The unit list at the com got finally updated but I couldn't figure out how to give the link to the 3D unit... Sorry for that.
http://www.totalwar.com/?lang=en
Printable View
The unit list at the com got finally updated but I couldn't figure out how to give the link to the 3D unit... Sorry for that.
http://www.totalwar.com/?lang=en
I just wanted to post this.
They look good as they should. Most pikemen were citizens.
Very nice indeed. Must say, I've been liking most of these unit previews quite a bit, aesthetically speaking. I wonder what inaccuracies will be picked apart for this unit... it's always interesting seeing those conversations come up after seeing a unit and liking it. Then BOOM, his shirt tail is hanging at the wrong angle.
pretty cool, i think the knights look the coolest though
They look good!
But I'm more curious about how they behave gameplay wise: do they use the old RTW phalanx mode, and if so how much has it changed?
I think its more likely they'll act like Triarii, with a very tight formation, but not an actual phalanx. Thats just speculation of course :juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
they had better fixed the phalanx formation so that units can actualy fight a way through those pikes now.
Yes. The phalanx in RTW has been pathetic. Try ordering one of your phalanx to fight another phalanx.. See how they poke each other.. (Of course, without touching each other if they both have 'Very Long Spears')
Wasn't that 1.0 behaviour that was fixed in the patches?
I certainly hope so too. It should be hard to wade through a pike hedge, but it shouldn't be a force field that will keep the enemy permanently at bay without taking casualties. And to think that of all units, only cavalry was able to effectively penetrate pike 'force fields' in RTW!Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
I am no expert, but hasn't a phalanx failed if units can actually fight a way through the pikes? I recall reading about Swiss pikemen and Spanish sword and buckler men. The latter tried to get under the pikes. It would be slaughter if they got through, but IIRC they failed more often than not.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
Also with vanilla RTW, one of the biggest problems with the phalanx is that cavalry can fight there way through them too easily. The one thing I would have thought phalanxes could do - keep off enemy cavalry - they failed to do. CA must fix that for M2TW.
Other than that, I think the phalanx formation is pretty decent in RTW. Almost impregnable to infantry from the front; weak from the flanks. Sounds fine. Maybe they should be a little faster - at least the Swiss attacked at a run, AFAIK.
The real problem for me is more how the AI handles its phalanxes. They break up their solid line of phalanxes at the last moment, seemingly looking for good unit match ups. If they just tried to keep a barbarian formation style straight line and march over you, you'd be in trouble. As it is, phalanx armies are arguably the weakest type under AI control.
Alexander TW should give us some insight on this. If CA has left the phalanx AI and anti-cav weakness as they are, it will be a missed opportunity.
what about landsknechts and zweihanders? wasn't their job was also to fight off phalanxes of pikemen?
It won't be exactly like the RTW phalanx for sure because in screenshots they have the pikemen extending around the flanks of the units and stuff.
I think landsknechts only showed up when gunpowder weapons became prevalent, they fought in a lose formation with pikes. Against a tight phalanx (say, Swiss blocks) they'd be given a severe beating, but Swiss pikemen in their tight formation would be extremely vulnerable to even primitve guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by faisal
Rocks paper scissors.
IIRC some zweihanders were used up front to try and cut a way through enemy pikes, but I dont think they were that successful as their use were pretty limited and it died out in mid 16th century. Most melee troops were pikemen and the few sword and buckler men or halberdiers were more used on the flanks. The best frontal counter against well trained pikemen was pikemen.Quote:
Originally Posted by faisal
Kralizec:
Im not aware of Landsknechts using a more loose formation than Swiss. You have any further info on that?
CBR
Plenty, but I have given up. I finally understand that CA doesn't want to make it look historically or realistically correct, at all.Quote:
I wonder what inaccuracies will be picked apart for this unit...
So all that lasts is rating it: bweh. The very first unit, the Zweihander, still stands head and shoulders above the other previews.
yeah but in reality pikes would break off, and the longer the fight, the weaker the pike wall becomes. That should be simulated by units slowly getting closer.Quote:
I am no expert, but hasn't a phalanx failed if units can actually fight a way through the pikes? I recall reading about Swiss pikemen and Spanish sword and buckler men. The latter tried to get under the pikes. It would be slaughter if they got through, but IIRC they failed more often than not.
And RTW's rediculous unit speeds allow units to avoid pikewalls so easily that they become useless. Why attack them head-on where they are invulnerable when it takes 2 seconds to outflank them ? And apparently CA didn't see the need to fix that speed in MTW2.
Will we see the Rodelero (the sword and buckler soldier mentioned) unit for the Spanish? What about Tercio pikemen?
Terciosa units were consisted from pikemen and arqebusers as I know.
I recall that was the reason of their succes, since it was less vulnerable to guns. But my knowledge of late medieval/early modern warfare isn't up to scratch I'm afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
The German Landsknecht were pretty much carbon-copy rip-offs of the Swiss heavy infantry (apparently called Reisläufer), or at least as close as could be managed. "If you can't beat them, copy them" really. The two groups used nigh identical tactics, equipement and doctrine for the most part, mainly differing in minor details such as specifics of dress and peculiar favourite armament. Although the Swiss tended to do the job a bit better for a long time, all other things being equal.
Pikemen don't really work worth jack except in pretty dense order anyway. Such close-packed masses of men are obviously pretty darn nice targets for any and every missile troops around, all the more so as if they loosen formation any enemy shock cavalry present will happily eat them for breakfast. And of course battle formations consisting of many thousands of men aren't the fastest when it comes to regrouping either...
Well, they had a sensible cure for this problem. Lots of friendly missile troops, quite simply. I read somewhere Swiss armies liked to have around 1/3 of the total combatant head count as skirmishers, simply to avoid the fate that befell the Scottish schiltroms (although the fact the Swiss had good enough drill for offensive maneuvers helped even more).
Artillery would naturally blow ugly bloody gashes in the tightly packed formations, but them's the breaks. Battlefield artillery didn't become capable enough to force a shift to shallower formations before around 1640s anyway, when mobile "regimental" light guns for close support were developed.
As for enemies working their way past the pikes, them's the breaks. Doing that and opposing enemy attempts at it was about the chief job of the halberd- and zweihander-toting Doppelsoldner shock troops - the Spanish sword-and-buckler men filled the same niche in their forces, although I understand they too tended to carry polearms as primary weapons and only resorted to their namesake weaponry in close quarters (not that all pikemen didn't have some sort of backup weapon, usually a sword, but but being shock troops the Spanish swordsmen were presumably better trained in their use). The whole purpose of invading the enemy pike-line with "close" melee troops (as well as shooting it full of holes with artillery and skirmishers) was to distrupt its cohesion and order and give your own pikemen an edge in the "push of pike" and thereby help bring about the collapse of the enemy square.
Watchman, Landsknechte comes from flat land opposed to the hilly regions of switzerland, because Landsknechts came from the flat parts of Germany.
The Swiss used Pikemen with Arquebusiers on the flanks/corners who were set up in twelve rows so they could fire all the time. And the Swiss also used artillery themselves.
On the topic of the vulnerability of Pikemen, I think the Swiss beat austria often enough, so it obviously didn´t matter much in reality(don´t know if austria used artillery, but that doesn´t change anything) concerning the Swiss, IIRC they still have their own country.~;)
The Swiss (properly Helvetian; "Swiss" is apparently derived from an insult related to pigs the Landsknechts called them with) pike formations came from the towns and "lowland" areas of Helvetia. The "highland" Forest Cantons originally provided the famous halberdiers, but as these were found to be too vulnerable to cavalry on open ground (the lance outreached the halberd, apparently) they ceased to form separate units and were included in the pike squares as close-combat troops.
AFAIK the first Landskechts were recruited from the southern German-speaking regions close to the Helvetian Confederacy. Maybe the Swiss fighting technique had rubbed off or something. Later its meaning became rather broader, but anyway.
Fair enough, but then my main point was that both the Swiss and their various imitators realized the potential pitfalls of the tightly packed pike squares and rectified the matter with integral fire support and similar combined-arms solutions. I brought the artillery up mostly as a reminder, and to point out that before around the middle part of the Thirty Years' War (when light regimental field artillery began appearing in numbers) its effects were apparently considered manageable enough to not require thinner formations to reduce the carnage. Cannon firing at such massed formations could certainly blast scores of men into bloody pulp, but apparently were usually not present in enough numbers and did not have the rate of fire to motivate reforms. I guess the risk of getting splattered all over your mates was taken to be a part of the soldier's lot much the same way as those nasty arquebus balls and crossbow bolts were.Quote:
The Swiss used Pikemen with Arquebusiers on the flanks/corners who were set up in twelve rows so they could fire all the time. And the Swiss also used artillery themselves.
On the topic of the vulnerability of Pikemen, I think the Swiss beat austria often enough, so it obviously didn´t matter much in reality(don´t know if austria used artillery, but that doesn´t change anything) concerning the Swiss, IIRC they still have their own country.
Mind you, the Swiss also made a point of rapid and aggressive advance no doubt partly to reduce the time spent as shooting gallery for the enemy gunners...
???Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
pig in german is "Schwein", I cannot see that much resemblance there apart from both beginning with an "S".
The swiss call themselves "Schweizer" in German, so I´d doubt it comes from some insult having to do with pigs.
And concerning artillery, of course a cannonball can kill several men at once, but wouldn´t a fast advance be a usual and logical reaction to this? Were there battles where people just waited to get shot to pieces?:inquisitive:
Nice.
But by far the most impressive is the fact that the archers have actual bowstrings. Not many games include that level of detail.
I have always enjoyed the following description of a battle involving Swiss pikes.
http://www.niderost.com/pages/Battle_of_Marignano.htm
Pig in modern standard German is "Schwein". I'm not going to even try to say anything definite about what it was in those umpteen regional dialects of late-Medieval Low German spoken in the southern German-speaking regions...Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Anyway, that's what I read. *shrug* Which is why I used the conditional "apparently".
Anyway, different peoples, regions and nationalities often have names stemming from some very strange and archaic words and associations.
The same goes for arquebusieurs and crossbowmen, obviously. Naturally anyone who enjoyed a superiority in such powerful but slow-firing ranged weaponry would try to exploit it to the fullest and deploy in a fashion that exposed the enemy to them for as long as possible. And, naturally, the out-gunned side would try to minimize exposure by getting to grips as fast as possible, using terrain as cover, and whatever. Cannon would for example be placed atop hills and such where they could fire over friendly troops, or at the flanks to deliver enfilading fire against enemy formations that had to face the friendly troops at the centre - if you got really lucky they'd even be able to fire directly into the enemy flank while they struggled with the troops to their front...Quote:
And concerning artillery, of course a cannonball can kill several men at once, but wouldn´t a fast advance be a usual and logical reaction to this? Were there battles where people just waited to get shot to pieces?:inquisitive:
However, for quite a while artillery remained an essentially static support arm of ultimately somewhat limited capability. For the most part its main job was smashing fortification (also on the battlefield - field fortifications were also becoming increasingly common at the time), and of course the psychological effect of losing men rather spectacularly at ranges normal troops could not retaliate at.
I thought that Swiss (or Schweiz) came from Schwyz, the name of one of the three cantons who founded the 'everlasting league'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
well, quite off topic.
Once again, another basher. What the hell is wrong with you? Let me guess, the pike is not long enough? Shirt too long? NO GAME IS PERFECT. And yet you all continue to pick at every unit you can see. If there is nothing wrong with the unit? Bash it anyway. After all, its not like anyone actually likes Total War. So Duke, post a photograph of a pike man from the Medieval period? Ohhhh, that's right. The camera wasn't invented back then. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
Art was, though. There exists a whole lot of drawings, paintings, woodcuts, copper engravings, you name it from the actual period on the subject; some were made by the soldiers themselves. Although it's off-topic regarding the pikemen, knightly equipement and field costume tends to also be pretty well illustrated in the funeral effigies of important personages, religious statues etc. - humbler soldiery sometimes serves as "supporting cast".
I'm not bashing it, I'm giving my opinion about it. I know how to model, texture, and look up and use reference material to make an unit, so I know what I am talking about. There is plenty of material out there; images, descriptions and objects. All of this is a subject of interest for millions of people; they go to museums, read books, etc. To me it would seem a no-brainer to make all the units accurate as you would get those people more easily interested and you can save on drawing all the concept art as it is already out there.
Yet, for some reason CA decides to come with an experiment in which the artists are giving a history book let them flip through the pages for a minute and then let them make the units based on what they can remember. Of course not, but they are making their units based on their own imagination and taste. You cannot disagree with history but you can with interpretations of history and CA's one is deviating far from the source.
So my point being: the unit design can be perfect. The modellers need to have concept art before they can model. Either you buy a few history books or let an artist draw concept art. Practically every mod which has more realistic models gets praise for just that. The fans want it, so why make "fantasy" units? I don't know, do you?Quote:
NO GAME IS PERFECT.
I think it is because Total War is not primarily a "historical wargame". It is historically themed, like Civ and Age of Empires. And it does stick closer to history than those games. But historical accuracy is not that high on the list of priorities. If it is fun or merely adds to variety to give knights templars swords instead of lances, then they'll get swords instead of lances. If it is deemed characterful to have a Renaissance style pikemen in the Middle Ages, or anachronistic Egyptians in RTW etc, then they will be in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
You don't like it, I don't like - maybe most fans here don't like it. But among the wider consumer base, I suspect that CA are calculating that adding ahistorical spice will increase the game's sales and appeal. Or at least that deviating from historical accuracy will not lower sales significantly.
Personally, I am relaxed about it all. As a historical wargamer, I am just glad my interets can be piggy-backed onto the rather splendid TW engine. I can play and enjoy the vanilla games - in some ways (the campaign map, the different army styles) RTW actually felt more like a historical wargame than the earlier two games. And the fact that modders have started producing more historically accurate reworks like RTR and EB is an amazing and unexpected attraction to the series.
The realism mods have clearly shown that realistic units are every bit as interesting to look at as the TW units. That being said, I fail to understand why CA continues to make unrealistic units that are gonna irritate their most devoted fans. If CA wants to make fantasy units then they should do it as a "what if" mod (or a whole seperate game).
double post
Personally I think the wider variety of units in mods like EB and RTR makes them alot more interesting than RTW.
And I think that EB and RTR look like **** (litterally, all there models are a shade of brown). The whole realistic colour pallette means the factions look drab and boring and turn me right off. I can't stand to look at them. I like CA's bright colours.
@Duke John.
Consider this. The percentage of people who buy a game that post about it on a forum isn't that large. I guess 10% maybe at most 20%. Of those that post here how many favor a realism mod? 1 in 4? 1in 5? That 1/5 or 1/10 of all those who bought the game. That's not enough for CA to take your complaints seriously.
That may be so, but I don't really see where that excuses plain bad taste.
Hmmm, I am affronted. Kindly look this way... https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=65616Quote:
And I think that EB and RTR look like **** (litterally, all there models are a shade of brown)
How much more shiny do ya want your bodyguards! Maybe you are entitled to your opinion (freedom of speech. BAH!), but you could have phrased that a tad nicer, these people have put hours into their "crap looking mods". Here comes my opinion; these models are beautiful, clearly it's not a case of " all there models are a shade of brown".
How shiny? Very. Now I looked through that post you linked to and any thing that wasn't obviously metal was a shade of brown. Or a shade or orange/red/yello/green so dull it might as well be brown. Way to prove my point for me, thanks. :2thumbsup:
I would'nt say that the RTR and EB units are **** a lot of people like them. But I too prefer the brighter colours of CA's originals, coz it's easier to discern between my units and the nme's when they are sluggin it out in a battle line.Quote:
lars573-And I think that EB and RTR look like **** (litterally, all there models are a shade of brown). The whole realistic colour pallette means the factions look drab and boring and turn me right off. I can't stand to look at them. I like CA's bright colours.
The first mod I installed for RTW was some Roman skins, I zoomed in on the battle map to check them out, and thought they looked cool, then I zoomed back out to where I normally play battles, and I'm lookin at sprites. I hav'nt bothered with modded skins since.
-IceTorque
Oh boy - yesterday, a member has complained about my warning him/her for using a four vulgar letter word for excrement beginning with c. And today, I get this! Truly the gods seek to punish me.
OK, I know the word in question is relatively mild, but most people - including myself - still regard it as a swearword and I operate a strict no swearing policy in this forum. I am going to warn the first person to bring it up here and edit out the quotes/responses.
Young kids are attracted to bright colours. Just look at the boxes in a toystore, they attract the attention of kids. Likewise games marketed for a young public also have bright colours.
The older you are, the more you start appreciating the other colours, until you are too old and you start wearing all shades of grey :wink:
In such a sad world we need more brighter colours.
There´s no need to play a game that is like real life, because then one could just as well do the stuff in real life(think of GTA).:oops: :help: ~;)
Like the French say: "les goûts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas"
Some like it this way others the other way, it's a fact of life. It's just no reason to call mods where people have put a lot of work in names. The models look brown or another dark colour just because the soldiers in real life probably wore such colours. If someone doesn't like them just don't use the mod.
Perhaps in a Teletubbie game, but in a game about killing thousands of men with some fans demanding more gore? :laugh4:Quote:
In such a sad world we need more brighter colours.
Sure, they use browns a lot, but I wasn't really disputing that (they are, after all, going for realism) . Feel free to enjoy lurid colours-and perhaps it was wrong of me in some way to disagree with you-but my intention was to point out it isn't particularly nice to call their mods ****, as I think was clear in my saying:Quote:
How shiny? Very. Now I looked through that post you linked to and any thing that wasn't obviously metal was a shade of brown. Or a shade or orange/red/yello/green so dull it might as well be brown. Way to prove my point for me, thanks.
Quote:
Maybe you are entitled to your opinion (freedom of speech. BAH!), but you could have phrased that a tad nicer, these people have put hours into their "**** looking mods"
It's called karma, seems even the gods dislike pedantic behaviour.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Considering how common the word in question is used, maybe it's you who is out of step with the community, which could also be construed as goose-stepping.
-IceTorque
The gods may dislike moderators, it is true, or else why would they try us such? But this is not an example of karma it is an example of how one bad apple can spoil the bunch. If we allow vulgarity into the Org, it will just debase the whole currency. We will end up with, literally, a thread full of ****. I'm not sure anyone wants that.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceTorque