phalanx/anti-phalanx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

My answer was that when a certain 'offense' is perceived to be unblockable, it is because indeed the defending side lost the proper timing at which the offense could have been blocked or countered.

---

I'm asking from what distance you want attacking moves to be unblockable? How far away must a unit be before the defender can react in time if he immediately sees the attacking unit move? The distance will be greater for cavalry than for infantry because cavalry is faster.

This is the scenario. A player sees an enemy unit start to move. He has a unit in a position to intercept it and immediately knows he wants to make the intercepting move. He has to move his mouse to his unit and select it. Then move his mouse to the enemy unit or to some point of intercept and select it. Then there is a 1.5 second delay before his unit starts to move. The player who made the attacking move has already gone through all those steps. The question is how far is the attacking unit going to travel in the time it takes the other player to get his countermove going? Clearly, as movement speed increases this distance increases because the time it takes to select a unit, select a destination and then wait 1.5 seconds for the unit to start moving is a constant. This distance is determined by the game mechanics, and has nothing to do with military tactics or how fast someone thinks.

Once units get within this distance they are vulnerable to first strike killing. The only chance of saving the unit would be if it can hold out long enough for another unit to arrive. If the killing rate is fast, there won't be much chance of relief unit getting there in time. If the cavalry is too strong, then there will be lots of fast, relatively small cav units on both sides which will shift the gameplay to favor offense over defense. I don't think an unbalance between offense and defense is good for the game over the long term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

CBR, most of the soldiers portrayed in the game are trained soldiers. They are part of the citizenry with high morale and regular training.

---

And I doubt they trained harder than a lot of western armies have done the last couple of hundred years. A lot of ancient armies (like the classic Greeks) would be considered amateurs today.

Quote:

---

The army drilled us to carry 30kg worth of equipment and jog around for miles for hours. Granted, I wasn't running at the top of the lungs. But it was still a lot faster than the so-called 'realistic' values as suggested by some.

---

Well what "realistic" values is it you dont like? The USMC have the 180 step/minute double quick march as the fastest march rate. The UK army back in the 1930's had the same but used 40 inch paces (1 meter) instead of the USMC's 36 inch (90 centimeter) So thats a movement rate of about 160-180 meters/minute or around 10-11 km/h. And that is without akward shields as well as doing it on road in columns.

Modern day experiments with men equipped in hoplite armour and shield found that a jog of about 5-6 mph (8-10 kmh or 130-165 meters/minute) would fragment a 2 file column after about 300 yards. And now try and imagine how disrupted a wide line formation would be if you were not careful with the maneuvering.

US Civil war infantry under fire would use a double quick march of 165 steps/minute or faster (150+ meters/minute) and only run the last few meters when they assaulted a position. Maintaining the formation was not as important as trying to reach the enemy position as quickly as possible.

Here is a list of infantry movement rates from Napoleonic times:

HTML Code:

---

Country                                      Paces per Minute  Yards per Minute
Austria      Ordinairschritt            90-95                          63-66
                  Geschwindschritt      105                              73
                  Doubleirschritt        120                              83
France      Pas ordinaire              76                              55
                  Pas de route            85-90                          61-65
                  Pas accelere            100                              72
                  Pas de manoeuvre      120                              87
                  Pas de charge          120                              87
Britain        Ordinary Pace              75                              63
                  Quick Pace              108                              90
Prussia      Ordinaire schritt          75                                52
                  Geschwindschritt      108                              63
Russia      Tchyi szag                  60-70                          50-58
                  Skoryi szag            100-110                      83-92
                  Udwonyi szag          140-160                      117-133

---

Most armies back then did not use the same rapid advances as in the US Civil war and its noted how the French Old Guard could do a 300 yard charge (120 paces/minute) while maintaining formation and it was considered remarkable.

French cavalry regulations has the following numbers:

Walk 97-107 meters per minute
Trot 194-214 meters per minute
Gallop 300 meters per minute

The numbers are pretty much the same from what we know of knights in the middleages and how say the Polska Husaria did they charges. Only the final 50 meters or less would they go into a fullblown charge

Now look at the running speed in MTW: A whooping 10 kmh (166 meters/minute) for standard infantry and double that for heavy cavalry. All that and they still maintain formation. Sounds pretty good to me and if its unrealistic its because its too fast!

Quote:

---

Take note that stamina training was a regular part of the ancient military. The Greeks even adopted special training which purpose is to heighten the physical stamina of the individual soldier up to a level that they may maintain a speedy running status over hundreds of meters.

---

Or more like a speedy jog and perhaps a final run if they actually wanted to crash right into their enemy.

Quote:

---

In describing the battle of Pharsalus, Julius Caesar compliments the prudence of his soldiers and comments, "At this point the individual experiences of the soldiers came alive. Running hundreds of yards in a charge to meet Pompeius' army, they realized that the enemy was not moving. So they halted to grab a breath, and when the lines were reformed, they started the charge again."

---

That doesnt sound like the translation I have:

[3.93]But our men, when the signal was given, rushed forward with their javelins ready to be launched, but perceiving that Pompey's men did not run to meet their charge, having acquired experience by custom, and being practiced in former battles, they of their own accord repressed their speed, and halted almost midway; that they might not come up with the enemy when their strength was exhausted, and after a short respite they again renewed their course, and threw their javelins, and instantly drew their swords, as Caesar had ordered them.

We dont get exact information of the movement rate they used nor how long they did it. Only that they definitely didnt like to do the full distance as Pompey didnt advance so they had to cover the whole distance. As formation and stamina is important, a jog for a few hundred meters would be enough to make them stop up and reform for another charge.

Quote:

---

It isn't any more 'no brainer' than to decide to cut back the speed to seriously pathetic levels in the name of 'realism'. 'Selective realism' is more like it.

---

I wonder who is being most selective?

As I wrote in another post: That people like the new speed...fine by me, just dont use the realism argument plz

All the information we have on how units behave and on human endurance points towards MTW as having speeds closer to realistic levels.


CBR

the hoplites and other phalanx units are very strong in street combat.perhjps s one have a tactic against them

Let's use the prior posted values, and multiply it with the response time(5s judgement time + 1.5s 'command lag'). If we're assuming enemy cavalry which was already placed at one wing, is advancing at full speed, they will have covered 55yd(51m) by that time(6.5s).

1. If the battle lines are further apart than 109yd(100m) distance(hereafter "engagement distance"), and we want to counter that with our own cavalry and halt them at a middle point, we have to start moving our own cavalry the moment enemy cavalry starts a move. Ofcourse, that is assuming our cavalry is also placed at the wings.

2. If the main battle lines are closer than the engagement distance, then you can't halt enemy cavalry flanking at a middle point. The closer the distance between the lines, the closer to us enemy cavalry will be halted.

3. If our cavalry isn't placed at the wings to adequately meet the enemy cavalry trying to flank us, or if we don't have any infantry units at the wings to defend the flanking, then it comes down to poor judgement. What were we doing when enemy lines were advancing towards us? (Or, why were we advancing to them when we were not ready for that?)

4. Obviously, when each side's main line closes in inside 109yd(100m), it's the last chance to make final adjustments in formations and lines. Anything closer than that and basically its too late. The battle's gonna be carried out in that formation you've made.

5. Thus, what becomes important, is that you don't have to wait and see the enemy cavalry actually making a move. There's no written rule you should wait and see if they are gonna do something. For instance, before approaching the engagement distance you could send all anti-cavalry infantry to group at one wing, and gather all your cavalry at the opposite wing. This is effectively another form of 'making the first move'. It sends out a message to the enemy, "I'm gonna stop you at one wing, and use all my cavalry to overwhelm you on the opposite wing".

6. If the enemy is smart(at least, if it was in MP), he'll stop his lines from advance, and try to come up with a new plan to his formations to adapt to this new change in our ranks. However, with each step drawn closer, the window of opportunity of making adjustments becomes smaller. That's why making the first move so important. To keep forcing your opponent to become passive.

7. If both lines are already inside the engagement distance, and the enemy starts a move, it is no surprise you can't stop him. You should have foreseen that coming, and devised a plan to counter it long ago. Or, make other small shifts and changes in your own ranks from further distance away, so you can confuse the enemy and discourage them from doing what they've initially planned. The real battle starts the moment the troops are deployed. Actual clash and bout is only final confirmation of what was already laid out, before the two side's soldiers actually exchange arms.


In MTW the cavalry only covers about 38yd(35m) in that 6.5 seconds (5 second judgement/analysis + 'command lag'(although MTW doesn't have such a thing)). Assuming both lines are at the engagement distance, the cavalry reachs your flanks in 19.5 seconds, full 6.5s slower than RTW. You can watch them move(6.5s expired), see where they are going(13s expired), and still stop them 38 yards in front of your lines(19.5s, 114yd) - hence, "20 second reaction time". If the distance bewteen the battle lines are closed to mere 60 yds apart, you still have enough time to stop enemy movement.

CBR, those are average values attained on a battlefield. They are not the absolute limit. According to that data a French 'charge' is only worth about 4 feet per second, and a horse 'gallops' 5m a second.

They are also Napoleonic values in which melee combat is losing ground at an accelerated rate, in cohesion with the overall decline of the importance of melee over fired/thrown arms that's been underway for hundreds of years.

In ancient times, if you see an enemy 100m out which need to be stopped, you close the full 100m to meet them and halt them there. In ever modernizing warfare, you need close only upto the firing distance. Maintaining an orderly formation to maximize fire power and fire rates was considered to be more important, than moving soldiers as fast as possible. So (while exaggerated by Hollywood movies) one observes in this era, the seemingly bizarre doctrine of battle lines drawn up and firing guns at each other's noses face to face, with soldiers falling down at both sides like rag dolls after each volley, and doing that again and again. In this era, you sacrifice speed if it means you can hold the formation of guns together. A broken formation means irregular and dispersed rate of gunfire.


Maneuvering speeds on a battle field do not follow a chosen set of data or 'soldier's manuals'. It allows us to observe a certain 'ideal' the soldiers try to attain on a battlefield. The officers would also probably want to try to keep the soldiers under control of the 'manual', and hope they(or even the officer himself) do not succumb under the pressure of wanting to move faster in the midst of cannonfire and bullets whizzing by. However, it does not give out an actual representation of how people moved about during battle.

When you have a certain tactical point to reach no matter what purpose, you will drive your soldiers to run at full speed. A cavalry will not 'trot' all the way, when you see an opportunity to break through enemy lines which may vanish after a few seconds. When a melee is already commenced, and you need to send in local reinforcements, shift the unit positions, block here and there, see a new opportunity, and etc etc.. there is no such thing as 'last 50m'. Every meter is the last meter.


The only reason you'd consider MTW levels 'at least closer to realistic levels' is that they are closer to the "manual". Manuals are wishful thinking, not the reality.

ps) I apologize the Caesar quote. You are absolutely correct. I'll refrain from quoting things from the back of my head from now on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

I've wrote several articles about this on the Colosseum. The 'cavalry are overpowered' comments are also borne out of popular misconception where people do not take the specific situation and factors into account.

---

And there we go with the "everyone is deluded" view again. Look, steamrolling with low level cav on VH/VH is easy. It's not some sort of "popular misconception." Hoplite armies are a breeze to mow down. That's despite the AI getting +7 to attack and morale bonuses as well. I learned pretty quick: leave the infantry at home or bring what I must as bait/for seiges. Let the cav do the fighting. You don't need great cav, I use the light greek lancers or simple round shields. The nemesis of cav? Other cav of course.

I have watched heavy cav (non cataphract) tear up my sacred band infantry in a frontal charge. The longer pike units do better, but the other phalanx units don't do decently at all. In this time period, cav didn't rule. In fact they got the worst of it when attacking heavy infantry.

Another problem with cav: upkeep is much too cheap. Most of the non-barbarian cav of the time was made of wealthier men who could afford the horses and upkeep. They were not numerous partly for that reason. And often they were rather lightly armoured and armed. So RTW encourages cav heavy armies.

Ptah,

Men under stress are going to do what their training has taught them (or just freeze or panic.) We execute what we know we can do. That is the reason for those drills and the speeds chosen. You know what happens to a bunch of fools that do their best 100, 200, or 400 meter sprint to the enemy line to commence hand-to-hand? They get cut down because they are out of breath when they reach the objective (and they also will hit the line piecemeal.) They cannot afford to go into severe oxygen debt THEN commence melee. Formations need to move at speeds that allow maintaining cohesion and at a pace that nearly everyone can manage while maintaining formation. They need to do so without exhausting man or beast.

One thing that RTW does seem to incorporate that has some merit is some power to the charging unit vs. a unit standing there turtled. It seems overdone because of many other offensive bonuses and sheer kill speed (and charge bonuses should be much reduced in some situations like cav vs. spears, cav vs. elephants/camels, frontal charges by any unit vs. phalangites in formation, and stacked "snowball" attacks), but the basic idea has goal has merit. Caesar preferred to meet a charge with a countercharge and there is terrific logic in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Ptah,

Men under stress are going to do what their training has taught them (or just freeze or panic.) We execute what we know we can do. That is the reason for those drills and the speeds chosen. You know what happens to a bunch of fools that do their best 100, 200, or 400 meter sprint to the enemy line to commence hand-to-hand? They get cut down because they are out of breath when they reach the objective (and they also will hit the line piecemeal.) They cannot afford to go into severe oxygen debt THEN commence melee. Formations need to move at speeds that allow maintaining cohesion and at a pace that nearly everyone can manage while maintaining formation. They need to do so without exhausting man or beast.

---

I agree, the headlong charge is a thing of myth, misjudgement, poor discipline, penniless battlefield artists and Universal Studio's.

Effective charges required unit cohension and that in turn meant a control forward movement at a regular pace. Those officers and units who ignored such rules were ridiculed throughout history as fools and yet we contiue to fantasize about their expliots.


As for Phalanx's

The simple answer is missile fire.

If attacked by phalanx's then pelt them with everything you can lay your hands on from arrows and javelins to rocks. I used this tactic to wipe out 3,000 Greek Hoplites with an army of slingers, horse archers and skirmishers.

If attacking with phalanx's then make damned sure they are supported with as many missile units as you can gather on both flanks and across their front. Keep the enemy occupied with these as your pikement close the distance and then use them to pin the enemy in place as your phalanx line engages and pursue them once broken.

my my my, did I start a topic or what??

thanks ptah, great info. got any mroe of those slides/tactics-> teach me!! train me!!

about rome total realism, how do I change back teh movement speed, its a great mod. but teh shouldn't mess with teh core of the game.

I'm really thankfull for teh info, and to the rest: 2 words: off topic...

if anyone has more info about strategy with, or against phalangites, tell me.

I found a nice thing in city's: when phalanxes turn for a corner, they lift up their spears, when timed right, you can really disrupt the phalanx in that critical moment--> if unit speed is not reduced...

I dont see anything wrong with Turks fighting silly crusading spearmen and swordsmen. Those Turkoman horse work like a dream, though i wouldnt want a WHOLE army of them. Armenian heavy calvary and a couple of camels finish what the horse archers leave behind.

About this movement speed thing... i also think that the units should move a bit slower. They run awfully fast even with all that armour they carry. Armour is not like duffel bags you carry on your back. It restricts your range of movements and wearing heavy chunks of metal on your legs will make it incredibly tiring to run as you can imagine. I suppose those little soldiers dont look like they wear much armour, not as much as those medieval walking tanks at least. Maybe CA decided to make it different from MTW because of that. I dont know about STW though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

Let's use the prior posted values, and multiply it with the response time(5s judgement time + 1.5s 'command lag'). If we're assuming enemy cavalry which was already placed at one wing, is advancing at full speed, they will have covered 55yd(51m) by that time(6.5s).

---

You haven't allowed time for the game mechanic of selecting a unit and then selecting the target unit and possibly having to move the camera as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

1. If the battle lines are further apart than 109yd(100m) distance(hereafter "engagement distance"), and we want to counter that with our own cavalry and halt them at a middle point, we have to start moving our own cavalry the moment enemy cavalry starts a move. Ofcourse, that is assuming our cavalry is also placed at the wings.

---

But you can't move your own cavalry at the moment the enemy starts to move unless you give the order 1.5 seconds before his cavalry moves. Therefore, you can never meet the enemy at the midpoint. If the battlelines are 100 m apart, attacking cav will likely cover half the distance before any enemy unit responds. That's a pretty big advantage to give to someone just because they move first. In that case, I should be able to give a standing order to my cav units to attack incoming cav. It's not as though my units, which are standing there in a battleline ready to move, can't see the enemy movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

2. If the main battle lines are closer than the engagement distance, then you can't halt enemy cavalry flanking at a middle point. The closer the distance between the lines, the closer to us enemy cavalry will be halted.

---

Given the almost instant destruction of units by cavalry, any supporting cav unit has to be 50 meters closer to the unit the enemy targets with his cav. Any supporting anti-cav infantry unit has to be 0.33 * (x - 50) meters closer to the unit the enemy targets with his cavalry where x is the distance the cavalry is from the target unit. For instance, if the enemy cavalry is 100 meters away, the supporting infantry unit must be within 16 meters of the target.

A supporting infantry unit would have to be 25 meters closer to the unit the enemy targets with his infantry, but could be further away depending on how long the target unit can hold out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

3. If our cavalry isn't placed at the wings to adequately meet the enemy cavalry trying to flank us, or if we don't have any infantry units at the wings to defend the flanking, then it comes down to poor judgement. What were we doing when enemy lines were advancing towards us? (Or, why were we advancing to them when we were not ready for that?)

---

You have to defend your flanks. The key word here is "defend". You should be able to do that, and not be defeated by a game mechanic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

4. Obviously, when each side's main line closes in inside 109yd(100m), it's the last chance to make final adjustments in formations and lines. Anything closer than that and basically its too late. The battle's gonna be carried out in that formation you've made.

---

At that point it's too late to defend at all. You aren't going to be able to respond to multiple threats. You're basically forced to attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

5. Thus, what becomes important, is that you don't have to wait and see the enemy cavalry actually making a move. There's no written rule you should wait and see if they are gonna do something. For instance, before approaching the engagement distance you could send all anti-cavalry infantry to group at one wing, and gather all your cavalry at the opposite wing. This is effectively another form of 'making the first move'. It sends out a message to the enemy, "I'm gonna stop you at one wing, and use all my cavalry to overwhelm you on the opposite wing".

---

You're still missing the point. It's not supposed to be easier to attack than to defend. RTW makes it easier to attack than to defend because of a game mechanic. It has nothing to do with military strategy or speed of thinking. In this game, prospects of attack and defense should be balanced for the best gameplay because you go to the field with equal armies if the units are balanced, but unit balance is a different issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

6. If the enemy is smart(at least, if it was in MP), he'll stop his lines from advance, and try to come up with a new plan to his formations to adapt to this new change in our ranks. However, with each step drawn closer, the window of opportunity of making adjustments becomes smaller. That's why making the first move so important. To keep forcing your opponent to become passive.

---

You could do that in MTW as well. What hindered moving was the fatigue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

7. If both lines are already inside the engagement distance, and the enemy starts a move, it is no surprise you can't stop him. You should have foreseen that coming, and devised a plan to counter it long ago. Or, make other small shifts and changes in your own ranks from further distance away, so you can confuse the enemy and discourage them from doing what they've initially planned. The real battle starts the moment the troops are deployed. Actual clash and bout is only final confirmation of what was already laid out, before the two side's soldiers actually exchange arms.

---

We just went though this in this post. From within a certain distance, it's not possible to make reactive moves. That distance is about 50 meters for cav, and cav is the name of the game in RTW. And, 50 meters is just a 1 on 1 situation. Give the guy who's trying to play in a defensive manner 20 units, and see how easy it is to to overwhelm his management ability in RTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

In MTW the cavalry only covers about 38yd(35m) in that 6.5 seconds (5 second judgement/analysis + 'command lag'(although MTW doesn't have such a thing)). Assuming both lines are at the engagement distance, the cavalry reachs your flanks in 19.5 seconds, full 6.5s slower than RTW. You can watch them move(6.5s expired), see where they are going(13s expired), and still stop them 38 yards in front of your lines(19.5s, 114yd) - hence, "20 second reaction time". If the distance bewteen the battle lines are closed to mere 60 yds apart, you still have enough time to stop enemy movement.

---

And that's why you can't succeed with a simple direct move like that unless the defender's attention was diverted. You need a more sophisticated maneuver utilizing multiple units moving in different directions all timed correctly to get an advantage.

Engagement distance is less than 100 meters in MTW. It's more like 80 meters, so you can't wait 20 seconds to react and still stop them 38 yards in front. The fast cav in MTW can cover 80 meters in 12 seconds. The cav knights will cover 80 meters in 14 seconds. Why shouldn't I be able to stop a flanking movement well out in front if I see the enemy cav moving?

OK, Ptah, Red Harvest and CBR. remember that the cav needs tuning, cost and upkeep. and since your doing game against reality, you got to remember that such large amounts of cav couldn't be recruited in most empires.

and a cav charge against phalanx would cause the first line of cav dead, (probably 95% or something) and those dead horses would "fly" to the hoplites first line and kill some of them, disrupt the phalanx a little and then the rest of the cav arrives, but would die quickly i suppose.

and those of you that say that "I have watched heavy cav (non cataphract) tear up my sacred band infantry in a frontal charge." (not just you Red Harvest) you were playing on VH/VH weren't you?

we all know that phalanxes need tuning, and so does cav...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aw89

and those of you that say that "I have watched heavy cav (non cataphract) tear up my sacred band infantry in a frontal charge." (not just you Red Harvest) you were playing on VH/VH weren't you?

---

That dog won't hunt. It really shouldn't even matter *that* much on VH. And I've seen the same cav unit tear up one sacred band, one poeni, and one libyan spearmen frontally like that, sequentially in the same battle, so I won't yield an inch on this.

The real killer to blaming it on difficulty is that cav are still awesome for the human as well. I'm wiping out phalangite armies with light cav. However, I am not idiot enough to charge my general's cav into phalangites frontally with my general as a matter of course (unlike the AI), but when I have experimented with it, I have been surprised at how much headway the cav make. They are often half surrounding and penetrating the phalangites because of the leaps. If they have any support, the phalangites will usually crumble.

Some folks love to blame everything on difficulty level, but these arguments fail when the human can accomplish many of the same tricks when taking the other side, despite massive penalties associated with difficulty. That's why many of us are looking deeper.

playing on VH/VH is a factor, and why didnt you quote the "we all know that phalanxes need tuning, and so does cav..." part too?
and lets not forget the "you got to remember that such large amounts of cav couldn't be recruited in most empires." part

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aw89

playing on VH/VH is a factor, and why didnt you quote the "we all know that phalanxes need tuning, and so does cav..." part too?
and lets not forget the "you got to remember that such large amounts of cav couldn't be recruited in most empires." part

---

Then what was the point of your post exactly? I had already discussed those other aspects. You appeared to be trying to dispute the point. I've seen this brought up the same way a dozen times. It's not like I'm unaware of it being a factor. On the other hand I'm not having much trouble using the supercharged cav on the same settings to kick around the AI...so once again: the argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

One of the issue I face with RTW and that I find to be problematic is not so much the speed at which units run, but the difference in speed for fight between cavalry and phalanx/ infantry.

The infantry fights are rather long, maybe even longer that in MTW. If units engage properly and frontally, it can take a long times before seeing a proper end.
Infantry flanking other ordered infantry is not always decisive quickly. Flankers seem to come in "blob", only a few soldiers are actually fighting.

For cavalry on the other hand, fights are a matter of second. Cavalry vs cavalry fight are over very quickly.

So, in the unlikely case I have a battle with 2 infantry based army (like 10 infantry) and a few cavalry (5?), the fight between the cavalry wings will be over very quickly, the infantry line will engage, and the one player with remaining cavalry will be able to engage his cavalry wherever he wants to get local superiority/ flanking.
The cavalry battle is all too often more decisive than the infantry melee. I can't get any decent infantry superiority to achieve anything before whoever got the remaining cavalry wins.

Historical? Probably. Fun, not really... It drives people to buy more and more cavalry, and there were no need for that...

Problem: I don't want the infantry melee to become "more decisive" by being faster, or as fast as cavalry fight. I don't want either cavalry to be nerfed to the point where cavalry fight becomes as slow as in MTW (when a cavalry would take ages to run down a pavese unit); I like cavalry "behaviour" in RTW, but I don't like cavalry to be that prevalent in RTW armies. But I sure would like to see much less cavalry in game, and some proper infantry counter to cavalry. I feel like it's time for price increase for cavalry ~D

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

One of the issue I face with RTW and that I find to be problematic is not so much the speed at which units run, but the difference in speed for fight between cavalry and phalanx/ infantry.

---

A price increase on cavalry won't change this dynamic. What you need is anti-cav infantry decisively beating cavalry. If you had that, then someone taking mostly cavalry couldn't beat someone taking mostly anti-cav infantry, and that would push the army selection away from mostly cavalry which in turn would push the other army selection away from mostly anti-cav infantry.

Kill all of them with my archers!Kill! KILL! KILL!
Make them all hide and surrender! :hide: :surrender:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arrowhead

Kill all of them with my archers!Kill! KILL! KILL!
Make them all hide and surrender! :hide: :surrender:

---

That's not an ancient warfare game. Supposedly, the Persians blackened the sky with their arrows at Guagamela, but it didn't win the battle. The English had thousands of longbows at Agincourt, and that didn't win the battle there either. Hand-to-hand combat determined the winner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

That's not an ancient warfare game. Supposedly, the Persians blackened the sky with their arrows at Guagamela, but it didn't win the battle. The English had thousands of longbows at Agincourt, and that didn't win the battle there either. Hand-to-hand combat determined the winner.

---

Erm...are you sure about that?

Guagamela...Alexanders' tactics won the day...with Cavalry :charge: .

Agincourt? Archers, Archers, Archers! (And Kenneth Branaghs' St Crispin day speech! ~D )

Historically, Alexander consistantly charged enemy formations with his companion cavalry, Phalangites included, and crushed them.

As for Phalanx/Anti Phalanx...an old Australian saying explains everything.

'It's not the dog in the fight...It's the fight in the dog'

Troops to tasks, lads!!

-Attalus-
Fool me once...shame on you
Fool me twice...prepare to die

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

You haven't allowed time for the game mechanic of selecting a unit and then selecting the target unit and possibly having to move the camera as well.

---

How much time does that take? And how much should we lay its importance as a gameplay factor, as opposed to the fact that repeated training and practice can significantly cut down the time spent for something that is so basic? I certainly seem to have no problems in managing my 20 units, or stumble over the controls and fiddle with the camera and mouse clicks when I need to be controlling my units. It takes less then two seconds for me to pick out 4~5 units and reposition them on the field.

What's the extent of individual difference in controllability does the developers have to consider in modelling a game? Do they have to assume the lowest standards of players?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

But you can't move your own cavalry at the moment the enemy starts to move unless you give the order 1.5 seconds before his cavalry moves. Therefore, you can never meet the enemy at the midpoint.

---

1.5 seconds amount up to 13 yards(11.8m). Assume the "I'm a ham-fisted player" status and add 2 seconds, and that's still only 17 yards(15.8m) plus. You won't meet the enemy cavalry at the middle point. But you'll still meet it at least 20~30 yards in front of your lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

If the battlelines are 100 m apart, attacking cav will likely cover half the distance before any enemy unit responds.

---

If the battle lines are apart, and the enemy cavalry covers already half of that before any response, that gives out a response time of 6.3 seconds. The enemy cavalry is starting to move. What are you doing for the 6.3 seconds after that? Watch them run?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

That's a pretty big advantage to give to someone just because they move first.

---

If someone gazes at the enemy for 6 seconds until thinking to respond, then practically whatever the other guy/AI does is gonna be an advantage. That's simply unexcusably slow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

In that case, I should be able to give a standing order to my cav units to attack incoming cav. It's not as though my units, which are standing there in a battleline ready to move, can't see the enemy movement.

---

Right. So why take 6 seconds to give out the order?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

Given the almost instant destruction of units by cavalry, any supporting cav unit has to be 50 meters closer to the unit the enemy targets with his cav. Any supporting anti-cav infantry unit has to be 0.33 * (x - 50) meters closer to the unit the enemy targets with his cavalry where x is the distance the cavalry is from the target unit. For instance, if the enemy cavalry is 100 meters away, the supporting infantry unit must be within 16 meters of the target.

A supporting infantry unit would have to be 25 meters closer to the unit the enemy targets with his infantry, but could be further away depending on how long the target unit can hold out.

You have to defend your flanks. The key word here is "defend". You should be able to do that, and not be defeated by a game mechanic.

At that point it's too late to defend at all. You aren't going to be able to respond to multiple threats. You're basically forced to attack.

---

So, if the enemy has cavalry placed at the left and right wing, and ready to attack and ride up the flank.

1) Why close within 100m without any support infantry near the flanks?
2) Why couldn't you reform the lines from further out, and ready the anti-cav infantry at the sides, before closing in to 100m in the first place?
3) With RTW running speeds it takes the enemy at least 12 seconds to cover 100m. You're saying 12 seconds is not enough for your infantry to get ready?
4) If the anti-cav infantry and your own cavalry is not in a sufficient position to intercept their movemnt, and thus has to move so much more distance to get into position, that it can't stop the enemy flanking at time, then (it goes back to 2). ), why in the world would anyone place those units so far away and march near enemy lines, when it is clear that the enemy will try to flank you(judging by how the enemy placed his units)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

You're still missing the point. It's not supposed to be easier to attack than to defend. RTW makes it easier to attack than to defend because of a game mechanic.

---

No. RTW makes it easier to attack than defend, because people play RTW like they used to play MTW.

Understand the mechanic, make corresponding changes, and a flexible defense is still much easier than a creative attack. Rarely does an actual clash start immediately after troop deployment. There's plenty of time to observe the enemy lines and think about what they might try to do, and reform the lines accordingly.

However, people don't do that. They deploy defensive lines and 'standardized' formations like they used to in MTW. They don't watch the other guy and try to estimate anything. They just make up their own line of preference, and then try to change that line and respond to enemy movement AFTER the battle actually starts. That's what people used to do in MTW, and that's what's failing.

You're supposed to make changes in the lines BEFORE the attack starts. You carry out the battle as you have laid your formations out. That is supposed to be your whole battle plan. If for some reason you have your anti-cav units or interceptor cavalry placed at the opposite wing or so far away from the place that's gonna be flanked, and the enemy cavalry just crawls up your sides unopposed, then the failure comes not out of the game mechanics, but one's own foolishness in inadequate battle formations. Like said before, you see the enemy has cavalry placed at one wing. Then why the heck would you place your own cavalry or anti-cav units in some other place??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

It has nothing to do with military strategy or speed of thinking. In this game, prospects of attack and defense should be balanced for the best gameplay because you go to the field with equal armies if the units are balanced, but unit balance is a different issue.

---

The 'balance' you mean here in fact does not mean any kind of 'balance' at all. It simply refers to 'stagnance', in which no pre-battle estimation or management is required. The old habits of placing "spears front, archers behind, cavalry sides", and then making corresponding, passive changes to actual enemy movement during battle phase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

You could do that in MTW as well. What hindered moving was the fatigue.

---

What hindered movement was movement itself. With two battle lines facing each other at 100m distance, MTW cavalry needs 18.5 seconds to cover that 100m - as I have numerously hinted in my "20 seconds to respond" comments. You could watch for 6 seconds, think for 6 more seconds, and then start moving for 6 seconds and you'd still stop them before they smash into your own flank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

We just went though this in this post. From within a certain distance, it's not possible to make reactive moves. That distance is about 50 meters for cav, and cav is the name of the game in RTW. And, 50 meters is just a 1 on 1 situation. Give the guy who's trying to play in a defensive manner 20 units, and see how easy it is to to overwhelm his management ability in RTW.

And that's why you can't succeed with a simple direct move like that unless the defender's attention was diverted. You need a more sophisticated maneuver utilizing multiple units moving in different directions all timed correctly to get an advantage.

---

How could anyone not able to overwhelm anyone, when the guy takes more than 6 seconds to respond to anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

Engagement distance is less than 100 meters in MTW. It's more like 80 meters, so you can't wait 20 seconds to react and still stop them 38 yards in front.

---

It takes 15 seconds for the enemy cavalry to close 80m. You could watch and wait for 10 seconds, and still stop them out at the final 30 meters, with a total reaction time of 15 seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

The fast cav in MTW can cover 80 meters in 12 seconds. The cav knights will cover 80 meters in 14 seconds. Why shouldn't I be able to stop a flanking movement well out in front if I see the enemy cav moving?

---

You could stop them if you see them moving in MTW.
You could stop them if you see them moving in RTW, too.

The only difference is you could stop them in MTW whether you're in a prepared formation or not, as you have extra time to move and manage units that might have been in inadequate places.

In RTW you need to be expecting their move, and already in a formation ready to withstand the charge. You won't be able to pull off infantry or cavalry from some other corner and swing them all the way to one of your flanks, because you don't have that much time, and you were supposed to have done that the moment you've seen what their formation looks like.

Or better yet, instead of wait for them to make the first move, and worry about if they'll move like you thought they would, you could always be the one who starts the first move and forces them to think and worry about stuff. That's what we call "tactics".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

A price increase on cavalry won't change this dynamic. What you need is anti-cav infantry decisively beating cavalry. If you had that, then someone taking mostly cavalry couldn't beat someone taking mostly anti-cav infantry, and that would push the army selection away from mostly cavalry which in turn would push the other army selection away from mostly anti-cav infantry.

---

Anti-cav infantry already does decisively beat cavalry.

Try push a non-elite, normal sized cavalry against a phalanx from the front and see if the cavalry tears through that. A four-rank line of three triarii units side by side can stop a mass of some four~five elite cataphracts for a long time before they finally die out and rout.

Now, what the anti-cav cannot do in RTW, is withstand an overwhelming charge of massive cavalry units with just a few units.

In MTW you could lay out (let's say) Saracen Infantry in a single line, with each units about 4~6 ranks deep. Gather a huge horde of European knights and charge the Saracen Infantry lines, and the line will still hold. Eventually the attacking power of the numerous knights, and low morale of the Saracens, will kill off the Saracens in that single spot, and rout them. However, at least upto some time, the entire mass of cavalry will be halted as if it just hit a stone wall or something.

In RTW, a thin line like that will buckle and crumble if a massive number of cavalry decide to charge it. You need to place more infantry, upto two~three extra lines behind it, to stop something like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

Anti-cav infantry already does decisively beat cavalry.

Try push a non-elite, normal sized cavalry against a phalanx from the front and see if the cavalry tears through that. A four-rank line of three triarii units side by side can stop a mass of some four~five elite cataphracts for a long time before they finally die out and rout.

---

A triarii at 500 denari is a 7/17 (att/def) + anti-cav bonus. A cataphract at 890 denari is a 7/23. The cataphract beats the triarii in 25 seconds killing 70 while loosing 7. The cataphract beats two triarii simultaneously killing 90 and loosing 20. That's 1000 denari spent on 162 anti-cav infantry that can't beat a 890 denari 54 man cavalry unit. The anti-cav bonus is pathetic in RTW.

1) are phalanx units any good fighting outside of that formation? playing as the Seleucids..I havent had too much luck figting my units out side of thier phalanx

2) I think Cataphracts have an advantage against infantry even spear infantry because they are so heavily armored the rider is covered from head to toe in scale armor... and the horse where it is typically vulnurable to spears, in the case of catapracts the horse is usually totally covered in a scale covering that would make it very difficult to kill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

How much time does that take? And how much should we lay its importance as a gameplay factor, as opposed to the fact that repeated training and practice can significantly cut down the time spent for something that is so basic? I certainly seem to have no problems in managing my 20 units, or stumble over the controls and fiddle with the camera and mouse clicks when I need to be controlling my units. It takes less then two seconds for me to pick out 4~5 units and reposition them on the field.

---

You can issue commands to 4~5 units in less than 2 seconds? That's move the cursor to your unit, click on it, move the cursor to the destination and click on that, and do that 4 or 5 times in less than 2 seconds? If you are talking about moving them as a group, then I would say 2 seconds is about right, but, if you have to play the game that way, then I've made my point because reducing control to 4 or 5 groups is not effectively controling 20 units. There are also a lot of special abilities to control which hasn't been alotted any time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

What's the extent of individual difference in controllability does the developers have to consider in modelling a game? Do they have to assume the lowest standards of players?

---

They should assume the average standard, and not just of an RTS type of game. RTW has less fatigue and more units to control than MTW. It didn't need the 50% speedup on the running speeds. The faster the unit speeds and the more units there are to control the less control you have over individual units. You can't keep on speeding up your gameplay to compensate because there are limits on how fast you can go. If you ask me, RTW has pretty much made speed of action the determining factor in the battles.

I asked for a 10% increase in the running speed of cavalry in MTW, and longjohn refused on the basis that it would be historically unrealistic. Now we have a 50% increase in RTW on all units. Where did that come from? If you look at the new market the game is being aimed at, I think we see where it comes from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

1.5 seconds amount up to 13 yards(11.8m). Assume the "I'm a ham-fisted player" status and add 2 seconds, and that's still only 17 yards(15.8m) plus. You won't meet the enemy cavalry at the middle point. But you'll still meet it at least 20~30 yards in front of your lines.

---

You claimed you could meet the cav at the mid-point. I'm pointing out that it's impossible to do that unless you actually issue the order before you see the enemy cav move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

If the battle lines are apart, and the enemy cavalry covers already half of that before any response, that gives out a response time of 6.3 seconds. The enemy cavalry is starting to move. What are you doing for the 6.3 seconds after that? Watch them run?

---

You said 5 seconds reaction time. Are you recinding that now? You also left out the time for the game mechanic of selecting a unit and a destination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

If someone gazes at the enemy for 6 seconds until thinking to respond, then practically whatever the other guy/AI does is gonna be an advantage. That's simply unexcusably slow.

---

So the reactive player has to know what enemy unit is about to move, be looking at it and already have the unit he wants to counter it with selected? That's unreasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

Right. So why take 6 seconds to give out the order?

---

Because the reactive player has cavalry on both wings, and it's impossible to control both simultaneously. If he's caught with a unit on the wrong wing selected when the attack comes, his best chance is an immediate counter attack on the opposite wing. The alternative is to keep the units closer together which conceeds a positional advantage to the enemy if you pull your cavalry in from the wings. This would be ok if the anti-cav infantry was working better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

So, if the enemy has cavalry placed at the left and right wing, and ready to attack and ride up the flank.

1) Why close within 100m without any support infantry near the flanks?
2) Why couldn't you reform the lines from further out, and ready the anti-cav infantry at the sides, before closing in to 100m in the first place?
3) With RTW running speeds it takes the enemy at least 12 seconds to cover 100m. You're saying 12 seconds is not enough for your infantry to get ready?
4) If the anti-cav infantry and your own cavalry is not in a sufficient position to intercept their movemnt, and thus has to move so much more distance to get into position, that it can't stop the enemy flanking at time, then (it goes back to 2). ), why in the world would anyone place those units so far away and march near enemy lines, when it is clear that the enemy will try to flank you(judging by how the enemy placed his units)?

---

The support infantry would have to be on the flanks with the cav since it can't come in time from any distance to speak of. You have to engage with the cav first and then bring in the infantry since no one in their right mind is going to do you the favor of frontally attacking anti-cav infantry with cav. Infantry is not a good unit to use to intercept cavalry because infantry is slow. The most anti-cav infantry will do on it's own is deter cav from attacking at that place. The cav will go looking for a weaker spot. That spot will be the center if the anti-cav infantry is on the flanks. Will the anti-cav infantry get back to the weak canter in time? It will if it's close enough, but that distance is very short in RTW. If you are bringing a phalanx from a distance, you have to switch it out of phalanx formation so it can run, and then put it back into phalanx formation when it gets near the fighting. There are delays associated with each of those commands. You're looking at 3 commands to a phalanx to bring it from a distance. So, a reactive player can't use a spread formation in RTW. He's going to have to stay compressed, and that will probalby cost him the battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

No. RTW makes it easier to attack than defend, because people play RTW like they used to play MTW.

---

No. It's easier to attack because the units move a greater distance before a player can react, and the combat resolution is so fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

Understand the mechanic, make corresponding changes, and a flexible defense is still much easier than a creative attack. Rarely does an actual clash start immediately after troop deployment. There's plenty of time to observe the enemy lines and think about what they might try to do, and reform the lines accordingly.

---

That's fine, but I'm talking about the ability to react once the fighting starts. RTW is pretty much chaos once the fighting starts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

However, people don't do that. They deploy defensive lines and 'standardized' formations like they used to in MTW. They don't watch the other guy and try to estimate anything. They just make up their own line of preference, and then try to change that line and respond to enemy movement AFTER the battle actually starts. That's what people used to do in MTW, and that's what's failing.

---

Of course players are not watching the other guy and planning in RTW. That's what you do in MTW. In RTW, you know you have to attack, and you know it's going to be chaos. Of course defensive lines don't work, and standardized formations don't work either. The formation is less important in RTW. The formation breaks down very quickly in RTW which is a shame because there is a nice morale system modelled in the game, but you can't take advantage of it because you have to click, click, click and hurry up to get as many of your units attacking something as soon as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

You're supposed to make changes in the lines BEFORE the attack starts. You carry out the battle as you have laid your formations out. That is supposed to be your whole battle plan. If for some reason you have your anti-cav units or interceptor cavalry placed at the opposite wing or so far away from the place that's gonna be flanked, and the enemy cavalry just crawls up your sides unopposed, then the failure comes not out of the game mechanics, but one's own foolishness in inadequate battle formations. Like said before, you see the enemy has cavalry placed at one wing. Then why the heck would you place your own cavalry or anti-cav units in some other place??

---

I'm talking about a situation where everything is in the right place. If you have units too far away to support outclassed units you will loose. The issue is how far away is "too far away"? That's why I made those estimates of how far away a supporting can be in RTW. For stronger cav attacking weaker cav, a supporting infantry unit has to be right there. Well, I'll be damned if that attacking cav doesn't go and attack somewhere else. Now that infantry out on the flank is going to be useless. It's pretty clear that a reactive player is going to have to keep his units closer together than he did in MTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

The 'balance' you mean here in fact does not mean any kind of 'balance' at all. It simply refers to 'stagnance', in which no pre-battle estimation or management is required. The old habits of placing "spears front, archers behind, cavalry sides", and then making corresponding, passive changes to actual enemy movement during battle phase.

---

I said balance between offensive and defensive prospects. RTW doesn't have that, and I think that detracts from the potential quality of the gameplay. Why shouldn't a player be able to make corresponding moves to enemy movement during the battle phase? If he makes the right moves, he shouldn't loose. Within a certain distance, there is no chance to respond, and that distance was dramatically increased in RTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

What hindered movement was movement itself. With two battle lines facing each other at 100m distance, MTW cavalry needs 18.5 seconds to cover that 100m - as I have numerously hinted in my "20 seconds to respond" comments. You could watch for 6 seconds, think for 6 more seconds, and then start moving for 6 seconds and you'd still stop them before they smash into your own flank.

---

What hindered movement was players not wanting to run their units because the combat penalties of fatigue were high. In RTW, you can run all the time, and the running is 50% faster. Engagement distance in MTW was 80 meters. Fast cav could cover that in 12 seconds. All the cav had to do was hit the skirmishers, and the defending cav had to stay back about 40 meters behind the skirmishers. That means you had about 6 seconds to react in order to meet the enemy cav at your skirmish line. There is no way you had anything close to 20 seconds to react even with the cav knights. I played over 8000 multiplayer battle in MTW and VI, and I saw what worked and how fast you had to react.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

How could anyone not able to overwhelm anyone, when the guy takes more than 6 seconds to respond to anything?

---

That's right. You can't be successful in MTW with more than a 5 to 10 second response time. I think you need about a 5 second response time to keep up with a strong attack. How much of that is lost to the game mechanics? In MTW, it's about 2 seconds. In RTW, it's 3.5 seconds. If you are going up against someone who is taking 10 seconds a move, and you are taking 5 seconds, you'll build up a cumulative advantage unless you make moves that lose the initative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

It takes 15 seconds for the enemy cavalry to close 80m. You could watch and wait for 10 seconds, and still stop them out at the final 30 meters, with a total reaction time of 15 seconds.

---

It takes 14.2 seconds for a cav knight to cover 80 meters. In 10 seconds, the cav will cover 56 meters. That's 44 meters out, and you'll meet the cav at 22 meters out. In MTW, the defender will have time to bring up supporting infantry units, so a cav attack such as that has to be supported. If the defender is taking 10 seconds to respond to that first cav move, the attacker will be making another attacking move somewhere else. Very quickly in 2 or 3 moves, the attacker will get a strike with no response at all from the defender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

You could stop them if you see them moving in MTW.
You could stop them if you see them moving in RTW, too.

The only difference is you could stop them in MTW whether you're in a prepared formation or not, as you have extra time to move and manage units that might have been in inadequate places.

---

In MTW, the morale is too high even at 10k florins, so many units fight too long allowing supporting units to come from too far away. People who play at more than 10k florins, increase the distance from which supporting units can come, and decrease the effectiveness of flanking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

In RTW you need to be expecting their move, and already in a formation ready to withstand the charge. You won't be able to pull off infantry or cavalry from some other corner and swing them all the way to one of your flanks, because you don't have that much time, and you were supposed to have done that the moment you've seen what their formation looks like.

---

From how far away should a unit be able to come in time? I already showed given 5 second response time that an infantry unit supporting a cav vs cav action has to be within about 16 meters in RTW. That's a very short distance. I think that distance could be longer and still not allow units to come from the opposite flank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

Or better yet, instead of wait for them to make the first move, and worry about if they'll move like you thought they would, you could always be the one who starts the first move and forces them to think and worry about stuff. That's what we call "tactics".

---

That's not tactics. That's attacking. That's the problem. You always have to be attacking in RTW. You always have the initiative when you attack because the opponent has to respond to your moves. Are you going to give him time to do that? If so, how much time?

I've seen the gameplay in RTW, and it's pretty clear to me that CA didn't balance the temporal gameplay any more than they balanced the unit combat stats. They changed stuff like strong archers, strong cav, fast units and low fatigue, but it just amounts to different gameplay with less control. My position is that less control doesn't make the gameplay better when the basic idea is to win by better coordination the units. There is no way you can coordinate more units in less time. The interface hasn't improved in efficiency of use. One thing that would have helped is a higher angle on the camera, but they didn't provide that. The only answers you have it to think faster, click and move the mouse faster or correctly guess what the opponent is going to do, and most experienced players are already maxed out on all three of those things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZIM!!

1) are phalanx units any good fighting outside of that formation? playing as the Seleucids..I havent had too much luck figting my units out side of thier phalanx

---

Phalanx defaults to guard mode, but that's most effective if taking a frontal cav charge. In all other situations, I think it's best to disable guard mode. However, I would leave them in phalanx because their spear has more combat power than their sword, and they can keep the enemy at bay and avoid casualties with the long spears. They switch to swords automatically anyway if the enemy gets in close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZIM!!

2) I think Cataphracts have an advantage against infantry even spear infantry because they are so heavily armored the rider is covered from head to toe in scale armor... and the horse where it is typically vulnurable to spears, in the case of catapracts the horse is usually totally covered in a scale covering that would make it very difficult to kill

---

Maybe historically the cataphracts should do well against spears, but from a cost perspective an 890 denari cav unit is beating 1000 denari worth of anti-cav infantry in frontal assault. So, for multiplayer it's messed up. It looks like the anti-cav bonus is not large enough. In STW, the anti-cav bonus is 400%, but it can't be anything even approaching that in RTW. In MTW, the anti-cav bonus ranges between 200% and 300% depending on unit type. In RTW, if each combat point is worth a 10% increase in chance to kill as measurments indicate and 162 triarii with 24 combat points can't beat 54 cataphracts with 30 combat points, it's clear that the anti-cav bonus is rediculously small. My test showed 90 kills (35 in the charge) vs 22 looses. Subtracting 90 - 35 = 55 kills to 22 looses in the melee. About a 2 to 1 kill rate for the cataphacts in the melee. A 6 combat point advantage is about 177% chance to kill in RTW. So, where is the anti-cav bonus? It's clearly a lot less than 177%.

I can see where that would be a problem in multiplayer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZIM!!

1) are phalanx units any good fighting outside of that formation? playing as the Seleucids..I havent had too much luck figting my units out side of thier phalanx

---

The Seleucid use pikemen that are not very good with their secondary weapons. So always use them in phalanx formation. The Greeks on the other hand has some units that are very good with secondary weapons: armoured Hoplites is one unit that is nearly as good as Legionary cohorts.

Quote:

---

2) I think Cataphracts have an advantage against infantry even spear infantry because they are so heavily armored the rider is covered from head to toe in scale armor...

---

The armor itself doesnt mean anything really. It just adds to the overall defense value. Roman cavalry like Praetorians are cheaper and even better attack/defense stats than Cataphracts. Of course the Cataphracts have armourpiercing secondary weapon, but you need to Alt right click to use them as they dont switch over automatically.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

Anti-cav infantry already does decisively beat cavalry.

---

No, it does not. In some cases, swordsmen are more effective than the units listed as being good against cav. There is a lower speed for spear attack (0.73) vs. 1 for most cav--including "spear" or lance armed. It has a very significant impact. These are the non-phalanx spears intended as "anti-cav" units.

The +4 mount modifier for triarii and the like is insufficient to compensate. +8 is what I have modded in for most non-phalanx spears. This makes them dangerous to normal cav although certainly far from "rock/paper/scissors." (I just fought a large battle where I lost most of my units chasing down horse archers and two generals body guard that I had no effective counter too early in a campaign. I then used my remaining single depleted unit of Pontic light cav (jav) and bodyguard (also jav) to attack a flank unit of the remaining TEN enemy spear units and forced a chain rout charging each spear unit in turn. They were weary as were my men, and this was on VH with my modded +8 bonus for their anti-cav.)

Phalanx units were not intended primarily as anti-cav in this period. Yes, they *should* easily stop cav (not that they do), but the anti cav units are other spear units with more mobility. The phalangites were intended and used as single line heavy infantry and presented a wide formation to prevent flanking was a key consideration. Cav were used to protect the flanks/scout/chase down skirmishers. Phalanx units were rarely used in more than a single line...so your suggestion of deploying 3 lines as the proper way is non-historic use at best.

Archers and loose unit skirmisher types sometimes soak up charges better than tight spears (who rout in tight formation and are cut down.) The momentum effects are absorbed in loose formation and kill rate is reduced by lower formation density. Archers are surprisingly effective at engaging cav in melee...and that is a bit strange. Of course, archer missiles are non-historically effective agains most units...except elephants where they are useless...unless you use the questionable flaming arrow ability making them uber. And elephants, they tear things up easily being impenetrable to basic missile units that were historic counters. Interestingly...horses can sometimes charge them effectively...another bass ackward result. Then there are the really fast chariots that zip through the woods like their tails are on fire and turn on a dime. But I'm sure all of this is simply a delusion.

Incidentally, rock/paper/scissors implies a bit more logic and thought to match ups. That logic is very subdued in RTW except for very special weapons/units. I don't know why you would prefer illogical, non-historic outcomes, but it is a matter of personal preference I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ptah

CBR, those are average values attained on a battlefield. They are not the absolute limit. According to that data a French 'charge' is only worth about 4 feet per second, and a horse 'gallops' 5m a second.

---

These are the values you get when units march at the steps/minute they have been drilled to. The actual speed might even be less if terrain is rough. Units would do a run for the final few meters, especially for cav that might have double the gallop speed just before impact. We have lots of descriptions on how that was done so there is really no reason to doubt it.

Quote:

---

In this era, you sacrifice speed if it means you can hold the formation of guns together. A broken formation means irregular and dispersed rate of gunfire.

---

And there is no real difference if we go back in time to melee only combat. Maintaining formation was extremly important. One example is the Spartans that were the only Greeks that marched at a step. They were noted for their close formation and ability to keep it that and that was one of the reasons they were good.

There are lots of examples of how units kept a distance of 100-200 meters and shot each other down to less than 50%. Keeping such a distance meant less psychological pressure on the soldiers even with such high losses. In a melee units could collapse quickly and on average looses were 10-20% for the losers before they routed and that included men who couldnt get away fast enough only to get cut down. Any loose ordered formation would lose quickly in a melee but could still work for shooting although not as effective and concentrated.

Quote:

---

Maneuvering speeds on a battle field do not follow a chosen set of data or 'soldier's manuals'. It allows us to observe a certain 'ideal' the soldiers try to attain on a battlefield. The officers would also probably want to try to keep the soldiers under control of the 'manual', and hope they(or even the officer himself) do not succumb under the pressure of wanting to move faster in the midst of cannonfire and bullets whizzing by. However, it does not give out an actual representation of how people moved about during battle.

---

Yes troops could make badly disordered attacks like we see so many times in Classic Greek warfare but the forward jog at 10 kmh is enough to cause serious disruption to a unit. If a 6 kmh advance is difficult for veterans while still maintaining formation for 300 yards then no one can expect to keep the formation for speeds faster than that. Drilled and disciplined troops would keep the "slow" speed to maintain formation while other units would turn into a mob if they just doubled that speed as well as getting tired quickly.

The KRIEGSSPIEL rules published by the Prussian Army in 1824 use same kind of speeds and does not have any type of running speeds as we see in RTW. These rules were made to simulate combat for training purposes.

Quote:

---

When you have a certain tactical point to reach no matter what purpose, you will drive your soldiers to run at full speed

---

And we already have numbers of what units could do if they wanted to move very quickly over shorter distances: the 160-180 paces/minute double quick march. Just dont expect a unit to keep any formation.

Quote:

---

A cavalry will not 'trot' all the way, when you see an opportunity to break through enemy lines which may vanish after a few seconds

---

And even the gallop of 300 meters/minute is slower than cav run speed in MTW..

Quote:

---

..there is no such thing as 'last 50m'. Every meter is the last meter.

---

All nice in theory but the actual battles show otherwise. Clausewitz calls it Friction of War: "Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. In war more than anywhere else things do not turn out as we expect" Looking at what an individual soldier/horse can do doesnt have much to do with what a unit can do. And even theoretical unit performance might be optimistic too.

Quote:

---

The only reason you'd consider MTW levels 'at least closer to realistic levels' is that they are closer to the "manual". Manuals are wishful thinking, not the reality.

---

Yes manuals are always ideal while the reality always slows down things. And good manuals does try and consider the real life effects too.

But lets just disregard all manuals, all tests, all soldiers/officers who wrote about battles they participated in and not the least all the blind historians writing pointless books. No need to bother with all their wishful thinking as long as we got RTW to show us the truth ~:rolleyes:


CBR