EB unit cohesion

**Aulus Caecina Severus** · 11-07-2009, 18:23

Mmmh... maybe hardcode?

**Horatius Flaccus** · 11-07-2009, 22:50

No, it already has been done in numerous mods.

**-Praetor-** · 11-07-2009, 22:54

Care to put forth some examples?

**Banzai!** · 11-07-2009, 23:15

Originally Posted by -Praetor-

Care to put forth some examples?

since your the anim man
replace shuffle right/left/backward with shuffle forward.

**Horatius Flaccus** · 11-08-2009, 01:26

Originally Posted by -Praetor-

Care to put forth some examples?

Broken crescent:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Notice the difference between the spearmen (tight formation) and the axemen/swordmen (loose formation).

**Puupertti Ruma** · 11-10-2009, 18:13

Originally Posted by Aulus Caecina Severus

Mmmh... maybe hardcode?

Isn't it quite counterproductive to quess that a solution to a thing you do not know how to solve is that it cannot be solved? I mean, if you really don't know if a thing is or isn't hardcoded, why quess that it is.

**tarem** · 11-11-2009, 10:11

what about cohesion while on the move? especially during charge? in RTW it was too easy to maintain formation while charging, even for lighter skirmish units. and in MTW2 it seams that too often it is too difficult. i think the most "realistic" solution is somewhere in between. under ideal circumstances i'd say it should be connected to the experience level of the unit (veterans should find it more easy to maintain it during charges), but is this even possible?

**Aulus Caecina Severus** · 11-11-2009, 10:19

Originally Posted by Puupertti Ruma

Isn't it quite counterproductive to quess that a solution to a thing you do not know how to solve is that it cannot be solved? I mean, if you really don't know if a thing is or isn't hardcoded, why quess that it is.

What?

**JMRC** · 11-11-2009, 15:03

Guys, what you "asking" is already made using standard values of the EDU. By combining the formation spread with the training attribute, you can make a unit more tight (less spread, more training).

The removal or replacement of the shuffling anims is already done in formations like the phalanx, but they very important also to keep the unit tight, because the soldiers use the shuffling to fill the empty spaces created in the formation when soldiers die.

Anyway, the answer is: yes, we are going to implement unit cohesion, specially in phalanx.

**antisocialmunky** · 11-11-2009, 15:15

What about to using it to make it harded for undisciplined units to be ordered about after getting into a fight?

**tarem** · 11-12-2009, 08:14

Originally Posted by JMRC

Guys, what you "asking" is already made using standard values of the EDU. By combining the formation spread with the training attribute, you can make a unit more tight (less spread, more training).

The removal or replacement of the shuffling anims is already done in formations like the phalanx, but they very important also to keep the unit tight, because the soldiers use the shuffling to fill the empty spaces created in the formation when soldiers die.

Anyway, the answer is: yes, we are going to implement unit cohesion, specially in phalanx.

yey, experience that influences cohesion is the best solution under any circumstances

thanx for the info guys

**Darius** · 11-12-2009, 09:55

I think maybe people are confusing unit density (how closely packed the soldiers are while in formation) to unit cohesion (how well a unit is capable of retaining its formation while on the move and/or while in combat, and possibly it's ability to quickly and orderly to disengage from an enemy and return to formation) here.