phalanx/anti-phalanx

[jerby]

i'm loving the phalnx. untill i had to play against them with the brutii.
are there any advanced strategies against phalanxes?. just flanking wont do it ( princepes vs armoured hoplites)
also... can anybody reskin the spartan hoplite to a more nobel unit.
the red robe just doesn't cut it. how bout making them with teh same helmets the generals have? and maybe a black/red shield...

i found one thing in city's against phalanxes.
wait with infantry on a corner. when the enemy phalanx turns: they lift their spears. if you time it right your units can get in between and make the phalnxuntis use their swords: genious!

[Rurik the Chieftain]

Phalanxes don't move terribly fast, so try to charge them from behind, or more than one side at once. You can also try to tie them up with an expendable unit, and have lots of archers and skirmishers rain projectiles on them. Use cavalry flanking to disrupt their formation, as a messed-up phalanx is no good.

[jerby]

ok, thanks


now i'm playing als bruttii pre-maruis, rome total realism. i ahve very limited resources: only hastati, princepes and triarii slingers velites and equites( terrible in h2h). so its quite hard against those superior armoured hoplites: it takes me two flankings of horses/infantry one unit of velites and a disposable unit in front of the phalanx just to take down three arnmoured hoplites.
so their is not much i can do against a full army and therefore i ask for tips

[Ptah]

Deploy your lines in an echelon formation, and start attack from one corner first. Never deploy it parallel to the enemy lines and have all your men start attacking/defending at the same time.

This is because as a single unit the armoured hoplites are one of the most reliable and cost-efficient units in the game, and they will rarely break when fighting against just one or two hastati or principes, even if you got them locally surrounded.

Assuming both the Greeks and Romans have 10 units each, to quickly rout powerful hoplites in defensive posture you need to pit at least 3~4 hastati/principes against one of their armoured hoplites all at once. However, if you try to flank the enemy from both left and right sides, that will effectively take 50% of your total units. That leaves only about 5~6 of your Roman units to defend the center against 8 hoplite units.


What typically happens is your center is shattered before your flanking forces get their job done. So your center routs, then each of your flanking forces are isolated and destroyed.



....................


So, if you want to avoid that and strengthen the center so they will hold long enough, that means you have less number of units to use to flank the hoplites - which of course, means that it's not gonna work at all.

Besides, even if you stregthen the center it's still about the same number of hoplite units vs Roman units. Pre-marian Roman infantry has no chance against hoplites from the front, so eventually, the center is gonna rout anyway.




....................


Therefore, this dilemma is solved by deploying your units in an echelon formation, where the wing that is protruded at front(forward wing) is stronger than the other wing that falls back(rear wing).

Advance to the enemy in that formation, and use all of your strongest units in the forward wing to hit one corner of the enemy first. The rear wing needs to be prepared to counter the movement of the rest of the phalange.






....................


* If the hoplites army breaks its battle line to go save that corner which is under attack from your forward wing, disengage your forward wing a little bit and form a new battle line there. At the same time, quickly move your rear wing, isolate the phalanx unit at the rear end, and hunt it down one by one.




....................


* If the hoplite army chooses to advance, retreat your rear wing so they avoid combat, and buy more time for your forward wing. Keep retreating, so that your battle line always stays in an echelon against their lines.

Since in this case the phalange chose to advance, the units consisting their right wing are now dissipated and routing. Reposition your forward wing units so they repeat the same attack again.




....................


* If the hoplite army chooses to respond in orderly fashion, retreat your forward wing and form a new battle line. Your Forward wing now becomes the new rear wing, and redeploy your rear wing so it becomes a new forward wing. In other words, the roles between forward and rear wings switch.





These series of tactics are known to be developed by Epaminondas. Since your troops aren't strong enough to to face all of the enemy troops at the same time, form an echelon, and always secure a local but huge numbers advantage over the enemy at one side, and "cut the corners" off one by one.

The problem is that TR mods are heavily influenced by "infantries are turtles" school of opinion among RTW gamers, and uses an overly penalizing unit terrain speed modifiers. So in TR mods where the units are all put in slow motion (so that ham-fisted people can meddle around during battle to make pretty formations and lines and think they are doing something 'tactical', instead of instantly react and respond to whatever is thrown to them on a dynamic scale) it is pretty hard to flank anything in the first place.

So personally, I recommend you restore your original "descr_battle_map_movement_modifiers.txt" file to use with TR4.0(it's possible). It makes a good experience with all the wonderful changes and kill rate reduction TR4.0 has to offer, combined with the dynamic tactical approach of original RTW.

[Red Harvest]

While the echelon description is on, the ham-fisted comments are way off the mark. Last I checked it took more than a second or two to order a mass charge or completely reorder a line in real life. In fact, the actual front was often a mile or two or three across. It took hours just to deploy battle lines for major battles. Such battles would not be decided in seconds as in RTW. It took time for battles to play out, partially because of the distance (that and armed and armoured men in formation don't usually subdue one another in 3 seconds...but that's another matter.) Command lag was much, much longer, but units were more likely to follow some general group type commands such as advance/hold/flank/wheel. They wouldn't have to wait for micromanaging orders from the field commander before following some basic maneuvers.

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
Hey Ptah,

Any Pharaoh or CotN connection?


-

[Ptah]

Nope, sorry to disappoint. No affiliations.

[Ptah]

Last I checked it took more than a second or two to order a mass charge or completely reorder a line in real life. In fact, the actual front was often a mile or two or three across. It took hours just to deploy battle lines for major battles. Such battles would not be decided in seconds as in RTW. It took time for battles to play out, partially because of the distance (that and armed and armoured men in formation don't usually subdue one another in 3 seconds...but that's another matter.) Command lag was much, much longer, but units were more likely to follow some general group type commands such as advance/hold/flank/wheel. They wouldn't have to wait for micromanaging orders from the field commander before following some basic maneuvers.

In real life one did not have a birds-eye view of the battlefield with mouse-pointers giving out 'winning' or 'losing' info neither. As fast the pace of the battle within the game is, it is correspondingly easy to make tactical judgements from the info which is instantly obtained. Not to mention issuing orders are done with a mere movement of a hand and a finger, in the game. These opposite factors effectively cancel each other out and thus have no real relevancy when in discussing a validity of how an abstract depiction of a battle is done within a game.

Messing with the movement modifiers was flat-out bad judgement with poor reasoning. The reasoning behind it was that the game was too fast paced to make 'tactical judgements', which basically only showed that some people's of grasp of 'tactics' would suit a construction of a Maginot line rather than an open-field battle where everything is dynamic.

The complaints about the kill rate and its effect on gameplay I fully agree with. But essentially this has nothing to do with the movement speed of the troops. Thus, when the kill rate was dropped to a manageable level so a commander would have enough time to analyze the results of his action that was OK. Messing with the movement speeds is a step too far with a reason too wrong.

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
No problem, no disappointment at all. I figured that you might have taken your name for an Egyptian themed game first, that's all.
-

[Red Harvest]

Messing with the movement modifiers was flat-out bad judgement with poor reasoning. The reasoning behind it was that the game was too fast paced to make 'tactical judgements', which basically only showed that some people's of grasp of 'tactics' would suit a construction of a Maginot line rather than an open-field battle where everything is dynamic.

Messing with the movement speeds is a step too far with a reason too wrong.

While I have not adjusted movement speeds myself, I can't say that the reasoning for doing so is bad. Part of the reasoning for doing so is spot on. The player is forced to micromanage (as the AI is doing--only the orders given often are nonsensical). You can't give generic orders and have groups respond independently. So arguments about viewing the whole field are moot. Friendly fire really shows the level of micromanagement required and how much speed effects it. Slowing down movement speed is one way to get some control. It is better than using pause all the time.

Scale is a major factor. Units could not turn so rapidly in real life. That is another reason it took so long to deploy. The speed with which units zip about, particularly cavalry is crazy. Schooling fish has been an apt description. Since the human is stuck micromanaging 20 units independently (since there is no option for the AI to do so) and the distance scale of the lines is and order of magnitude less than actual because of unit size (resulting in faster resolution speed) the movement speed doesn't fit well with the game engine. I'm not at all certain how much it should be detuned. MTW's speed seemed about right as a compromise, so I can understand why folks have wanted to go back to that.

Actually, hoplite battles were single line affairs--moving Maginot lines. The "open field" comment does not fit the dynamics of that. The reason for the single line was that they were more "closed" positions (borrowing chess terminology.) When gaps opened, resulting in open field dynamics, bad things happened to the hoplites. This was the strength of the duplex acies and maniple system used by the Samnites against the Romans, and later adopted and modified by Rome into the triplex acies.

Most of the desire to adjust movement speed probably has to do with what happens when you try to engage the enemy line in a straight forward fight. You order your units to charge the unit across from them--simple enough. Then watch in dismay as your line criss crosses if the AI pivots its units at all. So you have to pause and alter orders. In reality this would be a general "advance and engage" order rather than being unit vs. unit every time. But RTW doesn't give you these kind of options, so "lead computing" results in a completely ridiculous mess as your units try to plot intercepts. The AI units do the same and utter chaos results. Adjusting movement speed is again a way to try to fix some fundamental flaws in the battle/command and control engine.

I am not saying that adjusting movement speed is the best way to confront RTW's shortcomings, but I can see why it is being done and agree with elements of it.

[Ptah]

It basically comes down to how much of 'management' we players can take as 'fun', and how much we take as 'burden'. Given an objective analysis, the amount of 'management' needed in RTW does not exceed MTW with any kind of significance. The unit roster size per army has seen an increase from 16 units total to 20, but if we recall what the players have been wanting so much in the MTW days(more unit spaces, larger armies, more variety of action..etc.) an increase of just four more units space per army cannot be anything serious.

The overall requirements for managing remains the same, but the workload has increased a bit due to the fast pace of battle. However, if management was so troubling enough to ruin gameplay itself(in that one cannot manage his army to win) people would not be asking for a better AI(not just about the suicidal generals..) behavior on battlefield, or make a habit of playing on VH/VH settings. Most people already view the AI as 'easy opponents'.

It is only when they are pit against a superior AI army of some sort, that they come down to the forums and start a complaint on how the game is too fast paced for one to adapt. Empirically, it can be seen that most of the posts on this very issue (where people complain how some enemy movement is too fast for them to cope with) are assuming conditions where the enemy forces are superior to their own, and a certain need for advanced tactical maneuvering on the battle field arises.

The question is this: if people have no problems in dealing with AI armies of roughly simular prowess to their own, but they do have problems with dealing with superior enemies because they cannot force faster judgement and response in controlling the units.... how much of it can be faulted to the troublesome micro-management, and how much of it is faulted to individual incompetency?

...

One thing I have learned about gamers is usually, they have a tendency of vastly overestimating their personal skill in that game. Every judgement they make about the game is based on their own personal account, and basically bears no objective quality at all. Since they themselves cannot be 'poor in skill', they tend to assume that it is the system and the game that is wrong.

Ofcourse, this attitude is more often than not immediately subdued, when they enter multiplayer games and see what kind of things other people can do. Such experience is not all that unfamiliar to me, since I also play a lot of MP games of all sorts. It becomes pretty clear that some people, obviously really can do things which others have previously stated was impossible. In the MP games it never ceases to amaze me how good some people can manage their soldiers with precision, like some chess piece on a board.

Ofcourse, not everybody can do that. Not everybody can become a super-jock in a certain game. However, there is no denying that the people who can do that, are truly skilled.

So, it comes down to this.

If the precision skills required to accurately manage an army, is to be considered a burden rather than fun, and if we remove that burden from the game by slowing the pace so everybody regardless of personal skill, experience, practice, is given enough time to think through everything before making their move, then why bother creating a real-time tactical simulation at all? Why not just make it a turn-based tactical sim with 3D graphics?

Slowing the game down is basically removing the all of the positive traits (think fast, make bold judgements, immediately carry out what needs to be done, and do it effectively by commanding each units to utmost precision)that would make a good 'virtual general' out of the game.

These very traits are what makes the difference between a 'good general' and a 'bad general' in multiplayer games. Needless to say, the problems of 'micromanagement' is non-existant in the MP games since the conditions are equal for each of the adversaries.

Ofcourse, we are talking about the single player campaign modes. However, the MP experience gives us a profound view on what exactly is possible, and impossible in the game. It is obviously very possible, to manage an army exactly the way one wants. These people who can do that, went through the time and trouble of trying to perfect what needs to be perfected.

For instance, when somebody having trouble with the phalanxes as stated in the initial post, sees the Echelon formation and its tactical maneuvering, he will soon find out that it's actually very hard to control the Roman infantry in that manner. A slip of concentration or slow judgement(not to mention a slow hand) will ruin the maneuvering and get the hastati and principes isolated and routed. But ofcourse, it is very possible. I've given it enough practice to beat 20-unit full army of Armoured Hoplites with just Roman infantry and no cavalry at all.

In short, in the above case the tactical maneuvering as suggested is effective only when you have the basic skills to accurately control the army precisely in the formation required.

So, is taking the time to aquire that much skill supposed to be a 'burden', or 'fun'? If it is considered a burden, and my troops are consequentially slowed down to the rate that they'd be practically travelling at 2m/sec on a full charge speed(so other people who obviously don't seem to want to adjust to the learning curve can take leisurely time in thinking through stuff), how the heck is anyone supposed to be doing anything 'tactical' with it?

[Ptah]

"You see a small gap forming in the enemy lines. Driving a cavalry charge into that gap will have a devastating effect. You muster the horsemen and charge.. except these guys are travelling so slow, that by the time the cavalry approaches the enemy lines the gap is already closed. The enemy general noticed the cavalry move, took enough time to think over it, and then decided to move some more spears to close the gap.

And thus, under the slow movement modifiers, Alexander and his companions are rounded up and destroyed. Darius 3rd wins the battle of Gaugamella."

A funny story? Actually this is precisely the kind of 'tactics' some people want from the game. The very drive to victory Alexander achieved that day, was that he found a gap and made the first move on what to do with it. Charged full speed into the gap with his companions before Darius could react, and routed the entire central command. You don't wait and see what the enemy is gonna do. The moment a general sees enemy cavalry movement is when he should react, not after watching where they go and how they move. By the time a cavalry has reached a flank it is already to late, and that's how it should be.

The comparison between MTW and RTW can be readily stated as a comparison between 'stagnant' and 'dynamic'. The changes of RTW has brought speed and aggressiveness onto the battlefield that was yet unseen in the TW series. STW and MTW alike, was a battle of formations. One stagnant defensive line pitted against the other. In the above mentioned situation, in STW and MTW you could wait and see all you like, what the enemy was doing, and then decide on the final moment whether to send spears to stop the cavalry or not. It doesn't work that way in RTW. It doesn't work that way in real life either.


The real deal is this:

1) People didn't like the way that their 'fail-proof' formations were crumbling, when they found out the guy who takes the first initiative will hit the flanks or rear with lightning speed. In MTW or STW, there was no such thing as an unexpected hit from unexpected direction, since everything was so slow that nothing was unexpectable.

2) The 'tactics' these people were used to, were about making solid lines of defensive formations, and passively waiting for the enemy to make a move so one could counter it. In RTW, things don't work out that way.

3) In short, their grasp of 'tactics' are limited to something akin to WW2 generals thinking about WW1 style trench-hold warfare, when the Germans were already blitzing everywhere. Basically they are thinking the same things as Greek commanders and their phalangites were thinking, when they were crushed by the Roman legion system which specifically emphasizes speed and maneuverability.

4) Since they don't like this change, they revert the game to the old status, where 'tactics' once again meant passiveness. Obviously it never came into their minds the tactical geniuses of military history were always the ones who made the first move, relentlessly repositioning and managing their units to maximum efficiency, instead of make a 'standard army formation' and keep their units that way.


Ofcourse, some of the complaints and requests do make sense. There should have been made a difference between 'breath' and 'overall endurance'. As it is, infantry could move at full speed over huge distances as long as they are not fatigued. However, fatigue itself acts differently in a real battle. It was possible for the soldiers to charge full speed upto some 400m upon account, but they would be out of breath when done so. The momentary burden of fatigue, as opposed to overall fatigue, should have been modelled in the game, so the overall fatigue level slowly rises over time, but momentary fatigue quickly fills up and just as much quickly relieved.

The various bugs and issues concerning the game which increases the burden of immediate action upon requirements, is also a reasonable pointer.

However, none of these reasons are powerful enough to justify a slowing down in the movement of troops to such penalizing degree. Under such conditions not even Alexander, Hannibal, or Scipio would have achieved uch great success in their campaigns. These generals make it a habit of moving quickly and precisely, and passive defenders were usually the people who fought them and lost.

Basically the whole deal's a sham. The decrease in movement speeds were requested out of personal gratification, not out of reason.

[aw89]

wow, you sure do know how to make an argument...

i couldn't agree more though, it makes perfectly sence. if they want slow paced tactics, where they can think about jugments before acting, go to some turn based strategi game.

[Puzz3D]

Ptah,

If movement speed is reduced, it's reduced for both players, and proportionally for both cav and inf so the relative speed stays the same. If cav was 2x the speed of inf before, it will still be 2x the speed after. If the cavalry unit is 2x the distance from a gap than is an inf unit that might block that gap, the cav unit will beat the inf unit to the gap if it moves first. The player who moves first can be further away by the distance his unit can travel during the time it takes his opponent to react to his move. As movement speed is increased, that distance increases. The question is from how far away should these unblockable offense moves be possible? In STW and MTW, you have about 5 seconds to react to a cav charge on your skirmishers with cav of your own which is a consequence of the speed of the cav, the range of the shooters and how far behind them the protecting units have to stay so as to avoid taking losses.

From a gameplay perspective, unit speed can't be divorced from ranged unit effectiveness, melee fighting speed or fatigue rate. Simply slowing down movement speed would make ranged units more effective, reduce flanking tactics and deter running. In addition to that, the movement speed in RTW is determined by the speed of the animations which are not easily changed. So, I think the movement speeds were probably one of the first parameters frozen, and the gameplay then built up around them. However, it's unfortunate that they somehow decided upon unrealistically fast movement speeds. It looks silly for the scale of the game, and, although it's tolerable in single player, the combined 25% increase in unit slots and 50% increase in running speed means significantly less ability to coordinate your units in multiplayer. You're right on target when you say there is less management in RTW. Gone are the days when superior coordination of units was how you won these games, and it's replaced by first strike type of tactics.

Now I'm going to try to make those damn phalanx units work in multiplayer after the v1.2 patch is released, but if RTW turns out to be just a cav/archer thing, then I won't be playing RTW multiplayer. I'm sure a lot of players will love it like that, but I don't see a big reduction in the defensive aspect of the game as an improvement. Alexander's charge up the middle worked at Guagamela because first he drew the potential blocking unit to the flank and tied it up there. What I hear you saying is that you want to be able to make a charge like that without diverting the defensive unit, and succeed simply because the opponent can't react to your move. I always attacked in STW and MTW, and I was able to exploit gaps and unprotected flanks, and they were exploited on me if I had them. The reason MTW became a slow moving game was due to the fatigue being optimized for the smallest size maps, but battles were almost always on larger maps.

[Red Harvest]

Ptah,

I think you've missed it entirely. In MTW the battlefield AI was better, period. RTW has probably also shot itself in the foot by high kill rate offensive stat favored play, but the AI is weaker too. On expert MTW could and did hand me my hat at times. That isn't happening in RTW. Yet, I still find the RTW command and control far more annoying than MTW. When you require *more* commands per unit (just look at missile units) to achieve the same effect, and you compress it into a shorter clock time the result is operator overload.

In MTW I had the AI flank me at times--usually when I was stretched too thin or lacking heavy cav counter. Sometimes they would come through the trees or what not. Trees were one instance where the AI had an advantage because its vision was not obscured. In RTW the trees are of almost no consequence and other than height, terrain effects are miniscule (look at the unit stats for confirmation.)

But if we use your comparison of misguided players to WWII generals trying to fight WWI style, then why is cav the answer to everything in RTW? Because they fly across the field, steam rollering flanks and causing group routs. It isn't historical, but the game engine drives you to cav heavy armies because the king of RTW is speed. You don't have to worry about enemy movement speed because you engage bits at a time on the flanks, picking the enemy apart at your leisure.

I am not concerned about camper's formations failing to work with RTW. In fact the RTW time period should be more inclined to favor "campers" compared to MTW, which turns your argument on its ear. The hoplite armies were more static by design--hence the single line. I have not heard the supposed "real deal" complaints you list expressed by players--at least not in any substantial amount

Try playing RTW using Roman armies in triplex acies with historical quantities of cav. Then tell me about how you fought with velites, withdrew, then sent in hastati, then principes and perhaps finally resorted to triarii in a closely run affair. Good luck!!! Most times you will end up having to use them nearly all simultaneously. It's back to that darned speed again...

As Puzz3D has said, all the various aspects are linked: missile kill rates, movement speed, melee kill rates, and charge kill rates, as well as flanking modifiers, morale effects, mount effects, you name it. If you have high kill rates, then movement speed becomes even more critical.

[Red Harvest]

Basically the whole deal's a sham. The decrease in movement speeds were requested out of personal gratification, not out of reason.

And that is simply malarkey. You might not agree with their reasoning (or mine), but calling it a sham and saying it is for personal gratification appears as a shallow, completely subjective analysis. You are impugning their character because you disagree with their reasoning?

...and again, I'm not changing movement speeds at the moment, just noting the impact they have on the game as it is. I see merit to some of your points about battles but they don't jive with the engine we have to work with. Your impression of other players seems so harsh (and far from the mark) as to make me wonder who peed in your wheaties.

If a game doesn't grant some personal gratification, then it isn't fun...

[Ptah]

If movement speed is reduced, it's reduced for both players, and proportionally for both cav and inf so the relative speed stays the same. If cav was 2x the speed of inf before, it will still be 2x the speed after. If the cavalry unit is 2x the distance from a gap than is an inf unit that might block that gap, the cav unit will beat the inf unit to the gap if it moves first. The player who moves first can be further away by the distance his unit can travel during the time it takes his opponent to react to his move.

True. But reduction in speed is rarely just about relative and numerical performance in maneuvering between units, nor is it just about linear increase/decrease in management loads. To parapharase a certain Mr.Gates, it is all about "speed of thought". The relative speeds may increase/decrease in proportion, but human reaction is different. And the those very differences in actual response time is what is fundamentally different between RTW and STW/MT.

As movement speed is increased, that distance increases. The question is from how far away should these unblockable offense moves be possible? In STW and MTW, you have about 5 seconds to react to a cav charge on your skirmishers with cav of your own which is a consequence of the speed of the cav, the range of the shooters and how far behind them the protecting units have to stay so as to avoid taking losses.

There is no such thing as 'unblockable defense'. The seemingly 'unblockable offense' is not resulted from a change in the gameplay system, but rather resulted from the tendency of players to rely on out-dated styles of tactical preference. For one thing, the very instance you've mentioned itself derives from STW/MTW tactical habit of forming standard skirmisher lines ahead of the main battle line.

There are basically no problems in retreating the skirmishers from the front whatsoever. Like you've said above, the increase in movement speeds are proportionate. The cavalry moves fast, but the skirmisher infantry also moves much faster than before. The only real problem is that a 'decision' is required much earlier in the phase in RTW. Many people retained the old MTW habit of 'watch enemy movement until enemy intentions become clear'. Only when it becomes clear that the cavalry was rushing for the skirmishers people pull them back, which, in most cases is too late. The decision should have been made earlier, or at least, the player should have been ready the moment the cavalry made a movement towards the center.

From a gameplay perspective, unit speed can't be divorced from ranged unit effectiveness, melee fighting speed or fatigue rate. Simply slowing down movement speed would make ranged units more effective, reduce flanking tactics and deter running.

Exactly. You may not realize it, but this really is EXACTLY what some people want. Contest of two stagnant battle lines with little change in both sides, both sides relying heavily on archers and basically "waiting it out" until attrition has dealt its blow. The gripes and complaints of RTW MP being unbalanced by the Egyption faction, is at heart because their unit stats are ideal for tactics suited for MTW-ish behavior.

In addition to that, the movement speed in RTW is determined by the speed of the animations which are not easily changed. So, I think the movement speeds were probably one of the first parameters frozen, and the gameplay then built up around them. However, it's unfortunate that they somehow decided upon unrealistically fast movement speeds. It looks silly for the scale of the game, and, although it's tolerable in single player, the combined 25% increase in unit slots and 50% increase in running speed means significantly less ability to coordinate your units in multiplayer.

Make a rough scale and measure how fast the infantry and cavalry are moving when running, and compare it to real life. They are not 'unrealistic'. 'Unrealistic' is when the infantry or cavalry moves like it did in MTW - slow.

Also, people have a very bad habit of defining realism on their own basis, which, I will talk about in the next paragraph.

You're right on target when you say there is less management in RTW. Gone are the days when superior coordination of units was how you won these games, and it's replaced by first strike type of tactics.

This is it. This is exactly the problem.

Just what exactly is 'coordination'? How did 'coordinated' troops move on the battlefield?

Many people confuse 'coordination' with 'tidyness', as much as they confuse 'tactics' with 'management'. This is also a tendency that was inherited down from STW and MTW.

Battle columns and lines are clean, square, and tidy BEFORE the battle starts. Once the battle starts, it is total chaos, with lines breaking up and reforming everywhere simultaneously. Partial routs and advances make it very hard for the commanders to make judgements on whether they are really losing or winning.

The legendary generals of history are 'legendary', because among that chaos they could still make accurate judgements on what to be done, not because they made clean formations and reacted passively to every first move and countered the enemy. Legendary generals always took the first initiative on the battle field and never lost it. The only time they went passive and waiting for the first strike, was when they were disadvantaged. With enough men they always made the first move, forced the enemy to think, forced them to make wrong decisions. And with blinding speed, they did so. Bold and daring maneuvers derived from accurate judgement of the state of battle, and often the enemy had little time to counter it. Grabbing the first initiative and not letting go was THE most important thing in battle.


Formation of battle lines are merely there to help carry out the initial plan they have thought of before the main lines clash. A plan is only a plan, and every bit of it changes according to the situation once the main lines collide. For this very reason Alexander the great himself has said, "a battle is dynamic", and Julius Caesar firmly states, "you cannot win by following manuals".

However, sometime after the STW and MTW experience, which at that point the people considered the game as 'most realistic battle experience'(and rightfully so.. at least, at that point), somehow the exact trimming and catering, clean-cut micromanagement of pretty-looking battle formations uring battle, has become confused with "overall coordination".

"Coordination" in former TW series, has come to mean;
1) managing tidy formations DURING battle
2) controlling everything in a precise manner DURING battle
3) battling as if it was a board-game, SHUNNING chaotic states

This is a serious bast*rdization of the meaning of "coordination".

Why is the 'first strike' considered 'uncoordinated' in the first place?

Because people got the wrong notion that you're not supposed to draw first blood. The first charge, first move is what 'barbarians' were supposed to be doing. Waiting out, maintaining clean formations, countering every enemy move as if playing chess - that is supposed to be 'tactical' and 'coordinated'. (which the irony is, even in chess the winning player is the one who usually grabs hold of the first initiative, and forces the opponent to become passive)

They also got the wrong notion that if the lines become messed up and does not look 'rectangular', it means the troops are 'uncoordinated'. Or if the battle lines are disrupted and bent, it means its an uncontrollable slugfest.

This is a battle. It's supposed to be messy and chaotic.

Think of it as American football. People who don't know football, at first glance think it's a barbaric game of pure brawn. By that standards the team which got the biggest line backers would be always winning. Except, football is all about tactics. The 'formations' may look pretty before the hut-hut, but once the ball moves it's total chaos. Linebackers don't manage clean-cut 'defense lines' as one may think. There are holes and opening everywhere, with people tumbling and tussling around, initial formations warped and bent and augemented. Despite that chaotic state, if the coach, and the players make correct judgements, receivers will successfully flank and afford a new 1st down. So, is football an 'uncooridnated' sport?

'Coordination' is the ability to contol units despite the chaotic status they are in. Stopping the units from entering such dynamic state, and pushing them forward in an orderly rank-and-file to battle out that way - that's not 'coordination'. You don't do that in when the battle really starts. You do that when you march in a parade.

The first move is powerful, because the people who move first has got the first initiative. It's supposed to be like that. If "A" makes the first move, they take the first initiative. The passive "B" must observe, analyze, and then come up with a countering plan to A's movement. This worked in Roman's vs Barbarians, because while the barbarians had the first initiative, they did not know how to use it.

Things are different in a battle of peers. It's gonna be too late when the enemy cavalry is already riding up your left and right. They are supposed to be stopped before they reach that position in the first place. That's why the 'standard' formation always has cavalry at the right and left. The moment the enemy cavalry advances, this side's cavalry must also make a move. You don't wait out and see if the enemy will flank you or not. You're supposed to make the first move, or at least react immediately if you've lost the initiative, and try to get it back.

None of this is present in STW or MTW. All of it is present in RTW.

Granted, the quick routs and quick kills has seriously done the basic system injustice. More often than not the first move becomes the only move, because the fast kill rates make an already fast paced game much too demanding even for veteran players. That's why I don't object in slowing down the kill rates and make the process of duking out in the main lines much longer. But like mentioned before this has essentially nothing to do with the tactical importance of the first initiative.

RTW battles have "coordination". It has "tactics". Much moreso than STW or MTW can every be.

It's just that the truth about 'coordination' and 'tactics' is so shockingly different from what people have imagined that they felt they were slapped in the face. The irony is the more RTW comes to resemble 'reality'(at least much more real than STW or MTW would ever be), the more the people reject it on grounds of 'not being realistic'. The 'realism' perceived by gamers, is seriously flawed.

Now I'm going to try to make those damn phalanx units work in multiplayer after the v1.2 patch is released, but if RTW turns out to be just a cav/archer thing, then I won't be playing RTW multiplayer.

The 'archer thing' has nothing to do with tactics. It simply a problem of misbalanced units in case of Egypt. In case of 'cavalry', their tactical importance is nothing irregular. Despite all their weaknesses cavalry was one of the most important units in ancient times - in some occasions, even more so than the Medieval ages.

I'm sure a lot of players will love it like that, but I don't see a big reduction in the defensive aspect of the game as an improvement.

Well, it's everyman's own. But playing defensive is supposed to get you lost. You're supposed to defend when it looks like you're disadvantaged, not bring out an army and set it up in defensive lines the moment you see the enemy forces.

Alexander's charge up the middle worked at Guagamela because first he drew the potential blocking unit to the flank and tied it up there. What I hear you saying is that you want to be able to make a charge like that without diverting the defensive unit, and succeed simply because the opponent can't react to your move.

All of the 'blocking units' that tried to flank Alexander were cavalrymen. They weren't even supposed to be flanking Alex's right wing. The miscommunication and poor judgement created a gap left of Darius, which Alexander immediately realized and decided to drive a nail into.

And no, I don't want a cavalry that just charges through everything. I want a cavalry that's fast enough approach and drill through a gap, and not have the enemy watch my cavalry move for some 20 seconds just to close 200 yard distance, think about what they are gonna do, realize that his line has a gap, and merrily reinforce it before the cavalry even get there.

What's the use of ingenuity that recognizes an enemy weakness, when no matter how fast you recognize it the enemy can counter it eventually?

I always attacked in STW and MTW, and I was able to exploit gaps and unprotected flanks, and they were exploited on me if I had them. The reason MTW became a slow moving game was due to the fatigue being optimized for the smallest size maps, but battles were almost always on larger maps.

Guess why people had to move so much in the larger maps.

It's because each side decided to tuck into the highest ground possible, furthest away from the enemy, in the most defensive position attainable with those units. And then, wait and wait and wait and wait until the enemy came to them.

One side gets bored, starts the long(and slow) march to the end of the map where the enemy lay, and then wait again for arrow exchange. Run out of arrows, and then start moving around. The guy who got bored and moved his troops first, also has more fatigued troops, more hurt by arrow fire, and more likely to lose the battle.

If you consistently won in STW and MTW as the "guy who would not wait, and actually try to do something instead of being a couch potato", then I salute you. Evidently, the way STW and MTW was made, you did something that was seriously disadvantaging and still won the day.

[Ptah]

And that is simply malarkey. You might not agree with their reasoning (or mine), but calling it a sham and saying it is for personal gratification appears as a shallow, completely subjective analysis. You are impugning their character because you disagree with their reasoning?

You are right. I apologize.

...and again, I'm not changing movement speeds at the moment, just noting the impact they have on the game as it is. I see merit to some of your points about battles but they don't jive with the engine we have to work with. Your impression of other players seems so harsh (and far from the mark) as to make me wonder who peed in your wheaties.

If a game doesn't grant some personal gratification, then it isn't fun...

Just got frustrated with the 'wave of comments' regarding this issue since the introduction of RTW. Evidently the influence of some 'opinion leaders' on this matter has got the forumspeople making totally wrong conclusions based on an inherently flawed analogy. Guess I got to carried away with objecting to that.

[Attalus]

I'm with Ptah on this one...
Slow down the movement speeds and you miss out on the whole point of this particular game.
Realism? Who knows...
Anybody here ever see a game of Rugby Union?
Large lads with optional necks moving very, very fast straight into the opponents 'battle-line'.

Bone crushing stuff...no American plexi-armour either!

Now, through some huge horses in there and a couple of sharp sticks and I think we're pretty close.

Sure, communication lags were long, runners only run so fast...
Commanders have even less time to make a decision these days...with usually less than perfect information. At least we have radios.
I would have liked to have heard a few bugle/trumpet/cornicen calls in the game. 'Ware the Cavalry!!

Much better than "The day is Ouuuuuuurrrrrs!!!!"

But these Armies (okay..the Romans anyway) were TRAINED.

Drilled. Rehearsed. Over and over and over again.
They really did know their stuff.
Who's ever seen a military tattoo or a parade?
As a soldier, I can perform these manouvres in my sleep, when you learn them the first time, I almost think you do!! I didn't need to know why I did them...I just responded. Same for the legion.
Although I think hearing something like 'Prepare to receive Cavalry' may have been a bit more emotionally significant...

BTW all off topic, I know.

Great slides Ptah...I learned something today.

-Attalus-
Fool me once...shame on you
Fool me twice...prepare to die

[ah_dut]

I disagree, heay cav is waaaay overpowered insomuch as it can hit a phalanx head on and win...a tad unrealistic no? especially as the phalanx actually holds it's formation.
in real life, if you want to win battles, you simply don't attack, you usually watch, wait and learn. This is normal. With just a charge attack, most units in the game become obsolete. Missile troops are overpowered in the game but most argue not because cav is even more overpowered, I mean in real life even the hetaroi never managed to defeat Iphraktian Hoplites in a head on collision. They can beat silver sheilds head on in this game. It has been tested that horses refuse to charge a solid wall of pointy things. this happens where the horses actually jump over the pointy things...it doesn't happen.
Most heavy cav win by making their opponents run away or lose formatio beofre impact....or hit the flanks.
As to your claim...I did rountinely hit the flanks in mtw and stw, this was done relatively simply by holding up the enemy centre, this is realistic...in my view. Cav is simply too fast in this game, it leads to unbalancing as you don't need as much skill to take the flanks. It takes incredible skill to command a historical roman army against a heavy horse nation...it simply hurts too much in this game.

[Rurik the Chieftain]

Whoa! I'm sure jerby got a lot more than he bargained for on this thread!

[CBR]

It basically comes down to how much of 'management' we players can take as 'fun', and how much we take as 'burden'

With MTW you wouldnt find many modders who increased or decreased movement rates. I guess that means a majority felt speed was fast enough and those who found it slow could use the speed slider.

Given an objective analysis, the amount of 'management' needed in RTW does not exceed MTW with any kind of significance

Lets analyse it then: 25% more units = 80% time per unit compared to STW/MTW. Infantry run speed has been increased about 60%. So when battle lines engage and units start running, you might have less than half the time per unit compared to STW/MTW. And lets not forget the special abilities like phalanx or warcry that players now have to fiddle with too. If you at some point were hardpressed in a battle to control all 16 units then you can expect to control less than half your army in RTW.

how much of it can be faulted to the troublesome micro-management, and how much of it is faulted to individual incompetency?

When I played a Seleucid campaign and used lots of heavy cavalry against infantry dominated Roman armies the game was incredible easy. When I played the Romans and focused on mostly infantry the situation was suddenly reversed as it was extremely difficult to handle as enemy cav coming in on two flanks made the battles way too fast.

Against an equal AI army in MTW battles could be pretty tough actually as controlling 16 units was fast enough, even at the "slow" pace, . Remember some people actually used pause in MTW too.

One thing I have learned about gamers is usually, they have a tendency of vastly overestimating their personal skill in that game

And one thing I have learned about gamers is that some have a tendency to ridicule others for lack of skill just because they find a certain gameplay good and dont understand why others disagree.

But its true some people will always look for faults in the game and will not adapt to new features. The problem is what can you adapt to? People cant suddenly grow faster reactions. As I said in a thread on .Com: I can buy better upgrades for my PC but I still cant buy cybernetic implants to upgrade my brain.

Yes its "easy" to adapt to RTW gameplay. Just get loads of cav and use simple tactics and you have a sure winner against the incompetent players. There is no longer a place for fancy combined arms as you dont have time to use it.

.... then why bother creating a real-time tactical simulation at all? Why not just make it a turn-based tactical sim with 3D graphics?

So now a game has to be either a turn based game or a click fest?

Slowing the game down is basically removing the all of the positive traits (think fast, make bold judgements, immediately carry out what needs to be done...

Thats strange.. I thought STW and MTW had that but I guess Im wrong.


CBR

[Puzz3D]

Ptah,

My question was from how far away should unblockable offense moves be possible? I think it is possible to make moves that can't be countered because I did it in MTW. I'm not saying it was easy to do because it took planning. I also feel that that the reaction time a player typically needed in MTW was in the range of 5 to 10 seconds rather than the 20 seconds you claim. In RTW, the distance from which uncounterable moves can be made is greater than in MTW because the reaction time of the player is the same in both games, but units move faster in RTW and there is an additional 1.5 second delay in RTW before a unit responds to a command. However, you stated very clearly in your last post that "playing defensive is supposed to get you lost". My understanding of military doctrine is that the attacker has to have a considerable advantage if he expects to succeed. In other words, it's easier to defend than to attack.

When you play this game online, the attacker and the defender have equal strength, so I think the prospects of success for both should be balanced to get the best gameplay. In this way, battles can have move, countermove, counter to that, and again to that, etc. making for a more interesting game than just attack, and it's decided because the countermoves are practically guaranteed to fail. In RTW, it's easier to attack. In STW and MTW it was easier to defend. It may have been a bit too easy to defend in MTW, but I think that was related to the fatigue not being optimized for large maps.

I have made speed measurements in STW, MTW and RTW, and the running speeds of both infantry and cavalry in RTW are 50% faster than is realistic for the scale of the game. It doesn't look right for the scale, and I don't believe it was done for any gameplay reason beyond getting the battles over with quickly for what CA percieved as their new market. However in making that design decision, the player cannot now use his units in as coordinated a fashion as in the previous games which you can argue isn't realistic, but it sure made for a more interesting gameplay than RTW. It's too bad you can't play with huge units to slow down the combat resolution, and thereby give both the attacker and the defender more time to issue orders to their units. GilJaysmith of CA even recommended that as a way to improve the gameplay in RTW.

I agree with you that RTW battles are a chaotic mess. The previous games in the series approached the quality of chess in their gameplay, but RTW doesn't even come close to achieving that.

[CBR]

Make a rough scale and measure how fast the infantry and cavalry are moving when running, and compare it to real life. They are not 'unrealistic'. 'Unrealistic' is when the infantry or cavalry moves like it did in MTW - slow.

And we went through all that back in RTW demo days. My posts are near the bottom of the page and on page 2 along with SpencerH that added some extra info:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...5&page=1&pp=30

And Duke John calculated movement based on the animation files. And its pretty much the same as tests we did both for the demo and the actual game(and RTW inf running speed is actually even faster as the old tests was done with fatigue on that reduced overall speed):

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=40742


CBR

[Red Harvest]

Thanks for reposting the speed threads. They are a good read. At the time I was not ready to come to a conclusion about movement speed--was letting the whole thing "sink in." Right now, after much play, I agree with the basic thrust of those posts, movement speed is a bit higher than it should be.

[Ptah]

I disagree, heavy cav is waaaay overpowered insomuch as it can hit a phalanx head on and win...a tad unrealistic no?

I've wrote several articles about this on the Colosseum. The 'cavalry are overpowered' comments are also borne out of popular misconception where people do not take the specific situation and factors into account.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=40949&page=2

in real life, if you want to win battles, you simply don't attack, you usually watch, wait and learn.

The cadets watch, wait, and learn. Generals take action upon situation and how make quick judgements. Just standing ground and waiting for the first window of opportunity to rise is what losing generals do. Winning generals make the first move and force the enemy to react as he expected. Besides, who says the first attack is 'simple'?

[Ptah]

My question was from how far away should unblockable offense moves be possible? I think it is possible to make moves that can't be countered because I did it in MTW.

My answer was that when a certain 'offense' is perceived to be unblockable, it is because indeed the defending side lost the proper timing at which the offense could have been blocked or countered.

I'm not saying it was easy to do because it took planning. I also feel that that the reaction time a player typically needed in MTW was in the range of 5 to 10 seconds rather than the 20 seconds you claim. In RTW, the distance from which uncounterable moves can be made is greater than in MTW because the reaction time of the player is the same in both games, but units move faster in RTW and there is an additional 1.5 second delay in RTW before a unit responds to a command.

The reaction time of the players need not remain the same, and the increase in movement speeds is not something we cannot manage. The whole bit about the multiplayer experience was to come up with a point that there are people who do react at a proper timing, and these people are not rare.

However, you stated very clearly in your last post that "playing defensive is supposed to get you lost". My understanding of military doctrine is that the attacker has to have a considerable advantage if he expects to succeed. In other words, it's easier to defend than to attack.

I'll rephrase it, I've wrongly expressed my intention - "you can't win by defense".

When you set a policy of defense, your goal is to "not lose", not necessarily "win". An army which is set in a defensive position simply chooses to defend until it has forced enough attrition on both sides, so the attacker may choose to withdraw and fight another day.

However, in both the MP and SP games a battle assumes a status of open-field confrontation where many factors which can be disadvantageous to the side which simply takes a defensive measure. For one thing a standard defense is severly hampered in general mobility of the troops, and the passive state of the defender suggests that he will not be able to properly counter a move when it needs to.

The defensive formations are generally set up in a way that the defender needs not move much at all, so the formation is pretty much ready for anything at any direction. However, if the attacker will find an opening, gap, opportunity, or whatever one may choose to describe it, and starts a coordinated action towards in exploiting that weakness, the defense usually has a hard time countering it.

In STW/MTW, this point was not emphasized enough. Both sides would retain defensive positions, and choose a more or less passive method of fighting, often right 'til the end. Since attacking was so much harder, however ingenius or creative an individual would get, that would still avail him naught. One still had to use 'standard' formations of certain variations, emphasize on archer strength, and etc etc.

Remember the Warlord clan, many of whom specialized in the Turks and Egyptions. They have tried out many different and creative variations of how to utilize the Muslim factions to their strengths.

However, none of their methods and tactics really survived to become a new standard(or at least an alternate one) throughout the days of MTW, because in the end, no amount of thinking and experimenting alone would overcome the basic limitations in the conditions of the battle. The wall of European spears, the massive ranks of superior swordsmen, the powerful European knights, were impregnable and unpenetratable. While seeing many variations, still at heart the 'standard method of formations' never changed at all. There was no need to change it. Nothing really could overcome that. Any other form of battle line was a waste of time and just asking to be crushed by the 'standard formation'.

All because, simply, nothing beat the basic setting defensive position, with the player passively reacting to just counter the enemy. 'The guy who first moves loses' became a silent, but profound motto in STW/MTW games.

[Ptah]

Thanks for the posting the links CBR.
Let's take a more closer look at the set of data.

Infantry walking		100%	3.7 mph			100%	3.7 mph
Infantry running	 	280%	10.4 mph		166%	6.2 mph
Infantry charging		348%	12.9 mph		183%	6.8 mph
Fast infantry running 		337%	12.5 mph		200%	7.4 mph

Cavalry walking			127%	4.72 mph		150%	5.6 mph
Cavalry running			470%	17.5 mph		333%	12.4 mph
Cavalry charging		716%	26.6 mph		367%	13.7 mph
Fast cavalry running		630%	23.4 mph		400%	14.9 mph

The left column is the set of measured data from RTW, and the right column would be from STW/MTW. All the 'percentages' exaggerates the 'problem' much more than it really is. When perceived from a more smaller increments of time and distance, RTW makes much more overall sense than STW/MTW.

Movement Distance per second

Infantry walking		1.7yd(1.6m)		1.7yd(1.6m)
Infantry running	 	3.5yd(3.2m)		2.9yd(2.6m)
Infantry charging		5.3yd(4.8m)		3.1yd(2.8m)
Fast infantry running 		5.9yd(5.4m)		3.5yd(3.2m)

Cavalry walking			2.3yd(2.1m)		2.6yd(2.3m)
Cavalry running			8.4yd(7.9m)		5.9yd(5.4m)
Cavalry charging		12.8yd(11.7m)		6.7yd(6.1m)
Fast cavalry running		11.4yd(10.4m)		7.2yd(6.6m)

Please excuse the metrics since I'm much more accustomed to using them over Imperial mile/yards.

A tall man of about 6' 1" stature usually takes over a meter in a single stride in a regular march, two strides in a second, which makes of over 2yd/s speed. Provided he is fit and healthy he could do this for hours.

A fit man covers 100m(109yds) in 15 seconds at full speed(7.2yd/s). Standard atheltics testing in high schools show kids in their late teens do 13 seconds(8.4yd/s) average. Olympic records are inside 10 seconds(12.11yd/s).

A race horse carrying a rider is typically timed and quoted at 60km/h(37.2mph). I don't know how other countries measure it, but in horse races of our country, we measure the race track by 'horse strides', defined as an average distance a horse will cover in 1 second, with one 'HR' being 12m(13yd). A typical race horse in race tracks would average in at 43km/h(26.7mph), which is a lot slower than the theoretical 'full speed' - which, almost exactly corresponds with the full speed of cavalry charge in RTW.

Ofcourse, the above figures are for people in track and field athletics, over very short distances, no armament/equipment whatsoever. The 60km/h quoted for a horse, is assuming a well-breeded, top-class race horse, tall and fit, and carrying a short and light person.

Thus, assume the horse is not a thoroughbred, the man is not so tall, carrying armour and shield, and the speed will become correspondingly lower as can be measured in RTW.

Now, take a look at the STW/MTW values on the right.

An infantry "charge" is merely 3.1yd/s(2.8m/s), which is a distance a normal person can cover in three strides, 1.5 seconds. Are we really supposed to believe that a soldier carrying equipment, running at his full speed, travels only 3 yards in one and a half second? I could carry a 80kg duffel bag behind my back and run faster than that - granted, I'm not going to be running for over 30 seconds with that load. A trained Roman soldier carries about 90 pounds of equipment including rations, tent material, and tools in a march. A typical 'combat load' is only about half of that load. It is highly likely he won't be able to run at the top of his lungs for long, but to think his 'charge' is worth only 3.1yd/s is folly.


The problem, if there is one, is one I have already mentioned in previous posts:

There should have been made a difference between 'breath' and 'overall endurance'. As it is, infantry could move at full speed over huge distances as long as they are not fatigued. However, fatigue itself acts differently in a real battle. It was possible for the soldiers to charge full speed upto some 400m upon account, but they would be out of breath when done so. The momentary burden of fatigue, as opposed to overall fatigue, should have been modelled in the game, so the overall fatigue level slowly rises over time, but momentary fatigue quickly fills up and just as much quickly relieved.

I fully agree to implementing this sort of system in the game, which momentary stamina and overall stamina is differentiated. However, essentially this has nothing to do with speeds, and the speeds shown in RTW are well more realistic than what STW/MTW suggests, and that's a fact. Neutering the movement speeds to address this problem only warps the game twice, with two wrongs not making a right.

[CBR]

Thanks for the posting the links CBR.
Let's take a more closer look at the set of data.

I dont think you understand the problem. Read my posts in the first link I provided. It is not so much what an individual soldier or horse can do but what a unit can do while still preserving formation as well as conserving strength. We have lots of info on how units would attack and as I concluded in one of the posts MTW speeds are actually much closer to realistic speeds than RTW.

If anyone ever did a full run it was the last few meters only and that is really the same as with cavalry units. A cavalry charge would use a trot for most of the distance. If they started making a full charge at too far away from the enemy the formation would be completely scattered and it would be a severe disadvantage if facing an ordered enemy. And any control with the unit would be lost too.

RTW has a charge speed that can only be achieved for the last few meters before hitting an enemy while in MTW you could actually do it whenever you wanted. So its perfectly fine if charge speed in RTW is higher than in MTW. But infantry "running" for a longer distances can really only be the double quick march and that would be around 150-180 meters/minute.

And yes the lack of proper fatigue when doing fast maneuvers means its basically a no-brainer to use it even when enemy is 200+ meters away. In MTW we had a problem with too high marching fatigue and now its the other way around as you dont have to worry too much about fatigue.


CBR

[Ptah]

I dont think you understand the problem. Read my posts in the first link I provided. It is not so much what an individual soldier or horse can do but what a unit can do while still preserving formation as well as conserving strength. We have lots of info on how units would attack and as I concluded in one of the posts MTW speeds are actually much closer to realistic speeds than RTW.

CBR, most of the soldiers portrayed in the game are trained soldiers. They are part of the citizenry with high morale and regular training. From the ancient times and upto modern military, the first thing soldiers learn in boot camp is to move and respond as a unit. Rectangular tactical formations on the battle field has been discarded since 1875, and still the modern military boot camp drills and trains soldiers to carry out such maneuvers. I should know so - our military relies on regular conscripts, I've also seen service for two years in my early 20's. The army drilled us to carry 30kg worth of equipment and jog around for miles for hours. Granted, I wasn't running at the top of the lungs. But it was still a lot faster than the so-called 'realistic' values as suggested by some.

Ofcourse, even trained soldiers don't just start a maneuver at whim. That's why RTW units have the so called 'command lags'. Some people condemn them as a game-flaw, others are just plain frustrated with it. But more or less it correctly portrays the process of the unit leader shouting orders, preparing the troops for an all-out maneuver, and then 'going for it'.

If anyone ever did a full run it was the last few meters only and that is really the same as with cavalry units. A cavalry charge would use a trot for most of the distance. If they started making a full charge at too far away from the enemy the formation would be completely scattered and it would be a severe disadvantage if facing an ordered enemy. And any control with the unit would be lost too.

I don't necessarily object to that analogy.

However, again as I mentioned, that is a problem to be solved with a separate modelling factor on how units respond to a command. The differentiation between momentary fatigue and overall fatigue should have been in the game, but it is not. However, overall neutering of the movement speeds in no way solves any of the problem perceived. It just warps the 'reality' twice, in a very awkward manner.

Also, troops refraining from a full out charge from the start, was out of necessity. The fact that ancient soldiers didn't like to do that, doesn't mean they can't do that.

RTW has a charge speed that can only be achieved for the last few meters before hitting an enemy while in MTW you could actually do it whenever you wanted. So its perfectly fine if charge speed in RTW is higher than in MTW. But infantry "running" for a longer distances can really only be the double quick march and that would be around 150-180 meters/minute.

While the lack of fatigue does allow too much leniency in maneuvering upon occasion, there is no reason to believe that full speed maneuvering should be allowed for 'last few meters'.

Take note that stamina training was a regular part of the ancient military. The Greeks even adopted special training which purpose is to heighten the physical stamina of the individual soldier up to a level that they may maintain a speedy running status over hundreds of meters.

Some battles would indeed start out with a slow march and approach. Others involve the attacking soldier covering some 400 meters in a full charge, along with full equipment and armour. In describing the battle of Pharsalus, Julius Caesar compliments the prudence of his soldiers and comments, "At this point the individual experiences of the soldiers came alive. Running hundreds of yards in a charge to meet Pompeius' army, they realized that the enemy was not moving. So they halted to grab a breath, and when the lines were reformed, they started the charge again."

And yes the lack of proper fatigue when doing fast maneuvers means its basically a no-brainer to use it even when enemy is 200+ meters away. In MTW we had a problem with too high marching fatigue and now its the other way around as you dont have to worry too much about fatigue.

It isn't any more 'no brainer' than to decide to cut back the speed to seriously pathetic levels in the name of 'realism'. 'Selective realism' is more like it.

Again, the analogy I agree with, is that the fatigue levels should have been differentiated.

It should have been modelled so that the soldiers could cover about 200~300meters in a full charge status, but would go from "Fresh" to "Exhausted" almost instantly, when they do that. However, as quickly as they tire out, this would be 'momentary fatigue'. A minute of rest would be enough for them to 'recharge' back to "Fresh" - the soldiers are catching a breath.

The overall fatigue levels would rise in a slow rate, and the higher the "overall fatigue" grows, the threshold of "momentary fatigue" would move with it - soldiers would tire from "Fresh" to "Exhausted" more quickly, and recharge more slower.. and etc etc.

The lack of this specific fatigue modelling, however, cannot be artificially 'compensated' by any other alteration. Killing the movement speed may seem like a reasonable solution to this, but in reality it kills the overall dynamics of the battle completely and turns battles into a state of 'pseudo-realism' which sprung out of someone's imagination. Basically, the suggested 'solution' is itself pretty much nonesense.

Basically the whole deal is like this:

1) A unit of soldiers can do "100" for a limited time. Other times, they would do only about "50".
2) In the game, the duration which the soldiers can do "100" seems a bit too long.
3) So, the 'solution' people come up with, is to use an "average point" and neuter the maximum performance of the soldiers to "75" !!

How in the world can this make any kind of sense, or even be considered 'realistic'?