Org Mobile Site
Thread: Testudo Legionaries
The testudo formation is sadly no longer in M2TW. However you can still mod in a testudo by editing the phalanx formation, so the guys in the second and third rows hold up their shields like so (picture). This will probably mean there will have to be special "testudo breakthrough legionaries" as otherwise the AI will keep regular legionaries in testudo.
Are there plans to implement a testudo in EBII?
Are there plans to implement a testudo in EBII?
Burning pigs and onagers are those types of inaccuracies that we can effectively fix. We just need to get rid of them. Also, even if, for example, one can argue that burning pigs were used once or twice during the course of history, it is not the type of unit that IMO should be included in EB, as any way of implementing it will result in vast inaccuracy. That is probably the cause of the fact that there are hardly any "special" units in EB.
Testudo formation is historical, but engine's possibilities with this formation are so poor that with realistic kill ratios and anti-Robinhooded archers it will be of no use at all. That is the price we must pay in order to gain plausible battle results. Unless, of course, EB team has prepared some sort of revolution... Unfortunately, the AI cannot use it, so even if all problems were fixed, that would be just another thing beneficial only to the player.
Testudo formation is historical, but engine's possibilities with this formation are so poor that with realistic kill ratios and anti-Robinhooded archers it will be of no use at all. That is the price we must pay in order to gain plausible battle results. Unless, of course, EB team has prepared some sort of revolution... Unfortunately, the AI cannot use it, so even if all problems were fixed, that would be just another thing beneficial only to the player.
It'd only be there for aesthetic reasons like everything else. I don't think the fact that's its aesthetic should mean its taken out - just that it shouldn't be given high priority. In the end it is just a rough simulation se we can get our Ancient Battle Fix for the day. I don't think anyone seriously expects a totally realistic experience in EBII just like no one should in EBI. On a side note: Unit cohesion is alot more noticable in M2TW. You can make units much harder to control. For those of us who got MII:TW early, we learned the hard way that a lot of battles ended up being point and shoot the infantry and hope for the best. It became a real mess after lines contacted because men wouldn't pull out. I kinda miss it now after they fixed some of those issues in the patches. I believe that we even talked about modifying unit cohesion way back when for units so that barbarian units have low cohesion and disciplined units have higher cohesion.
Honestly, I'm more curious about chariots. On another side note: I remember someone back in the day in the RTW modding forums talking about making siege weapons that increase unit speed to make troop transport chariots.
Honestly, I'm more curious about chariots. On another side note: I remember someone back in the day in the RTW modding forums talking about making siege weapons that increase unit speed to make troop transport chariots.
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky:
Honestly, I'm more curious about chariots. On another side note: I remember someone back in the day in the RTW modding forums talking about making siege weapons that increase unit speed to make troop transport chariots.
The chariot problem has already been solved,Honestly, I'm more curious about chariots. On another side note: I remember someone back in the day in the RTW modding forums talking about making siege weapons that increase unit speed to make troop transport chariots.
My god, and there are those that argue that chariots suck...
These are moving scythed chariots not the-blown-over-by-a-fart Casse ones or stopped chariots.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
My god, and there are those that argue that chariots suck...
My god, and there are those that argue that chariots suck...
That is not a helpful comment Appo.
To answer the OP, there are currently no plans to include the testudo, as you noted, that method replaces another formation. At the same time the practical application of the testudo was severly limited we find it used mostly in siege assaults.
To answer the OP, there are currently no plans to include the testudo, as you noted, that method replaces another formation. At the same time the practical application of the testudo was severly limited we find it used mostly in siege assaults.
Wait, I thought both BI shield wall and testudo were usable if you modded them. I didn't think it replaced the pike formation though.
SPQR did that; legionaries had testudo and shield wall.
What they did was, they replaced the tight formation with a working shield wall formation.
What they did was, they replaced the tight formation with a working shield wall formation.
Originally Posted by :
To answer the OP, there are currently no plans to include the testudo, as you noted, that method replaces another formation. At the same time the practical application of the testudo was severly limited we find it used mostly in siege assaults.
Or in the very famous Battle of Carrhae. To answer the OP, there are currently no plans to include the testudo, as you noted, that method replaces another formation. At the same time the practical application of the testudo was severly limited we find it used mostly in siege assaults.
So in sum...
There can be no historical Carrhae without the Testudo formation.
My two cents. I would really like to see it in EB II.
Anything not in Eb2 will undoubtably have its own mini mod. I have no worries about the testudo being left out.
We could just replace Schiltrom if it is at all possible. If we use tight for shield wall, pike wall for phalanx, and schiltrom for testudo; we have enough room for Testudo. Its not really an issue of slots, its an issue of figuring out how to implement it in whatever way the modders choose.
Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon:
Or in the very famous Battle of Carrhae.
So in sum...
There can be no historical Carrhae without the Testudo formation.
My two cents. I would really like to see it in EB II.
There will not be historical Carrhae on RTW or MTW2 engine at all. No camels with "packs" of additional arrows, no constant harassment during withdrawal (outside of boxy battlefield, of course). There is little place for any innovation in TW battles. Also, it is much easier to control your soldiers in TW games than in reality and morale system is sometimes quite absurd. You have total control over your units, they will follow almost any order, unlike in reality. Fallen bodies do not slow down your units and do not disrupt charges. In fact, every battle contained something that cannot be accurately portrayed on TW engines. We must do whatever we can to represent semi-realistic battle results, but looking on individual soldiers or even whole units and their behaviour on the battlefield will lead us to nowhere. Testudo is one thing that will be so useless with EB battle system that it is not even worth trying to put it in.Or in the very famous Battle of Carrhae.
So in sum...
There can be no historical Carrhae without the Testudo formation.
My two cents. I would really like to see it in EB II.
Cybvep, that is one of the best posts on the general subject of RTW/M2TW battle realism that I have ever seen.
Lack of accuracy inherent in the engine is not an excuse to strip it even more of it.
Or else we could just play vanilla, add burning pigs and onagers. It's all unrealistic, isn't it? So the pursuit of realism is effectively futile, and EB has no reason to exist. Let's all play arcade games then.
If it's too much for the engine, then don't add it. Simple. But not adding because we cannot precisely simulate all the tactical and strategical factors in an EB battefield is silly at best.
Or else we could just play vanilla, add burning pigs and onagers. It's all unrealistic, isn't it? So the pursuit of realism is effectively futile, and EB has no reason to exist. Let's all play arcade games then.
If it's too much for the engine, then don't add it. Simple. But not adding because we cannot precisely simulate all the tactical and strategical factors in an EB battefield is silly at best.
Making tight formation some sort of shield wall for pretty much all units wouldn't be a bad idea.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO