Check out the battle with Me v. Jirisys... clear example of how to beat guard-entrenched units... http://www.filefront.com/16973657/v.TheJirisys.rpy.
Check out the battle with Me v. Jirisys... clear example of how to beat guard-entrenched units... http://www.filefront.com/16973657/v.TheJirisys.rpy.
Veni, Vidi, Vici.
-Gaius Julius Caesar
Yes... with a legionnary cuadrangular box(and the fact the i got steppe with a cived
)
You had it easy, you only needed to fight less men, i was outnumbered, there were less infs
Besides, tourney army rules areed thanks to mister Vartan
~Jirisys (All thank him, for with him we have 20 legionaries)
Any of you who mentioned the historicity of guard mode should take back what you said. Guard mode is--and let's be honest with each other here--one of the most if not the most ridiculous feature and switch in the Rome: Total War system, as well as other systems. The point of the guard mode, as the developers of the game envisioned and then created it to be, is to force units who have just beaten an enemy unit not to chase after it, but to stand their ground. This is like Starcraft 2 and its higher and higher intentions of reaching out to the newbie community. Not to be offensive, but you might as well increase your skill when playing this game. You should constantly scan for units that are chasing enemy units if you wish to stop them. Also a problem is the engagement artificial intelligence of the RTW system (and perhaps other TW systems). If the developers had programmed it correctly (which they did not), units chasing enemy units would keep chasing the routing unit until at least one of their soldier ran into a non-routing enemy units, at which point the unit would engage said non-routing enemy unit. This code is a matter of conditionals in the engagement AI, something which clearly was left out, even in engine revision 1.9 (Alexander).
The problem with guard mode, especially in an online gaming environment with replay files that are incomplete and have ridiculously little information (e.g. they do not include information on unit switches such as guard mode), is that it is hard to enforce. If it were up to me, the only units that would be allowed to use guard mode would be the classical and Macedonian phalanxes (i.e. classical Greek Hoplites and any of the units in the Macedonian phalanx formation). I'm sure you all understand. After all, why wouldn't you? It's a game switch and some code behind it.
I am thankful for your gratitude, appreciation and respect. Thank you so, so much. Thanks. A lot.
If you are facing 20 legionary cohorts, pretend like the SPQR just sent you 3 legions, and that you are about to get taught a lesson in warfare. It will be at least some consolation.
Last edited by vartan; 07-08-2010 at 04:57.
EB Online Founder | Website
Former Projects:
- Vartan's EB Submod Compilation Pack
- Asia ton Barbaron (Armenian linguistics)
- EB:NOM (Armenian linguistics/history)
- Dominion of the Sword (Armenian linguistics/history, videographer)
1.2.3. That is why it is so annoying playing against romans. They have better infantry , better numbers , the magic button and all that at a pretty measly cost.
For me , i think , fighting will never be the same after seeing so many hoplitai/cohort boxes. that is why i try to play differently by adopting steppe tacs , berserk tacs ,ellie tacs or just plain phalanx tacs. They at least give me a chance against them by putting in a situation where guard mode is disadvantageous.
Well I don't know about the intentions of the game designers, but there is historical evidence as to the efficacy of guard mode, especially in Roman warfare. In Hellenic hoplite warfare the characteristic motion was the press forward of shield on shield (othismos), phalanxes inflicted both weapon damage as well as massed blunt pressure with an aim or rupturing an enemy formation, breaking morale, trampling opponents etc. So there the defensive mode is dubious. I tend to think that sarissa phalanxes were a bit more flexible since shield othismos was not an objective. However the Hellenic historian Polybius, who was a confidant of Scipio Aemilianus, the greatest Roman general of his day, and who accompanied Aemilianus during his siege of Carthage during the 3rd Punic war, and was in a great position to gain authoritative knowledge on Roman warfare, explicitly said in his history that the characteristic motion of a Roman legion in battle was a slow step backward. Add to that the well known fact that in battle Roman legionaries were oathbound to not move from their station. This is basically describing static defensive infantry warfare. The triplex acies system of hastati, princiipes, and triarii was designed to exhaust the enemy and enable the Romans to maximize their combat endurance. Why the emphasis on long term battle, with military drill practice of principes and triarii succeeding one another? The point was for the principes, or if necessary, the triarii to break an exhausted enemy. The enemy was exhausted through hours of combat, "diu atque acriter pugnatum est" (they fought fiercely and for a long time") statements like that are common in Roman history. But beyond all that is simply the testament of Polybius, that the standard motion of a Roman legion in battle was a slow step backwards, they would kill one man after another piling up the bodies of the dead, slowly retreating. That is defensive fighting, and guard mode in EB is a representation of that. If you don't like how overpowered it is I can understand that, attackers tire far too quickly and it makes flanking too important, but in its basic idea it is reasonable for defensive formations to conserve stamina better than attackers. Hannibal at Cannae placed his Gallic forces in the center in a thin line and had them fight defensively, slowly giving ground against the impetus of the deep Roman columns, eventually the Romans tired, were surrounded, suffered morale collapse and were massacred. Ariovistus tried the same against Caesar but failed, the legions overpowered his shieldwall. But it's just a way to win, fight conservatively until your opponent runs out of gas, then overpower him. In principle it has a historical basis, its just IMO too strong in EB.
Last edited by Geticus; 07-08-2010 at 08:11.
Bookmarks