Lethargic fights ?

[Akka]

Well, as I see nothing about it on the forum, I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only one who is deathly bothered by this, or if it's something that goes better with the newer units/upgrades.

But right now, I'm really scratching my head : is this just me or are the battle horribly lacking punch ?

What I mean with that, is that for now, I've the ugly feeling of watching a slow-motion fake battle each time I'm in a fight.
The movement speed is alright - perhaps even barely too fast, but really no problem -. But the charge and battle, oh my... The lack of ENERGY !

In RTW, when infantry charged, it was a rush, shouts, clash, people falling and being projected (well, in fact, the "flying people" was quite ridiculous) and pushed aside, some falling under the impact. You could tell and see the intensity and fury of the fight.

Here, in MTW2... It's a bit like in a soft dream...
I tell my troops to charge... They slowly gain momentum... They "charge" the enemy, but even the movement seems to be in slow motion (the moves of the units are really like it's been suspended in the air while slowly faking it's running). When they close with the ennemy, they slow down, rather than accelerate , and they finish by landing softly on the ennemy, taking care not to push him too roughly
Not even a crash sound.
Yeah, the "flying bodies" are removed, as are the "jumping horses", and that's alright, because the former was quite ridiculous, and the latter quite exagerated.
But come on, now they don't even trample the foe, they push them aside slowly and softly. It's like if all the mass has been removed, and two units charging at each other look like some hundred of feathers being cast at one another...

The fights themselves lacks violence, impact, energy, roughness.

So is it just ME, or is this whole lethargy thing also grieving the game experience for some others ?
Because I've some beefs with the game, I've many great things about it, but honestly, this softness and lack of punch is by far the worst thing, and it's really killing the game for me.

[Ciddler]

I was about to say that the armour back then was a lot heavier and that it was hard for them to gain speed in such heavy armour, but I looked up in Wikipedia and the armour, compared to today, is barely nothing!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour

Contrary to common misconceptions, a well-made suit of medieval 'battle' armour (as opposed to the primarily ceremonial 'parade' and 'tournament' armours popular with kings and nobility of later years) hindered its wearer no more than the equipment carried by soldiers today. An armoured Knight (trained since his teens in its wearing) could comfortably run, crawl, climb ladders, as well as mount and dismount his horse without recourse to a crane (a myth probably originating from an English music hall comedy of the 1830's, and popularised in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court). A full suit of medieval plate is thought to have weighed little more than 60 lb (27 kg) on average, considerably lighter than the equipment often carried by the elite of today’s armies (e.g., SAS patrols have been known to carry equipment weighing well over 200 lb (91 kg) for many miles). barding is armour that horses wear.

But you'd also have to think about the fact that back then the average male was smaller than the average male today. Their eating habits were also different and they probably weren't as healthy as we are today and only lived to the age of 40 or so.

Aside of those facts, which I don't know if the developers respected all this info, I like the fact that the battles are a little slower. I don't feel rushed and I can actually enjoy the units clashing upon eachother rather than looking at them charge eachother for 3 seconds then zoom back out to make sure everyone else is doing their job. In M2TW I can watch them slash and dice eachother for a little longer then carry on ordering my men around. Just my view of it though.

[econ21]

But you'd also have to think about the fact that back then the average male was smaller than the average male today. Their eating habits were also different and they probably weren't as healthy as we are today and only lived to the age of 40 or so.

On the other hand, the fighting men may not have been that small. I vaguely recall reading about the skeletons of English longbowmen - six footers with oversized forearms. The report likened them to the professional rugby or football players of their day - big, powerful men. Plus I suspect they might have eaten a fair amount of meat and other food - more than the average peasant at least.

This probably goes for most knights and men-at-arms too.

[Husar]

On the other hand, the fighting men may not have been that small. I vaguely recall reading about the skeletons of English longbowmen - six footers with oversized forearms. The report likened them to the professional rugby or football players of their day - big, powerful men. Plus I suspect they might have eaten a fair amount of meat and other food - more than the average peasant at least.

This probably goes for most knights and men-at-arms too.

Which makes me wonder why all those armours in museums tend to be very small?

[Whacker]

Which makes me wonder why all those armours in museums tend to be very small?

Gruessen Sie Herr Husar

I think we all know what the most obvious answer, based on historical research and evidence for this is, so it's not worth discussing something so blatantly obvious.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Midget combat

[econ21]

Which makes me wonder why all those armours in museums tend to be very small?

A google search threw up this:

Most of the armor that medieval heights was guessed from was, more often than not, 3/4 scale display armor, made that way to save metal. The reason this smaller armor is so pervasive is because real armor generally did not survive to modern times, if only because it was repeatedly passed on from owner to owner, until it got so outdated or beaten up that it was salvaged for its steel. The few surviving suits of armor of the 'full' size (like the suits that the various King Henrys left in their name in england) demonstrate a height in the same range as modern western men.

But it looks like I got it garbled about medieval warriors being big men. I was thinking of the evidence of the skeletons at Towton, but it turns out they were of mixed heights:

The bodies found from the battle also reveal a broad range of sizes, from one chap who was rather short at around 5'2" or so, to a tall likely looking fellow of 6' or 6'1", so all sizes were obviously present at the battle, and probably fairly representitive of England of the mid-15th Century.

The point I dimly recalled turns out to be that their skeletons show strong men, like professional sportsmen, but not necessarily big ones:

Swinging swords around for hours on end left its mark on the bones of Medieval soldiers. In fact, their right arms resemble those of baseball pitchers, according to researchers at the University of Bradford in the U.K.
Forceful, repetitive movements make bones bend and thicken in response to the stress. So anthropologists Jill Rhodes and Christopher Knusel reasoned that Medieval swordplay should have produced skeletal distortions. They looked at the excavated skeletons of 10 men who had died of sword wounds between the 10th and 16th centuries. The right arms showed changes in shape and thickness similar to those found in professional baseball pitchers, Knusel says. "Swinging a sword is very, very similar [to pitching]. It's an overhead type of motion," he says. The changes weren't seen in nine uninjured male skeletons in the same York cemetery, they reported in last month's American Journal of Physical Anthropology.

The authors also reported on 13 skeletons buried in a mass grave after the Battle of Towton in 1461. These men showed different changes: Their left arms were bent and thickened. Knusel says the skeletons may be the bones of archers who held their powerful longbows with their left arms.

Here's more from the Univeristy of Bradford:

The general size and robusticity of the individuals from Towton is unusual when compared with other medieval populations. Many of these individuals are more robust (stockier) than the medieval norm, appearing similar to modern professional athletes. The physical appearance of these individuals, then, may be related to extended periods of strenuous exertion prior to physiological maturity (i.e. in youth). Among these are numerous SchmorlÕs nodes in the vertebral column (from pressure exerted on the intervertebral discs in heavy lifting), os acromiale of the scapular spine, a condition that is often accompanied by rotator cuff (muscles that stabilise the shoulder) tears, and an avulsion fracture of the humeral medial epicondyle, a condition that develops from throwing (e.g. in projectile use) in more recent juvenile individuals. One hypothesis to explain this pattern is that these individuals were selected as participants in the battle because of previous experience and training in armed combat from a young age. Some support for this relationship comes from a number of healed injuries, testimony to prior involvement in armed conflict.

And to confirm what was said about height falling in the Middle Ages:

A recent study conducted at Ohio State University, based on skeletal data from 30 previous studies, reveals that men living during the 9th to 11th centuries had an average height of about 5 feet 8 inches. Average height then steadily declined until it reached a low point of 5 feet 5.5 inches in the 17th and 18th centuries, rising again through the 19th century and only reaching prior heights in the first half of the 20th century. An article on the study by Richard Steckel appears in the Social Science History journal.

[Akka]

You misunderstood me.

I'm not complaining about the killing speed (in fact, on the opposite, I found the speed at which my knights die to be borderling ridiculously high).
I'm complaining about the lack of perception of brutality in fights.
About the fact that units barely move when they are charged by a hundred of armored knights, that their movements seem slow-motion and the like.

I don't want to have faster movement, or faster killing speed.
I want more energetic animation, people being brutally pushed back/aside, units charging and crashing in a more violent manner.

Just load a RTW game, and look at the intensity the soldiers fight themselves, how they really seem to battle when they fight and the like.
Now load a MTWII game, and look at how lethargic the animations are, and how static the units are in front of a charge.

Nothing to do with movement speed (ok, except perhaps for the charge, where units nearly seems like they're walking) nor killing speed, just the, well, lethargic feeling of the battle.


And honestly, the size of people fighting has nothing to do with the savagery or energy they'll put in it.

[Ciddler]

I find it is good enough, atleast for infantry when they charge the enemy. In my opinion that is done fairly well. The cavalry however I agree is lacking, but that might be a bug which bothers me in my case. The horses would charge, then stop abruptly, turn around and form again, then charge finally.
There I am expecting a glorious charge, the general raises his arm, they storm towards the enemy AND... stop. It totally ruins the atmosphere.

But the way the dismounted knights raise their swords and shields and slash at the enemy, I like that. Cavalry no, infantry yessss very!

On the other hand, the fighting men may not have been that small. I vaguely recall reading about the skeletons of English longbowmen - six footers with oversized forearms. The report likened them to the professional rugby or football players of their day - big, powerful men. Plus I suspect they might have eaten a fair amount of meat and other food - more than the average peasant at least.

This probably goes for most knights and men-at-arms too.

Yes, but not every army was as well equipped as the English and I am sure they also had their fair share of worse-off armies. But those are the exceptions that confirm the rule.

I think it lies in the eye of the perspective of each player if it is too boring or very exciting. I bet for anyone who starts with M2TW these battles are awesome!

[Akka]

I find it is good enough, atleast for infantry when they charge the enemy. In my opinion that is done fairly well. The cavalry however I agree is lacking, but that might be a bug which bothers me in my case. The horses would charge, then stop abruptly, turn around and form again, then charge finally.
There I am expecting a glorious charge, the general raises his arm, they storm towards the enemy AND... stop. It totally ruins the atmosphere.

Yeah, I noticed that about cavalry too.
But the sad thing is, even when they do charge properly, they still seem to barely disturb the formation of the ennemy, and they don't feel brutal at all.

As for infantry, darn, having dozens of people rushing against one another SHOULD cause a loud crash and serious trampling. While here they just flegmatically trot to the ennemy and carefully stop before pushing them and fight softly.

[Bob the Insane]

Well there is a bit of an issue with units charging each other and the charge slowing and only the first couple of rows of men impacting... And then during the fight, well I know people like there personal space but it spacing out can get a little extreme...

I think it is the result of whatever they did to prevent the blobing (the prevention of which si very cool), I just think they might have done just a bit too much of it...

[Slaists]

But you'd also have to think about the fact that back then the average male was smaller than the average male today. Their eating habits were also different and they probably weren't as healthy as we are today and only lived to the age of 40 or so.

Forgot the source, but I read somewhere that human growth acceleration we see today historiclaly was not a one-way-street. Based on skeleton studies, average European male was supposedly around 6-feet tall at the beginning of the previous millenium (at the time the game starts) . Average human height supposedly went down from that point on reaching it's bottom during the Napoleonic wars.