EB II Mechanic and M2TW AI (and other stuff)

**Gustave** · 08-17-2011, 11:23

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

I always leave my phalanxes in guard mode since they just behave to odd if you let them loose. That said I'm an old guard-moder anyway hehe. I would definitely welcome the AI using guard mode.

They are in guard mode by default, so the AI will use it.

We'll probably remove the swords an give a very low attack value to the spears (1 or 2). Many mods did that, third age TW for exemple. It's actually not so bad.

**Arjos** · 08-17-2011, 11:54

Originally Posted by Gustave

They are in guard mode by default, so the AI will use it.

We'll probably remove the swords an give a very low attack value to the spears (1 or 2). Many mods did that, third age TW for exemple. It's actually not so bad.

The axes as secondary were very useful, pitty to lose them :P

**Titus Marcellus Scato** · 08-17-2011, 15:30

Originally Posted by Arjos

The axes as secondary were very useful, pitty to lose them :P

Yes, that is a problem. Phalanxes will be even less useful in flanking maneuvers and in towns. But in a way it's good, getting away from town battles is good.

**LusitanianWolf** · 08-17-2011, 15:35

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

Yes, that is a problem. Phalanxes will be even less useful in flanking maneuvers and in towns. But in a way it's good, getting away from town battles is good.

A wall of pikes with flanks protected by walls? Thats how I defended towns from entire stacks with just 3 units of hoplites in vanilla. Less usefull where? =P
Maybe less versatile but thats ok at least for me :P Anything is best than having them kinda like the Iphikratous Hoplitai in EB 1.2, phalanx only the name and when standing still in guard mode.

**Ichon** · 08-17-2011, 17:17

Yeah the main problem with removing secondary weapon is the siege battles. Phalanx vulnerable only on rear or somewhat on flanks means defending in walls becomes so easy. Just hold the position and the towers kill the enemy. However there doesn't seem a good way to deal with this. Good shield value, medium armor, very low attack, high cohesion and the phalanx formation can still make fighting in frontally incredibly brutal.

It might not be so bad if sieges didn't last so long. In most MTW2 mods sieges of decent walled cities can last 8-12 turns before forcing a sally. I think at least half that would be more appropriate especially if there is a way to make the attacking force in a siege also lose some casualties while engaged in the siege.

I think it would be wonderful to lay siege to a city that will surrender or sally in 6 turns and have the AI attack with a relief force in 4 turns and even without fighting a battle my army has lost 20% of its strength in laying siege. (5% per turn). Winning the battle but not capturing all the enemies so the survivors retreat into town and finding now have 50% of the original army alive. 2 more turns of siege equals 40% of the original army remaining and even if gaining the city it requires reinforcements to hold or move on in the campaign.

% might be difficult to script but it might work as well to make it so a certain level of walls causes a certain # of casualties for besieger per turn based on unit size. Lower size walls might cost only 50 men on normal size where a full stack is usually just over 1,000 so slightly less than 5% but large stone walls might cost 100 men per turn. Dividing the 100 by number of units and each units size seems a bit much scripting even if possible. I'd prefer just making the number come for 3-4 random units each turn as some elite units might make a foolish attack and suffer and next turn a low tier unit eats bad food and gets sick and many die.

**Centurio Nixalsverdrus** · 08-17-2011, 18:22

Perhaps a CA insider can help out of the phalanx dilemma? As I understood it, the same happened with the battle map settlements, so why not with the phalanx issue? Surely it's not a big deal, just toggling some value here or there ... (I understand that the M2TW engine is based on the RTW one?)

**fomalhaut** · 08-17-2011, 19:34

I believe in the team to come to a satisfactory conclusion to this unfortunate issue!

**bobbin** · 08-18-2011, 11:42

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

Perhaps a CA insider can help out of the phalanx dilemma? As I understood it, the same happened with the battle map settlements, so why not with the phalanx issue? Surely it's not a big deal, just toggling some value here or there ... (I understand that the M2TW engine is based on the RTW one?)

Do you think we would have had this problem for all these years if it were that simple? The phalanx as it was in RTW does not exist, its code in the exe has been rewritten to make the M2TW pike wall and in the process CA have broken the formation.