae. when the romans were compressed they were not able to fight in the techniques they trained with so they were slaughtered.
I agree that M2TW seems much more chaotic and as someone else mentioned "messy". Maybe some people are missing the point here, it isn't about the Romans being disciplined or otherwise... has everyone forgotten the phalanx? Discipline and organisation personified.
I think one of the reasons that I always preferred RTW over MTW was that the battles were more organised, they seemed to make more sense. The medieval slaughterfest is more chaotic for some reason in both MTW and MT2W than the beautiful art of war in RTW. It just seemed much more of an organised genocide in RTW, I'm guessing thats down to the unit choice as I still use the chequerboard style of deployment that I used in RTW but in M2TW it still dissolves into a free for all. The hammer and anvil just doesn't seem as simple and devastating to me, maybe thats intentional and correct. This is a different age after all where a lot of what was learned had been forgotten or ignored.
I always figured the chaotic look to battles was representative of how people motivated to save their own lives might actually fight in a general melee. In general I should think that a medieval warrior would be more concerned with dodging a sword coming at him than he would be with sticking right next to his buddies. It seems natural then that the formation should suffer as people dodge about and do things in their own best interest. It's not that they don't try to stick together, it's just that when you're trying to stay alive in close combat, you're invariably going to compromise your unit's formation to do so.
Also it should be noted how different close combat is from what is done by militaries in the present. The same sort of unit togetherness can't really apply in melee combat, because there's no good way to engage an enemy in close combat with a unison attack - the nature of close combat dictates you are attacking a given man, rather than the broad unit vs. unit feel of ranged combat. There are of course exceptions (pikes for instance), but in general I think it makes a lot of sense for unit formation to break down once melee is joined.