Pike-and-Shot and overlapping units

[General Malaise]

With all the talk of making another Rome instead of Shogun I've seen I was wondering why no one seemed to bring up making a Renaissance Total War, which would seem most logical after M2 and Empire/Napoleon. I then thought about Shogun2 though and remembered later in the period they were essentially fighting this way and I led to recall another problem I've always had with both the interface and the AI in total war games.

Essentially, the problem is it takes *a lot* of micromanagement to overlay/stack units of multiple types in a single line or formation and keep them that way, which is required to produce a realistic and effective pike-and-shot formation (spears, gunners, and maybe infantry packed together). You can't just get around this by making mixed unit types though, as there would still be many times when you wouldn't want your spear/pikes and gunners, and maybe infantry, all crammed together like that.

However, the AI never does this, at least on purpose, itself so against the computer, which is how most people play, it's almost kind of cheating. Therefor, it appears to me that people should start getting it across to CA that grouping and forming multiple units of different types into one clustered line or square needs some more functionality added to it and that the computer needs to start to make use of this itself, especially when employing pikes (which we should definitely see in Shogun2).

[rory_20_uk]

Although never fixed, many mods to help the AI have some "I" and use something approaching a formation rather than a mob / abattoir.


Some way of having "dynamic linkages" would help - units are told to be on the right / behind / in front of other units and move to keep this true. Obviously things would alter during a battle, and so the linkages would be altered to fit. I'm sure we all do sort of the same thing with trying to keep blocks of archers behind the spears / swords. But positions are fixed in terms of the map, not the army, so when one area is heavily pressed and gives ground, the archers end up in melee rather than backing off.

[General Malaise]

Well I was specifically talking about where one draws a line out manually for a unit-formation, then draws out another line directly on top of that previous unit's formation so that are intermixed with one another in the same space. This is really necessary to make pike units effective at all in M2TW and greatly improves phalanxes in RTW. The problem, again, is it is a massive headache to keep doing this to keep your line in proper formation and takes a lot of mirco-ing, especially because even if groupped the units won't march at the same speed properly many times. I propose CA add the following functions to grouping/forming units.

1) Merge different units, whether of the same type or not, into one cluster-unit, that can be grouped with other units as normal, in the following ways:
1a. Order alternating lines, choosing the one to be in front. So, if you're combing zweihaenders and landsknecht (or two types of pikes, such as pike militia and noble pikemen), you could order a line of zweihaender then landsknecht, then zweihaender then landsknecht then so on (or a noble pikemen, then a pike milita and so on).
2a. Order one unit to front, then other in back, so two lines of zweihaender and two lines of landsknecht.
3a. Order them to stand next to one another rather than in front or back, so, a zweihaender standing beside a landsknecht.
4a. Order one unit to "enclose" the other, so noble pikemen in the back, front, and side lines, and the pike militia in the center.
5a. Order them interspersed randomly amongst each other, but within the same space and maintaining that formation.

2) Allow different facings for different parts of the formation, such as ordering your men on the flanks to face outwards and the man in back to face rearwards, similar to a schiltron, picking how many lines back or to the sides should face which direction. (Of course, this would only work when immobile.) Alternatively, just allow a simple "square" formation, which if, say, 4 lines the first two would face forward, the last two back, but with two columns on each flank facing outward. (Only partially related, but they should really bring back wedge formation for infantry units too now that I think of it.)

3) Allow merging or splitting of units, whether the same type or not, on the battlefield. This should probably be limited to deployment phase only, but it's always irritating that if you're getting attacked in one turn with multiple battles you have no time to re-organize your units.

And of course it goes without saying that the AI should similarly be able to utilize and defend against the above formation tactics.

[Karl08]

Way to complex. Fine if you're the officer in charge of one formation, but you're a general in charge of many. The general commands the officers, the officers command the men.

[General Malaise]

How exactly is it "way too complex" to click on two or three unit cards, then click on a submenu and select a formation from those I listed above? What exactly is simpler about having to manually drag the lines out yourself whenever you want to overlap different units? This is like saying the group formation menu is "way too complex" and you should have to order your troops into "missile first three lines" one a time.

Furthermore, there's no reason to believe that in in Total War games you're really playing as the general. You can give very specific orders to units nowhere near communicable reach of the general, that couldn't possibly have been discussed ahead of time. If anything, Total War is more like playing the commander of each unit individually, unless in the TW universe they had walkie talkies and satellite map technology in the classical and middle ages.

[Viking Prince]

I am not certain that 'way too complex' is what was meant -- perhaps he meant not appropriate to simulate the command decisions of the general. Integrating the pikes and muskeeters by intergrating two normal sized units into a large unit might be a reasonable programming possability. Probably too late in the development cycle to do it for S2TW though. It would be nice if such integrated formations were an option though. If done properly, the AI could then do the same.

[Karl08]

How exactly is it "way too complex" to click on two or three unit cards, then click on a submenu and select a formation from those I listed above? What exactly is simpler about having to manually drag the lines out yourself whenever you want to overlap different units? This is like saying the group formation menu is "way too complex" and you should have to order your troops into "missile first three lines" one a time.

Merging units, not way too complex. But giving orders to subsections of a formation consisting of two or more units, yes, that is way too complex. I don't see why you should have to do that, rather than having the merged units make use of their subsections on their own discretion.

Furthermore, there's no reason to believe that in in Total War games you're really playing as the general. You can give very specific orders to units nowhere near communicable reach of the general, that couldn't possibly have been discussed ahead of time. If anything, Total War is more like playing the commander of each unit individually, unless in the TW universe they had walkie talkies and satellite map technology in the classical and middle ages.

That's what runners were for. Evidence - no, proof - that you're playing as a general: you command ALL your units, not just one, or a few. You can select several units and group them in various battle formations, something which only the general could do. As if that wasn't enough, you're the one who's calling the shots on the strategic map.

[General Malaise]

Merging units, not way too complex. But giving orders to subsections of a formation consisting of two or more units, yes, that is way too complex. I don't see why you should have to do that, rather than having the merged units make use of their subsections on their own discretion.

It is precisely no more complex than ordering groups of units into a group formation, or ordering a single unit into loose or wedge formation. You click on two or more unit types, and click a button, instead of dragging lines out yourself.

That's what runners were for. Evidence - no, proof - that you're playing as a general: you command ALL your units, not just one, or a few. You can select several units and group them in various battle formations, something which only the general could do. As if that wasn't enough, you're the one who's calling the shots on the strategic map.

Lol, runners are not instant battlefield communication, they could in no way justify the degree of precision you have as supposedly the general of your Total War armies. Calling the shots on the strategic map is even more evidence you are not RPing the general in Total War as generals did not decide construction projects and tax rates. You're playing some kind of spirit in Total War figure basically who can influence all these different individuals in a nation to make different choices. You're definitely not the general, and even if you were, what in the blue blazes stops a general from shouting "spearmen in the front two lines foward, back two face rearwards" or "swordsmen, alternate lines with those archers!" ??

[Karl08]

It is precisely no more complex than ordering groups of units into a group formation, or ordering a single unit into loose or wedge formation. You click on two or more unit types, and click a button, instead of dragging lines out yourself.

Then what is all this about:

1a. Order alternating lines, choosing the one to be in front. So, if you're combing zweihaenders and landsknecht (or two types of pikes, such as pike militia and noble pikemen), you could order a line of zweihaender then landsknecht, then zweihaender then landsknecht then so on (or a noble pikemen, then a pike milita and so on).
2a. Order one unit to front, then other in back, so two lines of zweihaender and two lines of landsknecht.
3a. Order them to stand next to one another rather than in front or back, so, a zweihaender standing beside a landsknecht.
4a. Order one unit to "enclose" the other, so noble pikemen in the back, front, and side lines, and the pike militia in the center.
5a. Order them interspersed randomly amongst each other, but within the same space and maintaining that formation.


See, that's what I was referring to. KISS, or only the designer is going to like it.

Lol, runners are not instant battlefield communication, they could in no way justify the degree of precision you have as supposedly the general of your Total War armies.

It's a GAME. It doesn't claim to be 100% accurate. On the campaign map, you can give any order to any town that you own. Instantly. That doesn't mean that you're not the ruler of your faction.

Calling the shots on the strategic map is even more evidence you are not RPing the general in Total War as generals did not decide construction projects and tax rates.

Of course you're not the general on the campaign map. There you are the faction leader. On the battlefield, however, you're the general.

You call the shots for your faction on the campaign map, ergo you are the faction leader.

You call the shots for your army on the battlemap, ergo you are the general. And how does the advisor address you in STW, MTW and RTW? Possibly M2TW as well, but I can't remember at the moment.

You're playing some kind of spirit in Total War figure basically who can influence all these different individuals in a nation to make different choices. You're definitely not the general, and even if you were, what in the blue blazes stops a general from shouting "spearmen in the front two lines foward, back two face rearwards" or "swordsmen, alternate lines with those archers!" ??

Because it's a GAME. You're not a spirit of some kind, you simply have far more powers than you would IRL.

Take Silent Hunter, as another example. You are undeniably the captain of your submarine. When you give an order, they reply, "Jawohl, herr KaLeun," or "Aye, aye, sir". So you're the skipper. And yet you can move the camera about outside the sub, even when submerged, you can "fly" far off to see what ships are in a convoy, what sort of escorts they have etc. And in SH3 you even have a gauge telling you how well the enemy can hear you. All sorts of things way above the limitations of actual skippers. Because it is a game.

And true, you can turn those options off in the realism settings, but you can also select "restrict camera" in TW. Which wouldn't make much sense if you were some kind of spirit, now would it?

[General Malaise]

Then what is all this about:



See, that's what I was referring to. KISS, or only the designer is going to like it.

You still have yet to explain how ordering units with different weapons into a single mixed-unit formation is any more complicated than ordering an individual unit to form a wedge or ordering multiple units in "sorted double line".

It's a GAME. It doesn't claim to be 100% accurate. On the campaign map, you can give any order to any town that you own. Instantly. That doesn't mean that you're not the ruler of your faction.

Lol, aren't you the one yapping about historical accuracy in the other thread? I'm aware the pretense of the game is you are that you are the ruler of your faction but real rulers are not omnipresent. Thus, the entire point I'm making here, is if you can stretch that premise in some circumstances, why exactly doesn't it make sense to give mixed-unit formation orders on the battlefield, if this is supposedly the directive of "unit commanders" (which never give any orders independent of you in the game now anyway).

Of course you're not the general on the campaign map. There you are the faction leader. On the battlefield, however, you're the general.

You call the shots for your faction on the campaign map, ergo you are the faction leader.

You call the shots for your army on the battlemap, ergo you are the general. And how does the advisor address you in STW, MTW and RTW? Possibly M2TW as well, but I can't remember at the moment.

So then you're the "unit commander" when you call the shots for individual units. If you can switch roles like that easily I don't see why you are so insistent on larping as the general on the battlefield, or how exactly mixed-unit formations somehow disrupt your pretending you are the general anyway (since actual generals *did* order such things, it's the entire basis of pike-and-shot warfare, e.g. terico squares).

Because it's a GAME. You're not a spirit of some kind, you simply have far more powers than you would IRL.

Then you can cook up practically whatever justification you want to explain how and why things work in the gameworld the way they do and it shouldn't interrupt play-pretend "I'm the faction leader" bit.

Take Silent Hunter, as another example. You are undeniably the captain of your submarine. When you give an order, they reply, "Jawohl, herr KaLeun," or "Aye, aye, sir". So you're the skipper. And yet you can move the camera about outside the sub, even when submerged, you can "fly" far off to see what ships are in a convoy, what sort of escorts they have etc. And in SH3 you even have a gauge telling you how well the enemy can hear you. All sorts of things way above the limitations of actual skippers. Because it is a game.

Did you think I forget it was a game or something? I don't see what this entire rant about being the general or faction leader or whatever has to do with how ordering your pikemen to take the back two lines and swordsmen front two , or two alternate standing next to one another after merging them as one unit is somehow "too complex" or doesn't "simulate the command decisions of the general" (which is an entirely subjective feeling anyway, given the level of abstraction the game already has in regards to giving commands now anyway).

And true, you can turn those options off in the realism settings, but you can also select "restrict camera" in TW. Which wouldn't make much sense if you were some kind of spirit, now would it?

Still waiting for an explanation of how individual unit and group unit formations differ from merging and mixing units into formations as regards a general giving orders. For the last time, how is dragging out lines manually for me to overlap mixed units better "simulate the command decisions of the general" than clicking on some unit cards and clicking a button from a preset formation?

[Karl08]

You still have yet to explain how ordering units with different weapons into a single mixed-unit formation is any more complicated than ordering an individual unit to form a wedge or ordering multiple units in "sorted double line".

It wouldn't be a problem if that's all it was, but it isn't. You are proposing this:

1a. Order alternating lines, choosing the one to be in front. So, if you're combing zweihaenders and landsknecht (or two types of pikes, such as pike militia and noble pikemen), you could order a line of zweihaender then landsknecht, then zweihaender then landsknecht then so on (or a noble pikemen, then a pike milita and so on).
2a. Order one unit to front, then other in back, so two lines of zweihaender and two lines of landsknecht.
3a. Order them to stand next to one another rather than in front or back, so, a zweihaender standing beside a landsknecht.
4a. Order one unit to "enclose" the other, so noble pikemen in the back, front, and side lines, and the pike militia in the center.
5a. Order them interspersed randomly amongst each other, but within the same space and maintaining that formation.


You are still pretending that I am attacking the very idea of merging units - I am not. I am opposed to all the micromanagement you propose in addition to simply merging units. You have yet to defend this proposition, and it seems you are dodging it.

Lol, aren't you the one yapping about historical accuracy in the other thread?

You'll have to be more specific. Which thread?

Anyway, this hasn't got anything to do with historical accuracy, but realism. And 100% realism is neither achievable, nor desirable.

I'm aware the pretense of the game is you are that you are the ruler of your faction but real rulers are not omnipresent. Thus, the entire point I'm making here, is if you can stretch that premise in some circumstances, why exactly doesn't it make sense to give mixed-unit formation orders on the battlefield, if this is supposedly the directive of "unit commanders" (which never give any orders independent of you in the game now anyway).

It's not that it wouldn't make sense, it's that it would be far too detailed when considering you have more than that one unit to control. What if you have eight mixed units, in addition to missile units and other non-mixed units? How are you going to give specific orders like placing Zweihänders at the front in this formation here, at the back in that formation there, even mix again in this formation here, etc. etc., all the while manouvering all other troops and monitoring everything? What's wrong with letting the AI officer of each unit decide which group tactic is best at any given time?

So then you're the "unit commander" when you call the shots for individual units. If you can switch roles like that easily I don't see why you are so insistent on larping as the general on the battlefield

Because you ARE the general on the battlefield. You commanding individual units IS the simulation of you sending runners, signalling with drums, horns or banners, except that the game makes it instantaneous. Because it is more playable that way.

or how exactly mixed-unit formations somehow disrupt your pretending you are the general anyway (since actual generals *did* order such things, it's the entire basis of pike-and-shot warfare, e.g. terico squares).

I wish you would stop with that strawman, and actually address my points. I challenge you to quote me as saying anything against the merging of units.

Then you can cook up practically whatever justification you want to explain how and why things work in the gameworld the way they do and it shouldn't interrupt play-pretend "I'm the faction leader" bit.

You mean like you just cooked up being a spirit?

Did you think I forget it was a game or something? I don't see what this entire rant about being the general or faction leader or whatever has to do with how ordering your pikemen to take the back two lines and swordsmen front two , or two alternate standing next to one another after merging them as one unit is somehow "too complex" or doesn't "simulate the command decisions of the general" (which is an entirely subjective feeling anyway, given the level of abstraction the game already has in regards to giving commands now anyway).

It is too complex because it gives you too many options. Merging units: fine. But anything beyond that is micromanagement that you simply do not have the time to do in larger engagements, and it would only distract you from the bigger picture. While you are busy controlling the individual units in one group, you will be neglecting the rest of the army. Minding the army, you can't be giving orders within specific units. Again I ask, what's wrong with letting the AI handle how your merged groups behave? It will for the computer enemies, and will do so simultaneously for as many units as can fit on the battlefield. Whereas you can only do one unit at a time.

Still waiting for an explanation of how individual unit and group unit formations differ from merging and mixing units into formations as regards a general giving orders. For the last time, how is dragging out lines manually for me to overlap mixed units better "simulate the command decisions of the general" than clicking on some unit cards and clicking a button from a preset formation?

If you are going to use quotes, RESPOND TO THE QUOTED TEXT. I'll lead the way by responding to the quoted text above:

If you cannot see the difference between merging units, and merging units and still ordering the individual units within the new group around (as opposed to letting the AI handle it), then I can't help you. What you are saying is that you can't see the difference between one action and 20, but believe me, 1<20.

[General Malaise]

It wouldn't be a problem if that's all it was, but it isn't. You are proposing this:



You are still pretending that I am attacking the very idea of merging units - I am not. I am opposed to all the micromanagement you propose in addition to simply merging units. You have yet to defend this proposition, and it seems you are dodging it.

I ALREADY HAVE TO DO THIS MICROMANAGEMENT WHEN I WANT TO ORDER DIFFERENT TYPES OF UNITS INTO THE SAME SPACE. Do you never use pikemen formations in your games or something? If you can't see why I would want to order my swordsmen in front of my pike, but maintain the same formation then the answer to that must be no. It is not more micromanagement to allow me to click on a unit of pikes, swords, and gunners, and order them to form a terico square, and it certainly isn't failing to simulate a real general's decisions. Can you also not see why I should be able to order the back lines of spearmen, for instance, to face rearwards, without having to turn the entire unit around?

Anyway, this hasn't got anything to do with historical accuracy, but realism. And 100% realism is neither achievable, nor desirable.

No, it's not about realism or historical accuracy. It's about making, largely already existing, tactical options more useful and easier by making them simpler to perform with the game's control set.

It's not that it wouldn't make sense, it's that it would be far too detailed when considering you have more than that one unit to control. What if you have eight mixed units, in addition to missile units and other non-mixed units? How are you going to give specific orders like placing Zweihänders at the front in this formation here, at the back in that formation there, even mix again in this formation here, etc. etc., all the while manouvering all other troops and monitoring everything? What's wrong with letting the AI officer of each unit decide which group tactic is best at any given time?

Uh, what? You already have to give orders to specific units while maneuvering troops. What's so different here than ordering a unit to form loose formation or to go into guard mode? I already do precisely order my swordsmen at the front of my pikes, I just have to do it by hand by drawing lines. It's nowhere near as hard as you're making it out to be to keep track of, especially because most of what I'm talking about would be done during deployment phase.

Because you ARE the general on the battlefield. You commanding individual units IS the simulation of you sending runners, signalling with drums, horns or banners, except that the game makes it instantaneous. Because it is more playable that way.

Making the game's controls easier, more flexible, and faster also makes the game a lot more playable.

I wish you would stop with that strawman, and actually address my points. I challenge you to quote me as saying anything against the merging of units.

I've addressed your points over and over, you just keep going on and on about how this is supposedly so complicated or is somehow outside the bounds of what a real general would order, despite the fact that real generals did order the things I'm talking about all the time and people already use the the tactics in both SP and MP I'm talking about.

You mean like you just cooked up being a spirit?

I had a feeling you'd fixate on that.

It is too complex because it gives you too many options. Merging units: fine. But anything beyond that is micromanagement that you simply do not have the time to do in larger engagements, and it would only distract you from the bigger picture. While you are busy controlling the individual units in one group, you will be neglecting the rest of the army. Minding the army, you can't be giving orders within specific units. Again I ask, what's wrong with letting the AI handle how your merged groups behave? It will for the computer enemies, and will do so simultaneously for as many units as can fit on the battlefield. Whereas you can only do one unit at a time.

Unless you're a simpleton, it's not too many options. Certainly no more options than the hundreds of units modern total war games have, or the number of deployment formations you had in STW. I don't even know what you're talking about with this business with "unit commanders". The AI doesn't handle anything regarding your armies unless you give specific orders. And what is this about "computer enemies"? Do you not even play MP?

The only reason I can imagine why you are against this, besides trolling, is that you think I am describing giving orders to individual soldiers or to giving separate orders within a mixed-unit formation. From the way you're going on about this though, you ought to be criticizing the schiltron formation as being too complex and not a real simulation of what general's do, because you have to give an individual order to your spearmen to do it, it adds another option, because you have to keep track of your army while you do it, etc. A schiltron or wedge isn't really that different from a mixed pike square though, except you have pikes, guns, and sometimes swords, instead of just spears.

If you are going to use quotes, RESPOND TO THE QUOTED TEXT. I'll lead the way by responding to the quoted text above:

If you cannot see the difference between merging units, and merging units and still ordering the individual units within the new group around (as opposed to letting the AI handle it), then I can't help you. What you are saying is that you can't see the difference between one action and 20, but believe me, 1<20.

[/quote]

Lol. It's pretty clear now you're the one arguing against a strawman here now. When did I bring up giving separate orders to units with a mixed group? When you form up your troops into "cavalry first three lines" and select them as a group they all move in formation without having to click individually. Why would clicking of some pikes, guns, and swords and telling them to form the above-mentioned pike square example and then have them move in unison be any different? I mean seriously...

[Karl08]

I ALREADY HAVE TO DO THIS MICROMANAGEMENT WHEN I WANT TO ORDER DIFFERENT TYPES OF UNITS INTO THE SAME SPACE. Do you never use pikemen formations in your games or something?
<snip>
When you form up your troops into "cavalry first three lines" and select them as a group they all move in formation without having to click individually.

Now you are starting to approach something which can be identified as a point. If only you had thought of this three or four posts earlier, this debate could have been much more constructive. It's not quite the same micromanagement which already exists, though: sure I may send spears to meet spears head on, all the while manouvering swordsmen to attack their flanks, but my units are not occupying the same space, and I do not need to zoom in to see what each of them is doing, as each unit is its own island, and uniform.

[Gregoshi]

I stopped getting TW games after RTW. Is this unit overlap effective in the later games? In STW (not sure about MTW), units got a penalty if they were crammed together - "no room to fight". The STW strategy guide lists this as a defensive penalty only.

If S2TW goes back to a stronger rock-paper-scissors combat model, such an overlapping feature might disrupt that scheme. Combining rock and paper lessens the importance of maneuver as rock to does not have to move to protect paper when scissors attacks. If the counter to that is that scissors combines with paper, it seems like this reducing combat to forming combinations that lead to no vulnerabilities and combat becomes a bore-fest. Maybe I'm missing the point or not seeing the possibilities correctly, so that is where you are going to have to educate me on what the proposal would do to make the combat more interesting.

[General Malaise]

@Gregoshi
This thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=310118
explains how to use pike and phalanx, perhaps better than I am, although one can extend the logic to mixing/overlapping other types of units.

A clarifying quote from the above:

Battlefield Deployment: Pikemen are the most synergistically-dependent of all available unit classes, and should never be employed alone on the battlefield. Pikes achieve synergy with other, overlapping units of pikemen in double-stacked square formations (refer to my discussion of the Pike Square) or Heavy Infantry (as examined in the Tercio).

STW's defense penalty for overlapping units only makes sense in certain circumstances. For instance, I think No-Dachi and Naginata should generally (at least of overlapping them with each other) take a penalty to attack/defense if double-stacked or more, because they need space to swing. Honestly, I always thought they ought to be used in loose formation myself, but that's another issue. Spears and pikes though are *meant* to be crammed together as tight as possible, and later on, with guns amidst them.

If they ever make Renaissance: Total War I can't see how they could do it without allowing what I'm talking about above, and have it accurately simulate the period, unless they do a cheap cop-out of having you recruit pre-formed "pike square" mixed units. Although I realize it's too late for them to implement it in S2TW, towards the end of the Sengoku Jidai warfare actually looked a lot like renaissance europe so it would really be good there.

My suggestions don't really disrupt the basic rock paper scissors thing at all, they just allow you to 1) more easily mix rock and paper or paper and scissors etc for some more tactical options, or rather, to make said options less of a micro headache and 2) allow you more control and options with your rock, paper, scissors; for example, allowing you to order a 4 line formation of spearmen, with the front two facing forward and the back two backward, or alternating lines of swords and pike without having to spin the whole unit around in the case of the former or drag lines out manually for the latter.

I don't know, maybe a formation-heavy tactics would be better suited to a turn-based game, but most people already pause like hell in SP and you've always had to be sharp-eyed and fast of hand in MP already, so I don't really see all the supposed overwhelming complexity.

edit: ...not to mention most of formation doing is done during pre-battle deployment as I've said before.

[Gregoshi]

Thanks for the additional information GM. I'll just add my cavet to all the cool/interesting ideas suggested for S2TW so far - if the AI can handle it well, then fine. If it can't, then it will end up another frustrating "feature" to complain about.

@Gregoshi
I don't know, maybe a formation-heavy tactics would be better suited to a turn-based game, but most people already pause like hell in SP and you've always had to be sharp-eyed and fast of hand in MP already, so I don't really see all the supposed overwhelming complexity.

In M2TW/ETW SP, could you pause and still issue orders? I didn't think that was an option in the earlier games, hence I never paused unless I had to take my attention away from the game. And the sharp-eye/fast hand of MP is why I always sucked so bad at it - something about my brain forming a tactics committee and holding hearings on how best to proceed in the current battle situation and then delivering the final decision to the last men routing off the map.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I've been lurking this topic a bit and decided to toss in my 2koku worth.

I am only a novice at programming, so I could not say whether the coding for using overlapping units as a group is unduly difficult. Also, if the AI cannot utilize this, then it becomes a "cheat", if you will. I can see it has great bearing on MP, however.

Merging units, not way too complex. But giving orders to subsections of a formation consisting of two or more units, yes, that is way too complex. I don't see why you should have to do that, rather than having the merged units make use of their subsections on their own discretion.

Subsections on their own have different movement rates, and as I understand GM's premise...being able to single-click and have this formation move as-one, is vastly better than having to continuously 'micro-draw'.

But anything beyond that is micromanagement that you simply do not have the time to do in larger engagements, and it would only distract you from the bigger picture. While you are busy controlling the individual units in one group, you will be neglecting the rest of the army.

The way I personally micro-manage in TW games, having a system like what GM is proposing would probably save me time. And in any case, I'd like to be the one to decide to use such a feature or not.

What's wrong with letting the AI officer of each unit decide which group tactic is best at any given time?

Because I am one of those micro-management fools who likes to control every little detail I can

No, it's not about realism or historical accuracy. It's about making, largely already existing, tactical options more useful and easier by making them simpler to perform with the game's control set.

This is what sells me on the idea. Making life on the battlefield easier......in a game sense, literally

something about my brain forming a tactics committee and holding hearings on how best to proceed in the current battle situation and then delivering the final decision to the last men routing off the map.

@Gregoshi

[Galvanized Iron]

I sincerly hope they make it impossible for 2 units to share the same spot unless one of them are in loose formation. The stacking that occurs, especially during siege assaults, in other TW games looks horrible and causes lagg too...

[Gregoshi]

I sincerly hope they make it impossible for 2 units to share the same spot unless one of them are in loose formation...

Or they create a "chicken fight" formation.