Modding the Combat System

[Kushan]

I think a better use of withdraw should be, if its a light unit vs a heavy unit the light should be able, in theory, outrun the heavy unit, thus withdrawing. A heavy unit vs a light unit shouldnt be able to withdraw as the light unit would be able to chase the heavy unit.

Kushan

 

[Karhgath]

Yup. Light can retreat vs Heavy. Mounted can retreat vs Melee. I hope we'll be able to change the mechanic in the SDK

 

[Simetrical]

units that fight in a tight formation (Spearman, Pikeman) should be strong, particularly against a frontal charge, but should be susceptible to flanking.

Spearmen didn't necessarily rely that heavily on their formations. They could split up, turn around, etc. without much trouble. Of course, like pretty much any soldiers, they benefited from having organized formations, but they were hardly mandatory.

Certain types of spearmen were different. Traditional Greek hoplites, for instance, fought in a comparatively rigid manner. All pikemen did as well, of course. But not all spearmen fought in rigid formation, not at all. Roman legions certainly didn't fight in particularly rigid formations; each cohort or maniple manuevered as a unit, independent of the army as a whole, and could turn to face threats without more trouble than any average infantry unit.

The only units that should be affected by this, basically, are a) Pikemen and b) certain types of spearmen (maybe make a second Spearman unit representing fighting styles such as the hoplites').

Light Mounted Units would be primarily those mounted units effective at flanking (Horse Archers), and would gain bonuses against formation units, while Heavy Mounted Units, charging "frontal assault" type cavalry (Knights), would be powerful but have a distinct disadvantage against Formation Units much like in the default game.

I don't know if this is very realistic. Any cavalry will have a tremendous mobility advantage over any infantry. I would give all cavalry flanking bonuses, but lighter cavalry would get greater bonuses.

I was thinking that this "Horseman" could come with horseback riding, and the Horse Archer could come with a new Classical tech, Stirrup, but this set-up could be the opposite if people think it would be better and/or more historically sound.

Both heavy cavalry and horse archers existed centuries before the stirrup. Horse archers should be available with Horseback Riding plus Archery, and heavy cavalry with Horseback Riding alone (plus maybe Bronze/Iron Working, since you can't have heavy cavalry without heavy armor). Horse archers, incidentally, should receive prohibitive penalties when either attacking or defending in jungle or forest; they should also receive lesser penalties for fighting in hills or snow. And they should have nasty penalties for attacking/defending cities as well, but they (in fact, cavalry in general) shouldn't automatically lose all defense bonuses.

One question is, should I make Musketmen (and Line Infantry if they're included) into Formation Units to give Cavalry more use as flanking units and better simulate combat? Or maybe make a new "Gunpowder Formation" group? I think the latter makes the most sense, but I feel like I'm splitting enough hairs as it is .

I like the idea of effectively having "dual types". Formation troops should also be able to be Melee, Archery, Gunpowder, etc.

 

[Requies]

Spearmen didn't necessarily rely that heavily on their formations. They could split up, turn around, etc. without much trouble. Of course, like pretty much any soldiers, they benefited from having organized formations, but they were hardly mandatory.

Certain types of spearmen were different. Traditional Greek hoplites, for instance, fought in a comparatively rigid manner. All pikemen did as well, of course. But not all spearmen fought in rigid formation, not at all. Roman legions certainly didn't fight in particularly rigid formations; each cohort or maniple manuevered as a unit, independent of the army as a whole, and could turn to face threats without more trouble than any average infantry unit.

Ummm, this isn't my area of expertise, but weren't Roman legions SWORDSMEN primarily? As in their primary weapon was the gladius?

Spearmen were limited by formation because it's really hard to synchronize a turn with a 15-20' foot pole stuck out in front of you. It's much easier to do it with a 4-6' foot sword. Pikemen (specifically medieval ones) had to have a LOT of training to overcome the formation problems, and even then they could be vulnerable to a surprise flanking.

I'm sure that I'll be corrected if I'm wrong as this site has quite a few knowledgable people in this area.

Req

 

[maxpublic]

Ummm, this isn't my area of expertise, but weren't Roman legions SWORDSMEN primarily? As in their primary weapon was the gladius?

No, that's quite right. But prior to engagement Roman legions would launch two rounds of pilums (javelins) into the enemy to break up opposing formations. This was especially effective against 'barbarian' units as they usually didn't bother a whole lot with things like shield walls.

The pilum, by the way, was made with a deliberately soft head, which meant it would bend and deform on impact. They did this so that a) those nasty barbarians couldn't pick up the pilums and throw them back at the Romans, and b) when they got stuck in shields they were very hard to pull out.

Spearmen were limited by formation because it's really hard to synchronize a turn with a 15-20' foot pole stuck out in front of you. It's much easier to do it with a 4-6' foot sword. Pikemen (specifically medieval ones) had to have a LOT of training to overcome the formation problems, and even then they could be vulnerable to a surprise flanking.

True. But we should remember that the Greek version of the phalanx (before pikes replaced spears) was quite mobile. In fact, the phalanx could move very quickly and relied on shock - yes, shock - to destroy enemy units. Unlike their portrayal in games like Rome: Total War, the phalanx wasn't a slow-moving turtle formation, but a relatively fast-moving wall of spears that would tear through enemy formations with ease.

Pikes replaced spears because they had a longer haft and heavier heads. But they also came with problems that weren't a concern with spears, e.g., the inability to move quickly or rapidly change formation, the complete lack of close-in combat ability (which required short swordsman to support in the even ranks), and so on.

Max

 

[Requies]

No, that's quite right. But prior to engagement Roman legions would launch two rounds of pilums (javelins) into the enemy to break up opposing formations. This was especially effective against 'barbarian' units as they usually didn't bother a whole lot with things like shield walls.

The pilum, by the way, was made with a deliberately soft head, which meant it would bend and deform on impact. They did this so that a) those nasty barbarians couldn't pick up the pilums and throw them back at the Romans, and b) when they got stuck in shields they were very hard to pull out.



True. But we should remember that the Greek version of the phalanx (before pikes replaced spears) was quite mobile. In fact, the phalanx could move very quickly and relied on shock - yes, shock - to destroy enemy units. Unlike their portrayal in games like Rome: Total War, the phalanx wasn't a slow-moving turtle formation, but a relatively fast-moving wall of spears that would tear through enemy formations with ease.

Pikes replaced spears because they had a longer haft and heavier heads. But they also came with problems that weren't a concern with spears, e.g., the inability to move quickly or rapidly change formation, the complete lack of close-in combat ability (which required short swordsman to support in the even ranks), and so on.

Max

Hmmm, interesting. However, you don't mention whether the phalanx could TURN quickly, which I thought was the point we were discussing. I agree that the phalanx was excellent at using shock and moving forward quickly in a charge, but according to the books I've read, it was turning the flank which was often the key to phalanx vs. phalanx battles. Because once you turned their flank, they were vulnerable (the battle I remember the books talking about this the most was the one where a Theban (I believe) was able to do this to a Spartan phalanx (I think he was the first one in long time who was able to do it, which was what was so remarkable about it).

I'll have to see if I can find a reference to that battle online.

Req

 

[maxpublic]

but according to the books I've read, it was turning the flank which was often the key to phalanx vs. phalanx battles.

Turning the flank of ANY unit in battle will pretty much destroy its formation. This wasn't particular to the phalanx.

Max

 

[Requies]

Turning the flank of ANY unit in battle will pretty much destroy its formation. This wasn't particular to the phalanx.

Max

Good point. And reading further into, it looks like it wasn't so much the turning of the flank which was decisive but the massing of forces (a reserve if you will) to crush a large portion of the opponent's army which Philip of Macedon (and later Alexander) would take to new heights.... (BTW, the Theban who I was thinking about was Epaminondas).

Req