Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Units Pushing...

jamreal18jamreal18 Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 6,865
edited July 2016 in General Discussion
Hopefully units pushing comes back...

Its impossible for a single unit at gate to hold an overwhelming multiple units without being pushed back...

Just take a look at Rome 1 and Medieval 2...
Lighter are units are being pushed back little by little by heavier and overwhelming units....

There should be unit mass and weight...

If not in attila, hopefully in next historical title...
Post edited by jamreal18 on
«1

Comments

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,532
    That's ignorant. If they hold a chokepoint, it doesn't matter if there's a bazillion dudes on the other side, they'll just get stuck. Read up on all these occasions where people tried to quickly leave a room through a single door.

    Also, Thermopylae. If your naive theory was true, the Persians should have just pushed the Spartans all the way back to Sparta.

    Please, for once think before you unload your random thought of the day.

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,865
    edited July 2016

    That's ignorant. If they hold a chokepoint, it doesn't matter if there's a bazillion dudes on the other side, they'll just get stuck. Read up on all these occasions where people tried to quickly leave a room through a single door.

    Also, Thermopylae. If your naive theory was true, the Persians should have just pushed the Spartans all the way back to Sparta.

    Please, for once think before you unload your random thought of the day.

    Are you sure???
    So Rome 1 and Medieval 2 gameplay mechanics are ignorant???



    @3:35

    If you disagree, therefore we have different opinions... and I didnt mentioned Sparta being pushed all the way back to their city... you are absurb, that is not what i meant...
    Dalton, are you crazy or what?

    Im sorry but im not addressing my request to you! I want to reach out to CA, not you... so please stop lecturing me...

    WHO ARE YOU???
    Please respect other forum user....
    Post edited by jamreal18 on
  • MarcusIuniusBrutusMarcusIuniusBrutus Senior Member GermanyRegistered Users Posts: 1,506
    edited July 2016
    I don´t want unit pushing back, too. Its ahistorical nonsense.

    And because of such mechanics Rome I was laughably easy, because the roman troups with their heavy mass were total op.

    Frontal assault, easy victory, no skill or thinking needed.




    Post edited by MarcusIuniusBrutus on
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,532
    jamreal18 said:

    That's ignorant. If they hold a chokepoint, it doesn't matter if there's a bazillion dudes on the other side, they'll just get stuck. Read up on all these occasions where people tried to quickly leave a room through a single door.

    Also, Thermopylae. If your naive theory was true, the Persians should have just pushed the Spartans all the way back to Sparta.

    Please, for once think before you unload your random thought of the day.

    Are you sure???
    So Rome 1 and Medieval 2 gameplay mechanics are ignorant???



    @3:35

    If you disagree, therefore we have different opinions... and I didnt mentioned Sparta being pushed all the way back to their city... you are absurb, that is not what i meant...
    Dalton, are you crazy or what?

    Im sorry but im not addressing my request to you! I want to reach out to CA, not you... so please stop lecturing me...

    WHO ARE YOU???
    Please respect other forum user....
    Yes, Rome1/Med2, the two worst titles in the franchise, have stupid, ignorant mechanics. Masses of people are not like a wave of water, there're physical limitations. Another example, at Cannae Hannibal managed to hold a ton of Romans in place with thin lines of his own men. According to your naive opinion, they should have just pushed them out of the way. Tell me, why didn't that happen?

    Concession accepted on Thermopylae and on the example of people getting stuck in doors when trying to leave rooms through one exit en masse.

    You do have the tendency to drop poorly-thought out stuff at random in the forum and look for excuses to whine, so you've already lost any chance to command respect, buddy.

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,865
    edited July 2016

    jamreal18 said:

    That's ignorant. If they hold a chokepoint, it doesn't matter if there's a bazillion dudes on the other side, they'll just get stuck. Read up on all these occasions where people tried to quickly leave a room through a single door.

    Also, Thermopylae. If your naive theory was true, the Persians should have just pushed the Spartans all the way back to Sparta.

    Please, for once think before you unload your random thought of the day.

    Are you sure???
    So Rome 1 and Medieval 2 gameplay mechanics are ignorant???



    @3:35

    If you disagree, therefore we have different opinions... and I didnt mentioned Sparta being pushed all the way back to their city... you are absurb, that is not what i meant...
    Dalton, are you crazy or what?

    Im sorry but im not addressing my request to you! I want to reach out to CA, not you... so please stop lecturing me...

    WHO ARE YOU???
    Please respect other forum user....
    Yes, Rome1/Med2, the two worst titles in the franchise, have stupid, ignorant mechanics. Masses of people are not like a wave of water, there're physical limitations. Another example, at Cannae Hannibal managed to hold a ton of Romans in place with thin lines of his own men. According to your naive opinion, they should have just pushed them out of the way. Tell me, why didn't that happen?

    Concession accepted on Thermopylae and on the example of people getting stuck in doors when trying to leave rooms through one exit en masse.

    You do have the tendency to drop poorly-thought out stuff at random in the forum and look for excuses to whine, so you've already lost any chance to command respect, buddy.
    What dude? Who is whining?

    I just said my opinion in OP!
    I said hopefully....
  • PezhetairosPezhetairos Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 216
    Wow ahm, no offense, but you are (in my opinion) one of the most notorious whiners on these forums.

    I say "whiner" because your opinions rarely have any substance, you just say that you dont like something and want it another way or that you've seen another game do better in some way and how sad it is that CA didnt do what you wanted, but you rarely engage in a productive discussion about it with other players afterwards.

    I still remember your drama about the armenian and parthian cataphracts having the same models (throughout multiple threads) even though many times other users have sent you links to mods which do just that, but you refused because you dont want to use mods because reasons. Btw you STILL have it in your signature even though you know nothing is going to happen.

    But back on topic: I agree that the simulation of massed troops fighting could be better but I absolutely do not miss the days of Rome 1 troops pushing through everything.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,865
    edited July 2016
    Sigh...

    Whenever you miss a feature and want to express it, you are whining...

    But its ok for Dalton to tell that some players are ignorant, liar, stupid, etc...

    sorry Pezhetairos.

    Post edited by jamreal18 on
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,865
    edited July 2016


    Yes, Rome1/Med2, the two worst titles in the franchise, have stupid, ignorant mechanics.

    Anyways, I strongly disagree with this statement.

    I understand that other players dont like some features, thats why there is forum to talk about it. See the comment of Marcus Brutus, he said why he doesnt like the feature without insulting which is against the forum TOS.

    But for Ephraim_Dalton, If he doesnt like those titles, its not right to say people who like those mechanic ignorant and stupid. Who is he?
    Post edited by jamreal18 on
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,532
    edited July 2016
    jamreal18 said:


    Yes, Rome1/Med2, the two worst titles in the franchise, have stupid, ignorant mechanics.

    Anyways, I strongly disagree with this statement.

    I understand that other players dont like some features, thats why there is forum to talk about it. See the comment of Marcus Brutus, he said why he doesnt like the feature without insulting which is against the forum TOS.

    But for Ephraim_Dalton, If he doesnt like those titles, its not right to say people who like those mechanic ignorant and stupid. Who is he?
    Now you add being dishonest to your many personal failings. I said those mechanics are stupid, not the people who play the games.

    Apologise for your lie.

    ETA:

    Also, I gave you two examples of why that mechanic made no sense. You failed to argue against them, proving that you only want to petulantly whine about stuf rather than debate.


  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,865
    edited July 2016


    jamreal18 said:


    Yes, Rome1/Med2, the two worst titles in the franchise, have stupid, ignorant mechanics.

    Anyways, I strongly disagree with this statement.

    I understand that other players dont like some features, thats why there is forum to talk about it. See the comment of Marcus Brutus, he said why he doesnt like the feature without insulting which is against the forum TOS.

    But for Ephraim_Dalton, If he doesnt like those titles, its not right to say people who like those mechanic ignorant and stupid. Who is he?
    Now you add being dishonest to your many personal failings. I said those mechanics are stupid, not the people who play the games.

    Apologise for your lie.

    ETA:

    Also, I gave you two examples of why that mechanic made no sense. You failed to argue against them, proving that you only want to petulantly whine about stuf rather than debate.

    You have no right to say that some mechanics are IGNORANT and STUPID because you are also saying that players who like those mechanics are also stupid and ignorant.
  • HrafnHrafn Registered Users Posts: 261
    Pushing in combat is real. At least in the combat of the era in Rome 1. We have numerous greek sources which refer to the tendency of formations to push against each other, and the importance of not being the one pushed back. It was one of the ways they would break the cohesion of the enemy line. At Cannae, Hannibal's middle didn't hold. They were pushed back, which allowed his flanks (with the crack troops) to envelop the romans, because they held their position and pushed the other way. What Hannibal did was ensure that the push backof the light troops in the center was controlled, and that his troops didn't lose cohesion and rout; which is why he put himself in the center with them.

    Now I'll admit, I do not know how important pushing was in other eras, or if it is appropriate in Attila; but it is not stupid or ignorant as a concept. We know of at least one era of combat where it was very important, and is attested to in historical documents.
  • MarcusIuniusBrutusMarcusIuniusBrutus Senior Member GermanyRegistered Users Posts: 1,506
    edited July 2016
    But Hannibal give his center orders to go back, it was a planned trap.

    As the armies advanced on one another, Hannibal gradually extended the center of his line, as Polybius described: "After thus drawing up his whole army in a straight line, he took the central companies of Hispanics and Celts and advanced with them, keeping the rest of them in contact with these companies, but gradually falling off, so as to produce a crescent-shaped formation, the line of the flanking companies growing thinner as it was prolonged, his object being to employ the Africans as a reserve force and to begin the action with the Hispanics and Celts." Polybius described the weak Carthaginian center as deployed in a crescent, curving out toward the Romans in the middle with the African troops on their flanks in echelon formation.[4]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae

    The effectivness of the pushing forward - mechanic in Rome I is simply unrealistic.
    Post edited by MarcusIuniusBrutus on
  • HrafnHrafn Registered Users Posts: 261
    edited July 2016
    Yes, and the reason it worked is because Hannibal allowed the romans to think that their plan was working, which was to push through the formation and break it; as they have done to other opponents in the past. Otherwise, with such a heavy numerical superiority, why would they put their force in such a dense formation? Hannibal knew of this and devised a plan to counter it.

    I don't think using one of the greatest tactical feats of military history is an appropriate example to disprove the concept; it is celebrated because it was the exception.
    Post edited by Hrafn on
  • MarcusIuniusBrutusMarcusIuniusBrutus Senior Member GermanyRegistered Users Posts: 1,506
    Breaking through an formation is another thing as pushing infantry back, because its lighter. It doesnt happen in Cannae and Romans mostly faced equal heavy armoured enemies. Rome I is unrealistic at this point.
  • HrafnHrafn Registered Users Posts: 261
    edited July 2016
    Again, we're using an exception to try to prove a rule.

    The importance of the push in phalanx warfare, which still existed at the timeframe of Rome 1 is well known; at least as far as our modern understanding of the writings allow us to know.

    Here is one of very many places that explains it; but you can also find the historical sources, and several research articles on the topic as well.

    http://www.ancientgreekbattles.net/Pages/90087_PhalanxHistory.htm

    Maybe it would be reasonable to state that perhaps not all formations should have pushed In Rome 1, but there are some primarily phalanx-based formations where that should be a feature? Perhaps the maniplar system and other formations which did not rely on pushing would have been better off unaffected. What Are Your thoughts?
  • MarcusIuniusBrutusMarcusIuniusBrutus Senior Member GermanyRegistered Users Posts: 1,506
    edited July 2016
    Even the Phalanx has had not this pushing back effect shown in Rome I. There is not one victory of Alexander, where he won by pushing back the persians with his phalanx. All battles were won by decisive cavalry attacks. The way phalanx works in Rome I is unrealistic op.
    Post edited by MarcusIuniusBrutus on
  • Bura89Bura89 Senior Member Pisaurum, ItalyRegistered Users Posts: 592
    But..but...pushing wasn't unrealistic. Remember the Thermopylae when spartans pushed down the cliff's edge persian mammuths, mutants and immortal granadiers?
  • MarcusIuniusBrutusMarcusIuniusBrutus Senior Member GermanyRegistered Users Posts: 1,506
    Oh i forgot this documentary movie from BBC about the Thermopylae.

    Its called 300, i think... :smile:
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,865
    Werent Spartans heavy infantry pushed some persians to fall in the cliff?

    They did pushed them back because they were heavy while persians were light...

    Also in the movie 300, there was scene like that...
  • AkosAkos Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 271
    edited July 2016
    While I am aware of the concept of the "othismos", I don't think it occured as some might think of it. One can push with a shield another man, but I'm pretty sure of it that if two columns with multiple people behind each other would try to do the same, it wouldn't be a breaktrough but a stampede, where people in the middle get injured or die regardless of the faction. A group of people can not be modeled as a solid block of material, and the fact that so far I never, ever saw even a slight try to reconstruct this wonder-tactic by any reenactment group might be a good hint too.
    In my country, there is a famous and sad example of something similar, when a very crowded bar went ablaze. People started pushing each other, the results: barely anyone got harmed by fire, but 14 got injured in the push and 3 dead because of suffocating.
    Good luck finding to hire anyone to sand in the front rows of any phalanx if the above mentioned "pushing mach" occurs.

    Using local superiority in numbers doesn't justify the "pushing" as well*, as these tactics were used much later on too (like Frederick's oblique order) where phisical contact in the sense like of a phalanx's did not occur.
    * My english is pretty bad, so what I think of is this: Saying "But generals put more men to one side of the phalanx, so they pushed harder" might be a false conclusion.

    Tl;dr with my current mindset I think "pushing" means simply dislocating / routing the enemy or engaging in close-range melee (so for example, the hoplite ditches the spear and grabs the kopis), but mass pushing might only work(?) with barely a few rows of people.


    Edit: I just started to read wikipedia, and look at this beauty:
    "When in combat, the whole formation would consistently press forward trying to break the enemy formation; thus, when two phalanx formations engaged, the struggle essentially became a pushing match, in which, as a rule, the deeper phalanx would almost always win, with few recorded exceptions." (source is apparently: Hanson, Victor (1989). The Western Way of War. University of California Press. p. 169.)
    So if the enemy has a column depth of 8 men, I make 9 men columns and instant win. This kind of retarted sh*t makes me remember when historians wrote things like bronze armors were just for decoration, longswords weighted more than six kilograms, bodkin arrows slaughtered plate armor wearers etc.
    Thankfully, expiremental archeology plucked out most of the weed since then, but unchecked and widely referred bullsh*t loves to thrive even in the professional media.
  • PezhetairosPezhetairos Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 216

    Oh i forgot this documentary movie from BBC about the Thermopylae.

    Its called 300, i think... :smile:

    So you mean to say that mutant Immortals are not real? I LIVED A LIE!
    jamreal18 said:

    Werent Spartans heavy infantry pushed some persians to fall in the cliff?

    They did pushed them back because they were heavy while persians were light...

    Also in the movie 300, there was scene like that...

    Apparently there is no report of deliberate pushing-down-cliffs, just the occasional soldier who fell down the cliff because he was shoved aside by other advancing Persians or was just fighting near the cliff. And I think no one needs to emphasize that 300 is not exactly historically accurate.
  • nodulousnodulous Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 845
    I think the weight of a phalanx is more used to keep your own men in order and moving forward. That's why the French revolutionary armies returned to it's use. In a Macedonian phalanx the file leaders and file closers would be veterans, equivalent to nco's. All else were other ranks.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,865
    edited July 2016


    Yes, Rome1/Med2, the two worst titles in the franchise, have stupid, ignorant mechanics. .

    Shields were pressed against shields, and each army by force of weight and muscle tried to shove the other side back, knocking them over, as well as killing them with their weapons.

    http://www.timetrips.co.uk/gw hoplite_tactics.htm

    So hoplites were stupid and ignorant?
  • HrafnHrafn Registered Users Posts: 261
    edited July 2016
    Akos that is absurd. Of course a 9 rank phalanx isn't going to be an instant win against an 8-rank phalanx. But a 16 rank phalanx Is going to Have a Lot more force behind It than an 8 rank one.

    Also, those saying everyone in the middle are going to suffocate and die: maybe if they are pushing against a wall. This won't happen easily between two formations because one of them is going to eventually give way. The formation that begins to 'suffocate' first, if this ever actually happened; isn't going to be able to continue standing against the other.

    But hey, whatever- let's just disregard all the research that has gone into the study of greek warfare.

    It doesn't matter, because there is no pushback weight in Attila, and there never will be; so this is an entirely moot point. The warscape engine doesn't support it. We get immovable blobs instead.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,865
    edited July 2016


    Yes, Rome1/Med2, the two worst titles in the franchise, have stupid, ignorant mechanics. .

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_concentration

    Force concentration is the practice of concentrating a military force so as to bring to bear such overwhelming force against a portion of an enemy force that the disparity between the two forces alone acts as a force multiplier in favour of the concentrated forces.

    So this tactic is stupid and ignorant?
  • MarcusIuniusBrutusMarcusIuniusBrutus Senior Member GermanyRegistered Users Posts: 1,506
    Sorry, combat power means not mass or weight, it means effectivness of units because of training, better armour and weapons...
  • MaleAmazonMaleAmazon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 597
    edited July 2016
    Lindybeige has a good video (search on youtube lindybeige shieldwall) on why he doesnt think shieldwalls 'pushed' the way it is displayed in for example, The Last Kingdom.

    His point was - it doesnt seem to make any sense to deliberately as a tactic, go into a close pushing match as a hoplite as you give away the spear length advantage and you'd get lethal carnage with throat slitting and high body counts. It would be a mess. You can certainly be offensive and move forward though, without pushing.

    Realistically, 1000 people trying to push their way through a narrow gate would just result in them suffocating themselves and dying. It is mass hysteria lunacy, not a 'siege tactic'.
    Post edited by MaleAmazon on
  • Bura89Bura89 Senior Member Pisaurum, ItalyRegistered Users Posts: 592
    Akos said:

    Edit: I just started to read wikipedia, and look at this beauty:
    "When in combat, the whole formation would consistently press forward trying to break the enemy formation; thus, when two phalanx formations engaged, the struggle essentially became a pushing match, in which, as a rule, the deeper phalanx would almost always win, with few recorded exceptions." (source is apparently: Hanson, Victor (1989). The Western Way of War. University of California Press. p. 169.)
    So if the enemy has a column depth of 8 men, I make 9 men columns and instant win. This kind of retarted sh*t makes me remember when historians wrote things like bronze armors were just for decoration, longswords weighted more than six kilograms, bodkin arrows slaughtered plate armor wearers etc.
    Thankfully, expiremental archeology plucked out most of the weed since then, but unchecked and widely referred bullsh*t loves to thrive even in the professional media.

    Unfortunatly wikipedia is the worst source in quite all cases, it could be useful at least for essential or basic knowledge...or just for the fun of discovering those "beauties" on the internet.
  • HrafnHrafn Registered Users Posts: 261
    edited July 2016
    Jesus, please just go read some scholarly articles....

    Everybody wants to argue: nobody wants to take the time to read the research already done.
  • MarcusIuniusBrutusMarcusIuniusBrutus Senior Member GermanyRegistered Users Posts: 1,506
    edited July 2016
    Hrafn: I'm 42 year old, had made the great latinum in german school 24 years ago, have been interested since age of 16 in antiquity, and make now unitmods for Rome II spending much time in historical research. Don't tell me to read historical books. Tell me, why the celts could plunder greece in the 3 century, if heavy armoured hoplites should be easily able to push back light armoured celtic warriors like in Rome I.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.