Elite and Disciplined units

[PershsNhpios]

Impetuousity is a rather islamic trait then I suppose?

I shall send a Crusade to Palestine for the purpose of experimentation.

Thank you for the hint, Nagamasa! I might let them have their way next time... Oh and I did miss your witticisms, Gollum.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Glenn
Impetuousity is a rather islamic trait then I suppose?

No its a rather Christian Roman Catholic trait. Most kannnnnighits are designated impetuous. Few aren't like say the Knights Santiago.

Welcome back Glenn.

[drone]

Highland Clansmen, Gallowglasses, and Fanatics are also Impetuous. If you use the Gnome Editor, when column 57 of the unit prod file equals "UNCONTROLLED", the unit is Impetuous.

The best laid plans of mice and MTW armchair generals...

[Empirate]

Thank you very much indeed, most questions answered more than satisfactorily. Now two other questions remain:

1. Is there a unit stat that affects cohesion? Some units seem to hold together better than others, but maybe that's just me. Of course, hold formation (as opposed to engage at will) makes the individual chaps mill around less and find some other chaps to form up with more regularly, but apart from that? Even just turning around, some units seem to make a mess and walk all over the place, while others perform a neat, nicely cohesive turn. This might depend on how many degrees you order your unit to turn, whether other units are standing in the way, if you're on a steep slope etc. But are there factors in the unit stats?

2. How can you turn impetuous charging to your advantage tactically?

EDIT: Oh, and nice to see this forum is still so active! 9 Posts after less than a day. Sweet! Medieval 1 will never die!

[PershsNhpios]

Let me hypothesise sirrah, since I have the time, and because no one else is currently present.

First question, let it be addressed (And know that I have no statistical knowledge, simply game-play experience):

If you are talking about vanilla, which it must be presumed that we all are, I say that units such as generic muslim levies and peasants tend to be poorly formed and generally no less resistant than a house of cards.

Most units though which can seriously be used for combat are similar in cohesion.

The only way this structure can be altered is through the buttons you mentioned (Loose, Tight, Wedge, Engage-at-will formation), and the defense option to hold position.

Really, I think that these provide all the variety for cohesion necessary in the game!
The only regret I have is that units can never reside on the same position!
This means that light infantry cannot be mingled with light cavalry, axes cannot be concealed within spears and so on (A tactic I would use consistently in RTW).

Truly though, I cannot provide the answer you are looking for, as I know of no stats...

But I hope my opinion at least kindles the flame of discussion!

Lastly, the problems you describe with unit cohesion seem to be caused rather by conflicting orders or pursuit than statistics, for example, if one unit pursued two fleeing units, or if one was caught in conflict with another unit and you asked it to march fifty metres in retreat.


Question two, may it be blessed and correctly attended!

I am interested in this myself, but the variables contributing to the designation of Impetuousity as either a blessing or a curse are so situational, so numerous, that it cannot possibly be planned for, I fear!

Terrain is a factor, positional context (I dare say this trait would only be tactically useful on defense) and enemy troops also.

What unit is impetuous and likely to charge?
Is he likely to have immediate support for his +4 morale boost?
Can he be positioned so that the weakness of the enemy will be his chosen target?

Of course, the only reason why this is plausible as a useful tactic is because the AI loves to taunt impetuous units, even to the point of being suicidal.

Here is the dream scenario.

King Malcolm III of Scotland is assaulted by King William II of England, who is leading 500 men-at-arms, supported by archers and heavy horse.
All Malcolm the Giddy has are four hundred highlanders who haven't slept beneath a roof for two thirds of their lifetime.

But he is not giddy without reason, for the highlanders are impetuous!

Keeping them walled off inside a forest, out of range of archers and immune to cavalier actions, the English infantry decide to wander into the woods and taunt the blighters outside.
Then the cavalry attempt to taunt them.

Finally, King William II manages somehow to escape with his life back to Northumbria, and the ransom for his son Alfred pays for a Scottish offensive into the south.

How is that s'ah?

[caravel]

Thank you very much indeed, most questions answered more than satisfactorily. Now two other questions remain:

1. Is there a unit stat that affects cohesion? Some units seem to hold together better than others, but maybe that's just me. Of course, hold formation (as opposed to engage at will) makes the individual chaps mill around less and find some other chaps to form up with more regularly, but apart from that? Even just turning around, some units seem to make a mess and walk all over the place, while others perform a neat, nicely cohesive turn. This might depend on how many degrees you order your unit to turn, whether other units are standing in the way, if you're on a steep slope etc. But are there factors in the unit stats?

Formation width and length spacings may affect cohesion, also the "formed/unformed/poorly formed" attributes may have some effect (though this is supposed to be cosmetic only). In my experience all units suffer some disorganisation when turning or running. Keeping a unit on held formation will help prevent this occurring during battle (hold formation also take 1 point from attack and switches it to defence). Looking at the stats, there is no reason why Nubians would be better formed that Saracens except for the discipline stat and this is not known to affect a unit's cohesiveness.

2. How can you turn impetuous charging to your advantage tactically?

EDIT: Oh, and nice to see this forum is still so active! 9 Posts after less than a day. Sweet! Medieval 1 will never die!

Hiding the impetuous unit in the woods and waiting for them to emerge of their own accord is a good start. Apart from that impetuous charges are a lottery and can sometimes occur when you don't need it. You will have to watch such units and order them to stop immediately if they attempt to charge.

[bondovic]

(hold formation also take 1 point from attack and switches it to defence)

This thread has a lot of cool stuff going on. It says that the value switched is 2 points. I don't know of the tests they did, or if it actually checks out, but everyone seemed to agree back then, so I'm sticking to that. Do you have any other source?

[caravel]

Sorry bondovic, yes that is quite right (+2 defence -2 attack).

[sharpshooter]

So I gather then, that Disciplined simply means that the unit won't charge without orders? There is no morale and no combat bonus as such. Units that do charge without orders gain a morale bonus +4.

My impression is that disciplined units hold postions better, standing firm or advancing in the face of daunting odds.

A disciplined cavalry unit I have great fondness for are the Avar Nobles when playing the Poles or Hungarians on Early. A steal from needing only Armourer and HB they seem to make Feudal Knights practically redundant for those 2 factions, and at half the maintenance cost! They are a strong reliable unit on the field, their value heightened by appearing at a time when other factions can only produce MS.

Nothing is more annoying than when your CK or Lancer unit impetously charges a herd of peasants just when you were lining them up for a killer strike on opposing FMAA or CMAA. Conversely, wafting a bunch of peasants in front of impetuous enemy units seems a good way of taking them out of play for a long period, as they generally chase the routing sods to the horizon.

I, too, had gathered from the Unit11 file that the formed or poorly formed appearance of units was cosmetic only. I have wondered though if it meant that poorly formed units were, in fact, less vulnerable to missiles. Logic would suggest this should be the case, and also that their charge would slightly less effective. However, I don't think this applies.

I like the straggly appearance of Bulgarian Brigands (another favourite unit that is poorly formed). They seeem more that willing to jump into combat as well.

I'm wondering if Mr Glenn should try out the Turkish, and get to know their impetuous Ghazis and Futuwwas ... (units I always set to hold position until I'm ready for them to engage). I sense him shying away from their exotic charms.