Org Mobile Site
hey guys :) i hope this is the right place for this kind of question, if not then i deeply apologize.
i was very disappointed with RTW initially for not giving the roman legionairies the abilities to form phalanxes or shield walls, two abilities that were historically very characteristic for the roman legions.
so naturally i was very glad when i saw that the shield wall formation actually does exist in the RTW expansion pack.
so my question then is, how can i make that formation specialty available to the roman legion units in the original game? either as a specialty to all legionairy units (hastati, principes, triarii, etc) or to simply replace the testudo formation as a specialty for those legion units who can form one.
as easy as possible would be nice, since i have no modding experience or knowledge...
thanks in advance!
ulv
i was very disappointed with RTW initially for not giving the roman legionairies the abilities to form phalanxes or shield walls, two abilities that were historically very characteristic for the roman legions.
so naturally i was very glad when i saw that the shield wall formation actually does exist in the RTW expansion pack.
so my question then is, how can i make that formation specialty available to the roman legion units in the original game? either as a specialty to all legionairy units (hastati, principes, triarii, etc) or to simply replace the testudo formation as a specialty for those legion units who can form one.
as easy as possible would be nice, since i have no modding experience or knowledge...
thanks in advance!
ulv
You'll basically need to play the basic RTW through the BI .exe. At the moment I don't really recall the full procedure, but it involves using the "-mod:" switch.
That said, the exact only Roman unit I can picture the shieldwall - nevermind phalanx - to be at all appropriate for are the Triarii and maybe Auxilia; the sword-and-pilum guys fought in relatively loose order, as swordsmen generally tend to, although their short swords allowed a tighter grouping than longer blades (three Romans per about two barbarians with long blades is a description I've seen). However, the Romans themselves quite well recognized their relatively loose formation meant that for example when facing the Hellenic pike phalanx there was almost two pikes facing one Roman, and that's not counting the successive ranks...
True shieldwall would not have featured in Roman tactics past the point when they abandoned the old Greek-style hoplite method (except maybe with the Triarii, who after all retained a very hoplite-style armament), and the phalanx never. They favoured more flexible infantry tactics.
However, I feel swapping the phalanx of the German spearmen to shieldwall would be entirely appropriate as that's what it most likely actually was.
That said, the exact only Roman unit I can picture the shieldwall - nevermind phalanx - to be at all appropriate for are the Triarii and maybe Auxilia; the sword-and-pilum guys fought in relatively loose order, as swordsmen generally tend to, although their short swords allowed a tighter grouping than longer blades (three Romans per about two barbarians with long blades is a description I've seen). However, the Romans themselves quite well recognized their relatively loose formation meant that for example when facing the Hellenic pike phalanx there was almost two pikes facing one Roman, and that's not counting the successive ranks...
True shieldwall would not have featured in Roman tactics past the point when they abandoned the old Greek-style hoplite method (except maybe with the Triarii, who after all retained a very hoplite-style armament), and the phalanx never. They favoured more flexible infantry tactics.
However, I feel swapping the phalanx of the German spearmen to shieldwall would be entirely appropriate as that's what it most likely actually was.
Okay, here goes the basic outline. I'm not entirely sure if it's entirely correct and it's linda late so I'm not inclined to check, so others should feel free to correct any bits I typed out of my ass instead of my memory.
Make a new folder in the RTW root folder, let's call it "rtwbi". Copy the entire "data" folder therein - you don't actually need all of it, but better safe than sorry (and I for one don't actually know exactly which parts can be left out).
Then go to your desktop and make a copy of the BI whatchamacallit, quick icon (my Windows runs in Finnish, so I may get these details wrong occasionally). Rename it if you want to, that's not really important. Right-click it and choose Properties. That should open you a small window with an overleaf called "quick icon", or whatever that term now was. There's a field there that contains the .exe's program path in quotes - in my case, it looks like "C:\Games\Total War\Rome - Total War\RomeTW-BI.exe". After the last quote, make leave one empty space and type -mod:rtwbi (or whatever you'd prefer to name the the new folder you made in the RTW root; so long as the name's same as the one written after the -mod: part, it's not important). I'd recommend adding -show_err too (again with an empty space before it) while you're at it - that way if you modify something and it glitches, the game will most of the time tell you where the problem is located. This handy little switch has saved me incalculable amounts of time and frustration over silly typos, I'll tell you that much. But I digress.
That should about be it. Now, unless I've been talking out of my rear end, when you run the came from this new desktop quick icon, it should be running the old RTW campaign on the BI engine and allow such neat stuff as shield walls and whatever. You'll of course have to make the appropriate modifications to the EDU and all that jazz, but you probably knew that already.
Custom battles may not work though.
Make a new folder in the RTW root folder, let's call it "rtwbi". Copy the entire "data" folder therein - you don't actually need all of it, but better safe than sorry (and I for one don't actually know exactly which parts can be left out).
Then go to your desktop and make a copy of the BI whatchamacallit, quick icon (my Windows runs in Finnish, so I may get these details wrong occasionally). Rename it if you want to, that's not really important. Right-click it and choose Properties. That should open you a small window with an overleaf called "quick icon", or whatever that term now was. There's a field there that contains the .exe's program path in quotes - in my case, it looks like "C:\Games\Total War\Rome - Total War\RomeTW-BI.exe". After the last quote, make leave one empty space and type -mod:rtwbi (or whatever you'd prefer to name the the new folder you made in the RTW root; so long as the name's same as the one written after the -mod: part, it's not important). I'd recommend adding -show_err too (again with an empty space before it) while you're at it - that way if you modify something and it glitches, the game will most of the time tell you where the problem is located. This handy little switch has saved me incalculable amounts of time and frustration over silly typos, I'll tell you that much. But I digress.
That should about be it. Now, unless I've been talking out of my rear end, when you run the came from this new desktop quick icon, it should be running the old RTW campaign on the BI engine and allow such neat stuff as shield walls and whatever. You'll of course have to make the appropriate modifications to the EDU and all that jazz, but you probably knew that already.
Custom battles may not work though.
thanks a lot watchman, i'll try this out when i get in front of my game computer tonight :)
only one thing though:
as for how realistic or historically correct the shield wall would be for roman units, i would disagree with you on that point. i have read several sources who attribute the shield wall to the marian legions, and the phalanx formation to the early republican soldiers. since i am at uni atm its hard to look up the specific sources and find the exact claims made there, but here's what i could dig up from wikipedia and others:
he first Roman soldiers were equipped and fought as Greek Hoplites and in the close order of a Phalanx. (...) The remainder of the army were equipped as Velites, light infantry skirmishers. - Wikipedia
granted, this refers to the roman armies before the system and period that is portrayed in the game. this system with phalanxes was abandoned in favour of the three-level system of infantry that RTW uses.
the Wikipedia article on the shield wall, being depressively brief, states that "This tactic was used by many ancient armies including the Roman legion"
It also says that the standard formation of the century in battle was the square formation, a formation that is very closely linked to the developement of the schiltron formation that was revived in 14th C scotland. this formation also bears strong resemblance to the shield wall formation pictured on the Bayeux Tapestry...
having gone as far as googling it, i find a few mentions of the same things i've read before. Albion swords, who do reenactement swords and put great store on historical accuracy, states:
"Rather than fighting as individual warriors (like their competition, the Continental Celts) the Roman legions eventually developed a new way of fighting -- massing together with overlapping shields, using their short stabbing'cutting swords to strike from behind this shield wall. As these battle tactics for the Legions changed, a shorter, broader stabbing/cutting sword had to be developed to use in combination with these newer types of shield and new styles of fighting."
to explain the design of one of their Mainz-pattern gladius.
while militaryhistoryonline.com states that:
"Ambroius’s victories most likely occurred because of the Roman training of his troops; they would form a solid wall of shields, each shield locked to the next one by special grips. Each soldier carried a short spear, which was thrown just before the two sides met in combat, and a short thrusting sword. It was the discipline of these troops which overcame the Saxons; if one man fell, another took his place in the line of battle, thus maintaining the shield wall."
again contributing the shield wall tactic to the roman legion.
So while i will agree that the phalanx formation is highly unrealistic for roman units in the game, i would argue that the shield wall is relevant for the post-marian unit types in the game, if not the pre-marian units.
only one thing though:
Originally Posted by Watchman:
You'll of course have to make the appropriate modifications to the EDU and all that jazz, but you probably knew that already.
i'd be very happy if you could assume i am ignorant (since it wont be wrong) and give me the dummy-version as well? what do i have to do, if i manage to run the original RTW campaign in the BI engine, to make the shield wall specialty available to roman faction units?You'll of course have to make the appropriate modifications to the EDU and all that jazz, but you probably knew that already.
as for how realistic or historically correct the shield wall would be for roman units, i would disagree with you on that point. i have read several sources who attribute the shield wall to the marian legions, and the phalanx formation to the early republican soldiers. since i am at uni atm its hard to look up the specific sources and find the exact claims made there, but here's what i could dig up from wikipedia and others:
he first Roman soldiers were equipped and fought as Greek Hoplites and in the close order of a Phalanx. (...) The remainder of the army were equipped as Velites, light infantry skirmishers. - Wikipedia
granted, this refers to the roman armies before the system and period that is portrayed in the game. this system with phalanxes was abandoned in favour of the three-level system of infantry that RTW uses.
the Wikipedia article on the shield wall, being depressively brief, states that "This tactic was used by many ancient armies including the Roman legion"
It also says that the standard formation of the century in battle was the square formation, a formation that is very closely linked to the developement of the schiltron formation that was revived in 14th C scotland. this formation also bears strong resemblance to the shield wall formation pictured on the Bayeux Tapestry...
having gone as far as googling it, i find a few mentions of the same things i've read before. Albion swords, who do reenactement swords and put great store on historical accuracy, states:
"Rather than fighting as individual warriors (like their competition, the Continental Celts) the Roman legions eventually developed a new way of fighting -- massing together with overlapping shields, using their short stabbing'cutting swords to strike from behind this shield wall. As these battle tactics for the Legions changed, a shorter, broader stabbing/cutting sword had to be developed to use in combination with these newer types of shield and new styles of fighting."
to explain the design of one of their Mainz-pattern gladius.
while militaryhistoryonline.com states that:
"Ambroius’s victories most likely occurred because of the Roman training of his troops; they would form a solid wall of shields, each shield locked to the next one by special grips. Each soldier carried a short spear, which was thrown just before the two sides met in combat, and a short thrusting sword. It was the discipline of these troops which overcame the Saxons; if one man fell, another took his place in the line of battle, thus maintaining the shield wall."
again contributing the shield wall tactic to the roman legion.
So while i will agree that the phalanx formation is highly unrealistic for roman units in the game, i would argue that the shield wall is relevant for the post-marian unit types in the game, if not the pre-marian units.
A shieldwall-type formation may have become common during the Late Antiquity era - it was certainly used by Rome's "barbarian" neighbors anyway - but that's already BI territory. The one before the manipular and legionary systems of the vanilla RTW timeframe would simply have been the trusty old Greek-style hoplite shieldwall.
No, the normal fighting formation for the Legions was a relatively loose one. Due to the shortness of their swords and the emphasis on thrust (which requires comparatively little "elbow room" they could fight in closer order than swordsmen using longer blades, and certianly such short stabbing weapons served well in the crush of shield-to-shield combat, but AFAIK formations describabale as "shieldwalls" in the game terms were only ever employed in rare special circumstances such as when it was expected the soldiers would have to receive massed heavy cavalry charges, and were not the normal part and parcel of the Roman regular troops.
Polybius has some interesting observations on the Roman infantry combat order.
Personally I've always regarded close-order shieldwalls as really a spearman thing - those weapons work quite well even in such close press. Doesn't keep BI from giving the ability to several sword-swinging barbarian infantry units though. Anyway, the Testudo is much more characteristic (if not terribly useful) special formation for the post-Marian Legionaires, and those guys don't really need the shieldwall anyway. They're formidable enough as is.
But that's really a matter of taste. How you mod your game is really none of my business, I just think the shieldwall would be inappropriate for most Roman units (not counting the Triarii and Auxilia). It'd fit well the likes of Eastern Infantry and probably many Carthaginians too, IMHO.
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, square, testudo
Replace "testudo" with "shield_wall" (you can look the syntax up in the BI EDU if need be), and that's it.
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, square, shield_wall
Ditto if you for example want to replace the phalanx of the German Spear Warband with shieldwall - just replace "phalanx" with "shield_wall" in the formation line, although in this case you should also zero all the secondary weapon statistics; the game engine apparently has some issues with some alternate-weapon schemes.
Just remember that an unit can have max two different formations, and things can get messy if one isn't "square" or "horde".
No, the normal fighting formation for the Legions was a relatively loose one. Due to the shortness of their swords and the emphasis on thrust (which requires comparatively little "elbow room" they could fight in closer order than swordsmen using longer blades, and certianly such short stabbing weapons served well in the crush of shield-to-shield combat, but AFAIK formations describabale as "shieldwalls" in the game terms were only ever employed in rare special circumstances such as when it was expected the soldiers would have to receive massed heavy cavalry charges, and were not the normal part and parcel of the Roman regular troops.
Polybius has some interesting observations on the Roman infantry combat order.
Personally I've always regarded close-order shieldwalls as really a spearman thing - those weapons work quite well even in such close press. Doesn't keep BI from giving the ability to several sword-swinging barbarian infantry units though. Anyway, the Testudo is much more characteristic (if not terribly useful) special formation for the post-Marian Legionaires, and those guys don't really need the shieldwall anyway. They're formidable enough as is.
But that's really a matter of taste. How you mod your game is really none of my business, I just think the shieldwall would be inappropriate for most Roman units (not counting the Triarii and Auxilia). It'd fit well the likes of Eastern Infantry and probably many Carthaginians too, IMHO.
Originally Posted by :
i'd be very happy if you could assume i am ignorant (since it wont be wrong) and give me the dummy-version as well? what do i have to do, if i manage to run the original RTW campaign in the BI engine, to make the shield wall specialty available to roman faction units?
You edit the formation line of the appropriate units in export_descr_units.txt (in the main Data folder). Let's say you want to replace the Testudo ability of the Early Cohorts with the shieldwall. What you need to do is to find the unit entry and its formation line which on default should look likei'd be very happy if you could assume i am ignorant (since it wont be wrong) and give me the dummy-version as well? what do i have to do, if i manage to run the original RTW campaign in the BI engine, to make the shield wall specialty available to roman faction units?
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, square, testudo
Replace "testudo" with "shield_wall" (you can look the syntax up in the BI EDU if need be), and that's it.
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, square, shield_wall
Ditto if you for example want to replace the phalanx of the German Spear Warband with shieldwall - just replace "phalanx" with "shield_wall" in the formation line, although in this case you should also zero all the secondary weapon statistics; the game engine apparently has some issues with some alternate-weapon schemes.
Just remember that an unit can have max two different formations, and things can get messy if one isn't "square" or "horde".
Great advice Watchman, finally some more formations to play with. Another even better consequence of this is that night battles now work in my campaign... nice.
I first linked the BI.exe to the copied data folder as you specified, but this caused a CTD after faction selection in my campaign. I then linked the exe to the original data folder directly '-mod:data' which seems to work fine for me.
Is there any way to get the custom battles working?
My thanks.
I first linked the BI.exe to the copied data folder as you specified, but this caused a CTD after faction selection in my campaign. I then linked the exe to the original data folder directly '-mod:data' which seems to work fine for me.
Is there any way to get the custom battles working?
My thanks.
Thanks a lot Watchman, you've been great help to me! i will try this out in 5 min or so and will probably be back to ask what i've done wrong if nything goes wrong ;)
as for the realism discussion, i dont mind your input at all, in fact i greatly value it :) while it is true that i could mod this game any way i want and all be damned (which i will ;) ) i value any input and disagreement regarding the historical plausibility of that i'm doing. especially since this is an era i am not very familiar with, having focused my studies more on the early and high medieval europe. ofcourse, i love to learn and any disagreement that is well argued and supported, such as yours, help me to learn more :) that can only be appreciated! thanks for the link, i will look into that once i get this game on the run...
as for the shield wall being predominantly the area of spears, i once again find myself disagreing with you. the shield wall has been utilized by many different armies, and while the spear has been common among many of these, it is far from all.
perhaps most famous is the anglo-saxon shield wall at the battle of hastings, where the anglo-saxon huscarls formed an impenetrable shield wall on the top of a hill and withstood several norman cavalry charges and coninuous missile fire. it wasnt untill the norman cavalry got the saxons to break formation and charge down the hill after a faked retreat that the normans could win the day.
the huscarls being armed mainly with axes and swords.
that being said, i've seen reenactors play with the shield wall against other formations, and i would say that it is most formidable when people in roman gear do it. making a wall of the shields of the front rank, the second and third rank can use their pilum as spears while the first rank stab through the gaps in the shields with the short gladii whenever they may. so yes, spears improve the formation but it is hardly a necessity and there is no historical evidence to limit the use of shield walls to spear armed infantry.
as for the realism discussion, i dont mind your input at all, in fact i greatly value it :) while it is true that i could mod this game any way i want and all be damned (which i will ;) ) i value any input and disagreement regarding the historical plausibility of that i'm doing. especially since this is an era i am not very familiar with, having focused my studies more on the early and high medieval europe. ofcourse, i love to learn and any disagreement that is well argued and supported, such as yours, help me to learn more :) that can only be appreciated! thanks for the link, i will look into that once i get this game on the run...
as for the shield wall being predominantly the area of spears, i once again find myself disagreing with you. the shield wall has been utilized by many different armies, and while the spear has been common among many of these, it is far from all.
perhaps most famous is the anglo-saxon shield wall at the battle of hastings, where the anglo-saxon huscarls formed an impenetrable shield wall on the top of a hill and withstood several norman cavalry charges and coninuous missile fire. it wasnt untill the norman cavalry got the saxons to break formation and charge down the hill after a faked retreat that the normans could win the day.
the huscarls being armed mainly with axes and swords.
that being said, i've seen reenactors play with the shield wall against other formations, and i would say that it is most formidable when people in roman gear do it. making a wall of the shields of the front rank, the second and third rank can use their pilum as spears while the first rank stab through the gaps in the shields with the short gladii whenever they may. so yes, spears improve the formation but it is hardly a necessity and there is no historical evidence to limit the use of shield walls to spear armed infantry.
Originally Posted by Rstoner:
I then linked the exe to the original data folder directly '-mod:data' which seems to work fine for me.
You know, I never though of this one. But now that you mention it, it makes quite a bit of sense.I then linked the exe to the original data folder directly '-mod:data' which seems to work fine for me.
Originally Posted by :
Is there any way to get the custom battles working?
Not that I know of, sadly. Even the hardcore modder teams seem to be stumped by the problem. It's not however too big a problem in some respects though, as you can "link" the standard RTW.exe to the modified folder the same way - you won't be able to test if for example your shieldwall or schiltrom edit works like it should with it, but those are about the exact only BI features that count in custom battles anyway.Is there any way to get the custom battles working?
Checking if the BI formations (and suchlike) work like they should can of course be easily achieved by simply modding them to some suitable low-end unit, firing up a new campaign, and finding something to fight. If the edit works for example for Hastatis, odds are an identical one will work right fine for Urban Cohorts and Chosen Swordsmen too.
Thanks for the help Watchman.
Been looking for this info for a while,
Cheers Dudes,
Cheers Dudes,
I think there is some confusion here concerning the term phalanx. There were two completely different phalanx formations historically:
One was the style of the greek hoplite. The city-states against eachother and against persia fought in a phalanx where large hoplon shields were held close together or even locked together to multiply their resistance pressure. Brave, young and singularly athletic men were placed in the front lines and the flanks of the army line. Seasoned older men were put in the rear to literally push the others forward. At the front of the line, phalankes closed on one another to extremely close proximity (eye poking distance) and then the first three lines raised their short spears of about 2 metres in length overhand and the first line rammed their shields into those of the opposing side while simultaneously stabbing down with their spears. As they primary men died the secondaries moved in and did the same. Behind the third line the men held their spears down- underhand and positioned between the feet of the man to their front, ready to raise to attack as the next line fell, the reason being that there was no reason to tire those men by having them hold their spears in an awkward position during the long stalemate which occured when two phalankes actually met (70% of the time one line broke out of intimidation before coming into contact with the other side- especially true when that side was the Lacedaemonians). This was the time of phalanx used by roman hoplites before the 5th century bc, prior to the introduction of the manipular system.
The other is the phalanx of rtw- aka the Macedonian Phalanx and the one as you know it. Men stand with ridulously long spears called sarissa or larissa (pronounciation varies) and hit the enemy at range. Often the spears reached incredible lengths like 7 metres. Gradually they ceased to use shields in favor of more dense formations or spear points as defense. The formation was intended far more for offense than its ancestor of the same name. The first several rows of men held one spear for reinforcement and to triple the impact of every blow and reinforce against cavalry (since when holding such a long, heavy and unwieldly spear alone it is difficult to point it at anything or keep it steady). The fourth row back held their spears up in defense against jumping horses and body pile-up assaults (yes one of the favorite tactics of the romans versus the Macedonians was send in hastati to soften the phalanx hen die, in order to create a mound of dead bodies which cavalry could then charge up and leap off of into the dense crowd of men below) as you know, and also to defend against arrows. This time of phalanx was NEVER employed by the romans at any time.
One was the style of the greek hoplite. The city-states against eachother and against persia fought in a phalanx where large hoplon shields were held close together or even locked together to multiply their resistance pressure. Brave, young and singularly athletic men were placed in the front lines and the flanks of the army line. Seasoned older men were put in the rear to literally push the others forward. At the front of the line, phalankes closed on one another to extremely close proximity (eye poking distance) and then the first three lines raised their short spears of about 2 metres in length overhand and the first line rammed their shields into those of the opposing side while simultaneously stabbing down with their spears. As they primary men died the secondaries moved in and did the same. Behind the third line the men held their spears down- underhand and positioned between the feet of the man to their front, ready to raise to attack as the next line fell, the reason being that there was no reason to tire those men by having them hold their spears in an awkward position during the long stalemate which occured when two phalankes actually met (70% of the time one line broke out of intimidation before coming into contact with the other side- especially true when that side was the Lacedaemonians). This was the time of phalanx used by roman hoplites before the 5th century bc, prior to the introduction of the manipular system.
The other is the phalanx of rtw- aka the Macedonian Phalanx and the one as you know it. Men stand with ridulously long spears called sarissa or larissa (pronounciation varies) and hit the enemy at range. Often the spears reached incredible lengths like 7 metres. Gradually they ceased to use shields in favor of more dense formations or spear points as defense. The formation was intended far more for offense than its ancestor of the same name. The first several rows of men held one spear for reinforcement and to triple the impact of every blow and reinforce against cavalry (since when holding such a long, heavy and unwieldly spear alone it is difficult to point it at anything or keep it steady). The fourth row back held their spears up in defense against jumping horses and body pile-up assaults (yes one of the favorite tactics of the romans versus the Macedonians was send in hastati to soften the phalanx hen die, in order to create a mound of dead bodies which cavalry could then charge up and leap off of into the dense crowd of men below) as you know, and also to defend against arrows. This time of phalanx was NEVER employed by the romans at any time.
The latter would properly be termed "pike phalanx", IMO. I tend to call the first one "hoplite shieldwall" to make a clear division from the Hellenic pike block, plus that's what it pretty much is (I'm personally convinced the German "phalanx" Caesar talks about is actually just spearmen massed into a shieldwall, too - that he describes it as one IMO also suggests Romans didn't themselves use similar formations too much). In one form or another really popular the world over, particularly amongst "unarticulated" (ie. incapable of true offensive maneuvering) spearmen and militias. And why not, it's a tough nut to crack and turns even pretty crappy troops into an annoyingly resilient battlefield obstacle. Just ask the Normans, whose knights didn't seem to be able to do too many dents into the shieldwall of the Anglo-Saxon fyrd levy at Hastings (the Saxon elites, the Huscarles, actually fought in looser order - the guys with two-handed axes obviously needed some working space).
Note also that Diadochi practical experimentation (also asserted in the Middle Ages and Sengoku Jidai Japan) found out that the maximum practical lenght for a pike is about five and half meters - you go longer than that, and the shaft starts sagging unacceptably much under its own weight. Plus it becomes a real pain for the soldiers.
However, this discussion is really more of a Monastery thing.
Note also that Diadochi practical experimentation (also asserted in the Middle Ages and Sengoku Jidai Japan) found out that the maximum practical lenght for a pike is about five and half meters - you go longer than that, and the shaft starts sagging unacceptably much under its own weight. Plus it becomes a real pain for the soldiers.
However, this discussion is really more of a Monastery thing.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO