Request for new "set-unit-ranks feature" in the next patch

[th3freakie]

Another cool thing would be something that allowed you to merge 2 units with combined number of men equal or less then the size of one unit of their type.

[EGO]

Hmmmm..seems to me that is is more "realistic" for it to be a little difficult to get the men properly lined up. That's a lot of people you're trying to get all in a row in a timely manner.

[Proletariat]

Doesn't the fact that it's been concluded that there are no rank bonuses in R:TW make this somewhat moot? Is it aesthetics that you're after or am I missing something obvious?

[Oaty]

Doesn't the fact that it's been concluded that there are no rank bonuses in R:TW make this somewhat moot? Is it aesthetics that you're after or am I missing something obvious?

Well line up your infantry 2 deep against a cavalry superior army and then tell me there are no rank bonuses

Actually rank bonuses may not be needed with this engine. Possibly rank penalties for missile units. Depth bonuses obviously do not occur a numerical or stat bonus. But when you are maintining a line the depth bonus is apparant.

[Kraxis]

Indeed... Losses and smallscale breakdown of formation (such as enemy troops among pikemen) are serious problems for understrength units, not because the unit can't really deal with it, but because it has to cover the same width as full units. I usually concentrate my best troops or heavy cavalry against a particular section of the line, prefrably against such understrength units in drawnout fashion. The results are swift.

[Proletariat]

Well line up your infantry 2 deep against a cavalry superior army and then tell me there are no rank bonuses

Right. Then I'll line up two ranks of peasants vs a block of elephants to verify this.

I know that was a 'throw away' comment, but really... I'm not sure how relevant it is to the original poster's query.

Seriously, try two equal phalanx units against each other. Have one in the default ranks and depth, and have the other spread out into two ranks. They will never flank the latter, and will be destroyed.

[Herakleitos]

Right. Then I'll line up two ranks of peasants vs a block of elephants to verify this.

And how were you planning to accomplish this?!

[Ar7]

To Proletariat

It is indeed true that when you put two equal strenght phalanx units againts each other and stretch one out, it will win, because it will wrap around the other phalanx and flank it. But the people here were talking about a cavalry charge, which changes the situation. If you put a stretched two line phalanx up against a cavalry charge, it will do worse than a compact phalanx. Because the cavalry will brake through it's lines and will have the center spearmen surrounded and fighting with swords, while the men on the flanks of the phalanx will not even see the fight as they are so far away. This will lead to cavalry picking phalanx men one by one and not even facing spears after the initial clash.

Thus it obvious that the number of lines and the depth of the formation both matter when facing different enemies, the unit stats won't change, but it will fight with different effeciancy based on its formation and the enemy.

[GeWee]

Well I don't know about rank bonuses but enemy cavalry rides right through my understrength legionary units like they weren't even there if they don't have enough ranks.

[derF]

Considering depth is very important in RTW. The controls and the interface however have been kept pretty much the same as Medieval TW. I found this annoyingly disappointing because although the game tactics had advanced, the way in which you carry them out is the same.

In other words, when you were an ickle baby you used to eat this jarred liquid stuff with a spoon, well now youre grown up but youre trying to eat steak with the same spoon.

Secondly. Depth is important for 2 big reasons (in real life). Firstly, it determines the amount of "stress" a unit can take before it breaks and falls. Secondly, it determines the amount of support the front line will recieve if things get hairy (handy for stopping routing).

[Proletariat]

Secondly. Depth is important for 2 big reasons (in real life). Firstly, it determines the amount of "stress" a unit can take before it breaks and falls. Secondly, it determines the amount of support the front line will recieve if things get hairy (handy for stopping routing).

Obviously. I would love, absolutely love to see someone argue depth mattered nonewhatsoever in real life. But, we're talking R:TW where every test I have ever conducted shows that these bonuses are not calculated.

[GeWee]

Edit: Nevermind me, I should have done a more thorough test before saying that there's an "optimum rank size". Now that I have done such a test it seems rank size doesn't really matter except for preventing cavalry to break through your formation.

[Red Harvest]

Considering depth is very important in RTW. The controls and the interface however have been kept pretty much the same as Medieval TW. I found this annoyingly disappointing because although the game tactics had advanced, the way in which you carry them out is the same.

Not from what I've seen, quite the opposite. MTW seemed to be more dependent on proper rank depth than RTW is. There are some minimum depths in RTW that seem optimal, but they make for rather thin lines, not the default squarer formations. The jumping cav thing does pose some depth issues. However, phalangites can suffer from rap around by melee in default formations. Rather than use defaults, I string pikemen out 4 or 5 ranks deep for optimum performance and durability. Missile units in RTW have NO depth penalty and every man will fire even when 16 ranks deep. That is very weak compared to MTW/STW. (Non-LOS accuracy penalties seem non-existent.) Depth does grant your unit the ability to take more losses before becoming fragile.

The contols *were* changed from MTW, that's the problem. MTW's control interface was better.