Why are tactical battles mass chaos?

[Slug For A Butt]

I always figured the chaotic look to battles was representative of how people motivated to save their own lives might actually fight in a general melee. In general I should think that a medieval warrior would be more concerned with dodging a sword coming at him than he would be with sticking right next to his buddies. It seems natural then that the formation should suffer as people dodge about and do things in their own best interest.

So why was the phalanx more disciplined? Why was the maniple more disciplined? The medieval noble fought for exactly the same reasons as the Greek nobles fought. These people were in the same mortal danger, why are you suggesting that medieval soldiers had more reason to be ill disciplined?

[Foz]

So why was the phalanx more disciplined? Why was the maniple more disciplined? The medieval noble fought for exactly the same reasons as the Greek nobles fought. These people were in the same mortal danger, why are you suggesting that medieval soldiers had more reason to be ill disciplined?

I did not say that medieval soldiers had more reason to be ill disciplined, did I? What I did do is make an observation about the mechanics of close combat, and why formations should not be neat and tidy when units are engaged in close combat - and that goes for any game, any time period. I say nothing of how "disciplined" the troops are, whatever that is supposed to mean (it has become a meaningless buzzword around here) - simply that the act of fighting at close range inherently disrupts formation.

As for the differences you mentioned, in the case of the phalanx the answer should be obvious: the situation differs because of the standoffish weapons it employed. The situation is not akin to the general melee I was discussing, as the phalanx members themselves are not typically inside the melee range of their adversaries, and thus have no need to dodge about or otherwise disrupt their own formation at all in the name of self preservation.

For the maniple, I doubt there's any evidence that it was more disciplined in melee in the sense I've been discussing. Close combat has always required some footwork and jockeying for position... so I submit that one should never be seeing the nice neat straight lines during close combat that people seem to be begging for, regardless of whether we're talking about greek soldiers, roman soldiers, medieval soldiers, or any other soldiers.

[pike master]

just as a mentioned earlier about the manipular legion. once a wave launched into melee it became a slug fest that eventually would leave gaps in the line. thats where the principes came in to reinforce the attack and bring back some order before the hastati lost cohesion.

then depending on whether the romans planned to exhaust the enemies soldiers from fighting over a long period of time they would rotate out the hastati and principes to allow them a few minutes to rest and reform their lines.

the triarri were the tactical reserve in the manipular legion used either to strenghten the center or attack a flank or make a fighting withdrawal to aid the principes and hastati if they routed from the field.

the idea of cohorts or manipular legions was all about maintaining order by the use of rotating out formations to maintain cohesion. it is in line with napoleons maxim that a well trained reserve no matter how small if commited at the right time can turn the tide of a battle. also the battle belongs to the army with the most battalions.

the romans were usually outnumbered but in a battle they were always able to send in fresh well formed up troops during the battle while the enemy who didnt have reserves would become exhausted and disorganized.

most first hand battle accounts of people who fought in battles would oftentimes mention how easy it was to become seperated from each other in a fight.

but having said this i can understand that some people enjoy to play the game with those units remaining in blocks to be maneuvred against each other. but historically wise things just didnt pan out that way. although im disappointed about pikemen performance in the game maybe there is some truth to how easy their formations could fall apart in a fight and they would have to turn to swords.

[Callahan9119]

i think its all visual, aside from looking messy it plays the same as rome to me..though zooming in and watching half my unit in the back cheering and not fighting when there is an enemy right next to him is painful

one thing i noticed is when i used the mod carl - lusted etc made, things are much less messy without the shield bug and u dont have units just dying from fear of the sword

[Foz]

i think its all visual, aside from looking messy it plays the same as rome to me..though zooming in and watching half my unit in the back cheering and not fighting when there is an enemy right next to him is painful

one thing i noticed is when i used the mod carl - lusted etc made, things are much less messy without the shield bug and u dont have units just dying from fear of the sword

Carl also modified pathfinding so that units check formation more often while travelling, which results in tidier formations a lot of the time, though melee is still fairly chaotic. It seems most helpful in maintaining some cohesion when chasing routers, and in letting knights reorganize faster/better when on approach for a charge. For instance, a random tree or rock now mostly does not prevent knights from getting a good charge, where it would a lot of the time before.

For those interested in exploring this, it's quite simple to modify. The file is descr_pathfinding.txt in the data directory, and the code you want is here:

	; Movement configuration
	movement_configuration
	{
		formation_hold_distance 1.0	; formations update 1.0m after the last point
		;formation_hold_distance 20.0	; formations update 20m after the last point
	}

As you can see I've commented out the default amount, and instead set the formation_hold_distance to 1 meter. I believe Carl was using 0.2 meter, but I decided a meter seemed plenty often enough. The default 20 meters does seem long though, and probably accounts for some of the formation chaos people are noticing.

[Rozanov]

I've no major problem with the chaos of M2:TW battles.

Apart from certain specialised units, such as Tercios etc, many medieval armies (especially in early and middle periods) simply weren't composed of "units".

What you'd have are a mixture of an elite of professional individualists (knights) with their retinues; feudal levies of ill-disciplined and poorly equipped rabble, mixed with town and city militias which might have some basic discipline and training. Plus companies of mercenaries (who had fought alongside eachother and had more loyalty to their captain than anyone else.)

Also there was little or no standardised uniforms - at best some simple ribbon or badge easily mistaken or missed in the heat of battle, so distinguishing friend from foe was often extremely difficult

Stir in weather factors (fog, blizzards, heavy rain), unfamiliarity with the terrain (so soldiers had little idea where they were if on campaign), confused lines of command and communication, plus the lack of radar to pick out enemy units on a neat little map, and you end up with a mess of confused melees, where people were doing their best to avoid getting trampled, hammered, stabbed or shot let alone doing any damage to anyone else.

It was only with the destruction of the power of the feudal elites in britain (for example) that allowed the creation of national armies with a more organised structure, unit identities etc.

[pike master]

i think the basics of the shield wall have existed since 3000 bc until the late middle ages. and even the lowly spear and shield wielding soldier of the middle ages had some concept of training in a shield wall.

we find this in the invasion of england by william with the english formed up into a densely packed shield wall phalanx. intermingled with a core of long two handed axe bearing huscarles.

we find the vikings and saxons fighting in a shield wall of interlocking shields.

i think we miscalculate the intelligence of the people who came out of the dark ages and reclaimed europe.

muskets and arqs for the lowly peasants? this was more a contest between physically weaker but more technically proficient men compared to the traditional strong men with longbow or sword or carrying 60 lbs of armor.

even in medieval armies there was organization.

i know its too late now for a chance to do it but it would be nice to see spearmen form up in a shield wall by default or by placing them in guard mode.

which brings up an interesting idea of how to get two special abilities to units without the confusion that comes from its use on trebuchets.

say for example a pike unit if placed on guard mode would form its spearwall and if the special ability is used it could be to form a schiltrom.

the same could be applied to spearmen in the same way[shield wall/schiltrom] and so forth.

sorry i got a little off topic there.

[Orda Khan]

Well unlike most people here I find both RTW and M2TW battles chaotic. Both are a click fest and I absolutely hate the frantic music throughout the battle. I can honestly say that I do not like the new engine at all

........Orda

[Veho Nex]

Yeah, I was joking

BTW, our combat drills ARE made in straight lines. I finished my military service 3 months ago, I'm quite sure they haven't changed it.... You start out with the patrol line. When you make contact, people spread out to both sides. They spread out left or right in alternating order. ie. first trooper stays, second one goes to his left, third trooper to the right, fourth left etc. The resulting formations looks like a V turned upside down. Then, the advance/withdrawal begins. One of the sides either withdraw or advance, and run up until the trooper in the middle of the formation sits down. The others then position themselves in a straight line out from him. The other side then does the same thing, but goes a little further. Like this(. means air, - means trooper):

----------.............
.............----------
----------.............
.............----------

If that was understandable... There is more distance between the soldiers due to machine guns and grenades, but the lines are still as straight. The reason is that if the line is disorganised, you risk shooting each other in the back...

so what your saying is the my Airsoft squad is more efficent than the army in training... Wondering you guy start in lines A) Bad thing now adays say you have some slow people in the army and to fight a machinegun he tells every one to get in line... then 4 seconds later your don't have a squad anymore... but doing what you said there as in one gives cover while one runs up isnt as efficent as one might think but since this is a medieval chaos thread and such...

When you have swords you dont want to stay in perfect formation because 1 thats a bad thing and 2 that some times if your general sends i reserves in real battle you have to worry about being shoved forwards by your supporting troops and many men have lost their live because of this that why some of histories mainbattles have been lost by a specific unit getting reinforced when they didn't need it but im thinking of more China not sure about europe

Correct me if you wish

[Zasz1234]

I agree. When I played my first battle in M2TW from RTW I had trouble maneuvering and everything just seemed like mob tactics. Both sides just throw everything at each other and duke it out. Now though, it feels less chaotic. I guess I have learned to deal with the M2 system. Really it seems that the later troops hold lines and formations better than early troops, and that makes sense to me. The crummy town militia are just a mob compared to late period professional troops.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

As some have mentioned, depends on training and the weapon being used. Pike formations, to be effective, had to be disciplined, and had to stay 'in formation' - look what happened to the scots at Flodden when they lost this. Shield walls also required to keep to a formation - but they were also pretty defensive - i imagine they worked more through attrition. Using an non-polearm requires you to move around freely, (or polearms where unit cohesion isn't the be-all and end-all) which means melees with these weapons would be bound to be chaotic after the first engagement. Also, after a charge, it would be impossible to retain unit cohesion after contact, through momentum alone.

I like the chaos of MTWII battles - especially when you have 20 units scattered all around the place, some routing, some reforming, some not knowing what they're supposed to be doing - its the best bit! (eg: can you get that light cavalry unit back in time from pursuing a broken unit to save your outnumbered general from getting killed?)

[Morgomir]

medieval battles are chaotic because soldiers are undisciplined. medieval knights are more than eager to join the fight as demanded by chivalry..er..rather pride. they fight as individuals and not as a group as the Romans/Greeks did. also the common soldiers of time time were mostly undisciplined mercenaries and militias. the soldiers did not receive the rigid training of the Romans/Greeks. this made the difference between ancient and medieval battles.

[pike master]

there is no evidence to support that.

the romans were well trained but their formation invited intermingling of the lines. the romans did not fight in a densely packed squared off formation. when they engaged the enemy they trained to allow spacing so they could use their individual fighting techniques.

so from what im hearing from people about chaotic melees being a sign of no discipline i would have to assume the romans were not disciplined.

franks vs moors/ engish versus normans/ byzantine infantry who used both sword and bow and used the spade to shape the battlefield like the legionarres before them/ the viking shield hedge/the scottish pike schiltrom.

all of these from the dark ages to the appearance of longbowmen and swisspikmen show a broad range of discipline that was unheard of from these same regions during ancient times.

so i would see an increase in formation discipline instead of a decline.

[Foz]

The romans were well trained but their formation invited intermingling of the lines. the romans did not fight in a densely packed squared off formation. when they engaged the enemy they trained to allow spacing so they could use their individual fighting techniques.

so from what im hearing from people about chaotic melees being a sign of no discipline i would have to assume the romans were not disciplined.

This point is exactly why I suggested that the chaos is inherent to close-quarters combat, as opposed to related to training or discipline in any way. It's not difficult to envision men fighting in close quarters needing to dodge about, needing room to use their techniques, and being less focused on formation due to the intense nature of fighting so close to the enemy. It is difficult to make any comments on the relative training of troops throughout history and how that may or may not have affected their neatness in close combat... and therefore it seems in everyone's interest to simply suggest that the mechanics of close quarters combat inherently cause chaos. From that standpoint, M2TW isn't making any kind of statement about the training or discipline of medieval troops versus roman ones - it's just that the game now more accurately portrays what an actual engagement might look like, where RTW was not as accurate in doing so.

[pike master]

[Juergen Geist]

I think that all of you have good points;

As a Vetran Marine I can honestly say that their are many formations that we used, either when traveling by foot, or vehicle. Terrain, weather, time of day plays into some formations, and even the best formation can turn to complete chaos!, within seconds.

I agree with some of the strange movements of the units either reforming or charging, but in real life I have never seen a Wedge formation or Right wing move exactly perfectly, especialy in combat.

In game I know exactly what units I have and KNOW their capabilities, are they disciplined or not, elite or peasant?

When I form up my units, I pretty much tacticaly know what im going to do, weither defend with spearmen, flank with cavalry way out to the side so they get a rear, or side flanking charge into the enemy to route them quickly. Archers, crossbowmen set up either defensivly behind the spear wall, or in front if Im attacking.

If Im defending they usually send up their archers, crossbowmen, I make quick work of them with Cavalry charges... then when they lose the iniative with missle weapons, I shower them with mine.

So it may look like chaos, but if you do not plan Strategicaly (what are your castles and Cities building for both offense and defense, do you have Reserve Armies?)

Tacticaly, you have to know your troops capabilities, if you dont, they get mis-used on how they were supposed to be deployed.

I have taken notes on many of my enemies configurations, so that when I see them on the battlefield I know their strengths and weakness.

Semper FI