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.

Categories

My ideal unit types for Thrones of Britannia.

TaranMTaranM Registered Users Posts: 9
edited November 2017 in General Discussion
I put this together for a LitRPG book I am writing, but the unit types and races still apply. I wonder how close my research was the Total War's?

Faction Troops:
Angles and Saxons:
Basic troop:
Serf (Gebur)
Spear troop:
Fyrd Militia (Ceorl)
Fyrd Spearmen (Geoguth)
Heavy spearmen (Durguth)
Hearth Guard (Gesith)
Axemen:
Axemen (Butseacarls)
Two handed axemen (Heorthgeneats)
Swordsmen:
Langseax warriors (Langseaxbeorn)
Longswords (Billweras)
Bodyguards (Gedriht)
Nobles (Thegn)
Skirmishers:
Hurlers
Javelinmen (Frameaweras)
Hunters (Yrweras)
Bowmen (Waldmanne)
Archers
Riders:
Light Cavalry (Eored)
Mounted spearmen (Cnihtas)
Misc:
Banner bearer
Lord:
Earl (Eor)l

Picts (women fought too):
Basic troop:
Serfs (Petta)
Spear troop:
Militia/Warband (Gairlom)
Veteran spearmen (Daoer)
Armoured spearmen (Gai Aurmahr)
Pikes (Gairmorlom)
Swordsmen:
Swordsmen (Ludodaoer)
Axemen:
Two handed Axemen (Thomordaoer)
Naked Fanatics (Aumue Boai)
Woad Warriors
Skirmishers:
Hurlers (Cingalom)
Javelinmen (Chodaoer)
Hunters (Saiogdaoer)
Bowmen
Archers
Crossbowmen (Elbharu)
Riders:
Mounted Spearmen (Myrchan)
Axe cavalry (Marchan Tho)
Crossbow cavalry (Marchan Elbharu)
Charioteers (Covines)
Lord:
Lords (Mormaers)
Misc:
Gaze hounds
Standard bearer
Carnyx player

Irish:
Basic troop:
Serf (Seirfeach)
Spear/Skirmish/ Knife troop:
Irish Levy (Fine)
Spearmen militia (Ciorns)
Medium Spearman (Sleanaghta)
Heavy Spearmen (Curadha)
Pikes (Gaemornaghta)
Axemen:
Irish axemen (Tuanaghta)
Axe bodyguard (Deaisbard)
Irish macemen (Caeisornaghta)
Irish hammermen (Orddmhornaghta)
Hammerer naked fanatics (Rastriagha)
Swordsmen:
Swordsmen (Fianna)
Nobles (Arras)
Champions (Laecha)
Skirmishers:
Slingers (Maiobhanaghta)
Javelins (Ceitherne)
Hunters (Fiagania)
Archers (Arwrweision)
Riders:
Light cavalry (Ceirrana)
Cavalry (Guirran)
Long-axe cavalry (Tuaguirran)
Charioteers (Carpata)
Lord:
Irish Noble
Misc:
Horn blower
Standard bearer


Britons:
Welsh ones have best archers in the game.

Basic troop:
Serf (Pedyt)
Spear troop:
Briton Levy (Ardu)
Militia (Aulue)
Spearmen (Rherel)
Noble spearmen (Bonheddwyr)
Pikemen (Bêrfelawyr)
Axemen:
Macemen (Milwyr)
Swordsmen:
Swords (Uchelwr)
Sword brothers (Cymbrogi)
Gray Swords (Kledlwta)
Champions (Campwyr)
Skirmishers:
Hurlers (Fwnmilwyr)
Javelinmen (Ardu)
Heavy Javelinmen (Rhyfelwyr)
Hunters (Helwyr)
Bowmen (Saethwyr)
Archers (Saethwrabyr)
Riders:
Light Cavalry (Marchogluoedd)
Cavalry (Marca)
Heavy Cavalry (Marchomawr)
Archer Cavalry (Marca Saethwyr)
Noble Cavalry (Teulu)
Charioteers (Cerbyd)
Lord:
Briton Noble (Tywysog)
Misc:
Standard bearer
Carnyx player

Viking:
Basic troop:
Serf (Thrall)
Spear troop:
Levy Freedman (Leysinga)
Freeholder Spearmen (Bondi)
Heavy Spearman (Drengr)
Axemen:
Boarwarrior (Svinfylking)
Wolfcoats (Ulfhednar)
Berzerker (Ber-serkr)
Huscarls: (Huscarls) - Two handed axe
Swordsmen:
Hirdmen (Bodyguard)
Jomsviking (Jomsviking)
Skimishers:
Hurlers
Bowmen (Gestr)
Archers (Heimthegi)
Lord:
Chieftan (Hersir)
Noble (Jarl)
Misc:
Standard bearer
Carnyx player

Misc:
Cinbin/Dogheads (Outlaws)
Lithsmen (mercenaries - generic)
Scipflotan (mercenary sailors - Vikings)
«1

Comments

  • CA_DuckCA_Duck Registered Users, CA Staff Posts: 1,673
    Jomsvikings or I riot!
    Formal disclaimer: any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of The Creative Assembly or SEGA.
  • kinjokinjo Senior Member ArizonaRegistered Users Posts: 1,524
    They were within the period there Aggony Duck!
  • AdamYahyaAdamYahya Senior Member Kuala LumpurRegistered Users Posts: 3,318
    No Grall Knights?
  • KrunchKrunch Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,065
    This is a history game not a Warhammer game. Rosters don't work like this in history games.
  • wingren013wingren013 Registered Users Posts: 1,032
    Honestly I'd love for them to abandon the whole axemen and swordsmen thing for actual historical soldiers armed with spears or long handled axes. But its probably not going to happen.
  • HrafnHrafn Registered Users Posts: 305
    edited November 2017
    I want to see spears dominate the battlefield. The sword was a sidearm. The spear was for war.

    Not dominate, like overpowered; but I don't want spears to be near strictly anti-horse units like they are in Attila.
  • PrometheusPrometheus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 780
    Too many ...I hope for a more even and focused gameplay like Shogun II and concentrate more on unit abilities rather than numbers ...
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 385

    Too many ...I hope for a more even and focused gameplay like Shogun II and concentrate more on unit abilities rather than numbers ...

    Honestly I'd love for them to abandon the whole axemen and swordsmen thing for actual historical soldiers armed with spears or long handled axes. But its probably not going to happen.

    Hrafn said:

    I want to see spears dominate the battlefield. The sword was a sidearm. The spear was for war.

    Not dominate, like overpowered; but I don't want spears to be near strictly anti-horse units like they are in Attila.

    there's the old saying "a spear is sometimes worth two swords".

    in similar vein i hope formations will become a more important factor in the upcoming installment.
    without necessarily ditching the holy rps formula, what if spears remain relevant in infantry fights but only in formation (and thus suffer great tactical inflexibility in turn for some utility)
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________the tributes in charlemagne are appreciated
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009
    No Draugr summons? No Dragonborn hero? dragons? :smile:
  • SaurianDruidSaurianDruid Registered Users Posts: 1,601
    KGpoopy said:

    No Draugr summons? No Dragonborn hero? dragons? :smile:

    But what about dragons?!
  • AdamYahyaAdamYahya Senior Member Kuala LumpurRegistered Users Posts: 3,318
    Krunch said:

    This is a history game not a Warhammer game. Rosters don't work like this in history games.

    The were Grall Knights in BI!
  • MrfancypantsMrfancypants Registered Users Posts: 6
    This is probably heresy to suggest for a TW game, but given the time period I’d like to see some element of mixed unit blocks, particularly for shield wall formations. Once a shield wall is formed, a unit with spears or axes could merge into the front line to engage with their weapons to try to break the opposing wall.

    Probably completely impossible to implement though.
  • LizardKnightLizardKnight Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 175
    CA doesn't understand history if I was working for CA I would introduce REAL units. Not stupid barbarians. I am just gonna kill those filthy stupid barbarians I hate them they are not even a threat just annoying.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 14,690

    CA doesn't understand history if I was working for CA I would introduce REAL units. Not stupid barbarians. I am just gonna kill those filthy stupid barbarians I hate them they are not even a threat just annoying.

    I think it's you who doesn't understand history.
    #RIP BORIS! KILLED BY CA AND GW WITH SHORTSIGHTED CRUELTY JUST TO SHOVE KOSTALTYN DOWN OUR THROATS!

    The Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. We need Marius Leitdorf of Averland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him? For a Middenland DLC with Boris and the Ar-Ulric!

    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD!

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • EagleofPatmosEagleofPatmos Registered Users Posts: 3
    Yeah, hopefully there is more unit verity for the Anglo Saxons than they had in Charlemagne
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 385
    kind of ironic of u to make such remarks considering the following thread of urs below
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/208011/i-want-knights
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________the tributes in charlemagne are appreciated
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 385
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________the tributes in charlemagne are appreciated
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • kinjokinjo Senior Member ArizonaRegistered Users Posts: 1,524
    edited November 2017
    One thing I would like to see Total War get away from in its historical titles is the generic sword this and plan spear that clone type units and really infuse the culture of the faction into the units. The way I envision this being achieved is you have a core war-band unit that represents the style and warfare of the faction. This unit would be fleshed out with unique apparel, weapons, shield types, shield patterns, and banners that could all be culture specific and really set a Pictish war-band apart from a Saxon war-band. These could represent the majority of the common folk that fight in battles as the core battle line with units like nobles, skirmishers, cavalry, and archers playing more of a limited and supportive role in the identity of the faction.

    Imagine a Norse Hersir gathering his small band of followers to join the King's army to go on a raid. This would be the mobilization of the freemen basically.

    Sample war-band design with unit evolution:

    Bondi (Freeman)

    Hersir - unit officer
    Standard bearer - Carries the infamous Raven banner
    Musician - carries a massive war horn in one hand and a sidearm in the other

    Throwing weapons - heavy short range throwing spears
    Spears - a mix of spear types with various spear heads and shaft lengths
    Shields - Large viking shields with various cultural patterns with mostly faction colors (solid shield colors and basic patterns)
    Armor - Nordic style clothing with most of the unit wearing Nordic style helmets

    Unit Evolution:

    As the unit gains experience the appearance of the unit will change to where some of the men in the unit will have mail that they have gained from scavenging or purchased with booty over the course of the campaign. The more experience the more mail with no more than 30-50% having armor at max experience. That said experience should also give an armor bonus to reflect this. So a unit that has as seen many battles transforms from the village craftsman/farmer to a warrior.

    The rest of the Norse unit list could look something like this:

    Characters:

    Konungr - Faction Leader
    Jarl - Regular General
    Hersir - Unit leader
    Merkismathr - Raven Standard bearer
    Hornman - unit musician/signaler


    Units:

    Huskarls - Bodyguard for the King and Jarls
    Hirdmen - Lesser nobles, servants, attendants, and retainers armed mostly swords with few axes in the mix.
    Berserkers - Helmets, bear or wolf skins for armor (no mail), shields and hand weapons (fanatic fast light infantry)
    Landsmenn - Upper middle class armed with axes and a few swords in the mix
    Bondi - Core battle line spear unit
    Leysingi - light spears
    Gestr - Archer hunters/scouts (vanguard deployment)
    Heimthegi - Warrior archers with armor and shields
    Thralls - light spears/skirmisher slaves

    Mercenaries:
    Jomsvikings

    Agents:
    gothi - priest
    kappi - champion


    In battle the core of the army would be large units of bondi, leysingi, and landsmenn formed up in a shieldwall with the other units acting more in supportive/shock roles. Fanatic berserkers closing the distance fast and chasing down skirmishers or flanking, Huskarls and Hirdmen using Svinfylking (Boar's Snout) trying to break the enemies shiledwall , and warrior archer loosing arrows from behind their own skjaldbogr.

    With the noble type units there should be some kind of soft cap based on the amount of land a player has or a certain building chain that can only be one of in a region or province. That way the player or the Ai won't load up on unrealistic elite heavy armies and steamroll the map. Also there should be some kind of area of recruit units that are available to all factions, for example Viking factions in Ireland might have access to couple Irish units to help them deal with the Irish Skirmishers.
    Post edited by kinjo on
  • MortarMaggot275MortarMaggot275 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 163
    Shield wall could really be developed, too. Unit experience, depth, morale, and troop quality could all play factors in whether or not a boar snout can break the wall (also, those same things applying for the charging unit in the boar snout). It would help remove the long spaghetti lines we've been seeing, too. If you had a gold chevron unit with high morale and armor, they could fight and hold against a charging force with less depth and more length, but a lesser unit would have to be deeper in ranks to stop the charge, but would then give up length.

    It might add a new dynamic to this period warfare, imo.

    I want the Raven banner, though. In Danish England, Raven Banner flies you.
  • HrafnHrafn Registered Users Posts: 305
    If we have spaghetti lines in this, I'm not playing!
  • GrantdemGrantdem Member Registered Users Posts: 122
    In earlier games, you would get a rank bonus based on the depth of your formation for spears and pikes.
    This could be adapted I suppose, so units with a certain depth get increased melee defence and a charge defence bonus?

    As to units, I quite enjoyed the limited unit numbers from Age of Charlemagne.
    So spears, javelins, bodyguards and light cavalry will be prevalent for most factions I would assume.
  • alstlalstl Member Registered Users Posts: 322
    The op has put a lot of thought into this topic. I wonder whether catapults will be in this game as much as they were in Attila. My opinion is they were too accurate during field battles in Attila. I spent the majority of 1972 off the coast of Vietnam on a Cruiser - USS Providence which was a floating artillery unit. We got shot at a lot by NVA field artillery but never took a direct hit the reason being field artillery is good a hitting a fixed target but poor at hitting a moving target.

    1,000 years earlier I'm sure fixed artillery was even worse at hitting a moving target. Therefore I believe the fixed artillery should be accurate vs a stationary target but far less effective against moving targets than in Attila. Admittedly it is a lot of fun to line up a few artillery units and use flaming ammunition to devastate an attacking army but probably not entirely realistic.
  • MattzoMattzo Member United KingdomRegistered Users Posts: 1,433
    I don't think there should be much siege equipment at all (outside battering rams and ladders). Britain in the 800s wasn't reknowned for huge sieges and field artillery!
    "Everything in war is simple. But the simplest thing is difficult."
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,513
    I've been trying to find documentation regarding ancient "field"a artillery. So far, I've found zero.

    All I've got are either pictures with no context (catapults facing nothing, neither army nor walls), or pictures and documentation regarding sieges, both as attacker and defender. If there ever was a use of siege weapons against an army in the field, I doubt it was anything except the considerably exceptional. Otherwise there'd be quite a number of references about it, talked about by nearly everyone.

    The only time that really started becoming a thing was when you can finally build small enough cannons that can be carried by horses. Yeah, the Vikings didn't unlimber caissons and loaded grapeshot against Anglo-Saxon halberdiers, now imagine them carrying mangonels on longships and rolling them up to attack palisades. When they besieged Paris it was built on site. And by "it" I mean ladders and rams, not torsion-powered ballistas.

    Even in MTW2, the primary purpose of artillery units was taking down settlement walls, they weren't great for field battles unless it was a bridge battle, where the AI would park their units in your face to patiently chip away.

    I'm not ragging on artillery like I want it to be the next meme, however. They just need to stick to the context of sieges. it is realistic, it is practical, and it ensures that siege battles are unique and not just a regular battle with with walls and buildings. Sometimes the best way to make battles more fun is to ensure some elements are NOT in most of them.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • FrancescoCavalliFrancescoCavalli Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 21
    daelin4 said:

    I've been trying to find documentation regarding ancient "field"a artillery. So far, I've found zero.

    All I've got are either pictures with no context (catapults facing nothing, neither army nor walls), or pictures and documentation regarding sieges, both as attacker and defender. If there ever was a use of siege weapons against an army in the field, I doubt it was anything except the considerably exceptional. Otherwise there'd be quite a number of references about it, talked about by nearly everyone.

    The only time that really started becoming a thing was when you can finally build small enough cannons that can be carried by horses. Yeah, the Vikings didn't unlimber caissons and loaded grapeshot against Anglo-Saxon halberdiers, now imagine them carrying mangonels on longships and rolling them up to attack palisades. When they besieged Paris it was built on site. And by "it" I mean ladders and rams, not torsion-powered ballistas.

    Even in MTW2, the primary purpose of artillery units was taking down settlement walls, they weren't great for field battles unless it was a bridge battle, where the AI would park their units in your face to patiently chip away.

    I'm not ragging on artillery like I want it to be the next meme, however. They just need to stick to the context of sieges. it is realistic, it is practical, and it ensures that siege battles are unique and not just a regular battle with with walls and buildings. Sometimes the best way to make battles more fun is to ensure some elements are NOT in most of them.

    Tacitus makes one reference to cataputs and ballistae on the battlefield in his Annals - When trying to prop up a client king in Armenia during Nero’s reign the Romans constructed a bridge under catapult cover as the invadian Parthians were unwilling to come with range to return fire with their bows. Can't remember the book but it was during the reign of Tiridates I. Still, as you say, artillery shoukd be very rare. If anything, I think they would be better constructed as siege units, or perhaps bought far in advance at great expense so that besieging armies can deploy it after a certain number of turns encamped. A bit like Edward I’s famous trebuchet
  • alstlalstl Member Registered Users Posts: 322

    daelin4 said:

    I've been trying to find documentation regarding ancient "field"a artillery. So far, I've found zero.

    All I've got are either pictures with no context (catapults facing nothing, neither army nor walls), or pictures and documentation regarding sieges, both as attacker and defender. If there ever was a use of siege weapons against an army in the field, I doubt it was anything except the considerably exceptional. Otherwise there'd be quite a number of references about it, talked about by nearly everyone.

    The only time that really started becoming a thing was when you can finally build small enough cannons that can be carried by horses. Yeah, the Vikings didn't unlimber caissons and loaded grapeshot against Anglo-Saxon halberdiers, now imagine them carrying mangonels on longships and rolling them up to attack palisades. When they besieged Paris it was built on site. And by "it" I mean ladders and rams, not torsion-powered ballistas.

    Even in MTW2, the primary purpose of artillery units was taking down settlement walls, they weren't great for field battles unless it was a bridge battle, where the AI would park their units in your face to patiently chip away.

    I'm not ragging on artillery like I want it to be the next meme, however. They just need to stick to the context of sieges. it is realistic, it is practical, and it ensures that siege battles are unique and not just a regular battle with with walls and buildings. Sometimes the best way to make battles more fun is to ensure some elements are NOT in most of them.

    Tacitus makes one reference to cataputs and ballistae on the battlefield in his Annals - When trying to prop up a client king in Armenia during Nero’s reign the Romans constructed a bridge under catapult cover as the invadian Parthians were unwilling to come with range to return fire with their bows. Can't remember the book but it was during the reign of Tiridates I. Still, as you say, artillery shoukd be very rare. If anything, I think they would be better constructed as siege units, or perhaps bought far in advance at great expense so that besieging armies can deploy it after a certain number of turns encamped. A bit like Edward I’s famous trebuchet
    I imagine catapults had to be constructed on the site. I doubt the poor roads and lack of modern vehicles enabled armies to transport a large catapult more than a short distance. In a scenario like the one you describe where the enemy refuses to close and engage it might give an army with the technological expertise to construct catapults or ballistae. Seems logical they would be limited to siege battles.
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,386
    daelin4 said:

    I've been trying to find documentation regarding ancient "field"a artillery. So far, I've found zero.

    Well, there's the Roman scorpion - small, disassembled for transport, could be assembled in advance of set-piece battles if there was time.

    After that ... reintroduced by the Polish army in the 1600s, with (as you say) small cannon drawn by horses.

    In between, not much.

  • FrancescoCavalliFrancescoCavalli Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 21
    alstl said:

    daelin4 said:

    I've been trying to find documentation regarding ancient "field"a artillery. So far, I've found zero.

    All I've got are either pictures with no context (catapults facing nothing, neither army nor walls), or pictures and documentation regarding sieges, both as attacker and defender. If there ever was a use of siege weapons against an army in the field, I doubt it was anything except the considerably exceptional. Otherwise there'd be quite a number of references about it, talked about by nearly everyone.

    The only time that really started becoming a thing was when you can finally build small enough cannons that can be carried by horses. Yeah, the Vikings didn't unlimber caissons and loaded grapeshot against Anglo-Saxon halberdiers, now imagine them carrying mangonels on longships and rolling them up to attack palisades. When they besieged Paris it was built on site. And by "it" I mean ladders and rams, not torsion-powered ballistas.

    Even in MTW2, the primary purpose of artillery units was taking down settlement walls, they weren't great for field battles unless it was a bridge battle, where the AI would park their units in your face to patiently chip away.

    I'm not ragging on artillery like I want it to be the next meme, however. They just need to stick to the context of sieges. it is realistic, it is practical, and it ensures that siege battles are unique and not just a regular battle with with walls and buildings. Sometimes the best way to make battles more fun is to ensure some elements are NOT in most of them.

    Tacitus makes one reference to cataputs and ballistae on the battlefield in his Annals - When trying to prop up a client king in Armenia during Nero’s reign the Romans constructed a bridge under catapult cover as the invadian Parthians were unwilling to come with range to return fire with their bows. Can't remember the book but it was during the reign of Tiridates I. Still, as you say, artillery shoukd be very rare. If anything, I think they would be better constructed as siege units, or perhaps bought far in advance at great expense so that besieging armies can deploy it after a certain number of turns encamped. A bit like Edward I’s famous trebuchet
    I imagine catapults had to be constructed on the site. I doubt the poor roads and lack of modern vehicles enabled armies to transport a large catapult more than a short distance. In a scenario like the one you describe where the enemy refuses to close and engage it might give an army with the technological expertise to construct catapults or ballistae. Seems logical they would be limited to siege battles.
    I think they probably carried them around flat-pack (so to speak) on carts with tents, provisions etc and assembled them when required - so yes they should really be limited to any situation where an army might have at least a day to ‘dig in’. I reckon one should buy them as is always done in TW but not have them take up a unit slot and only allow them to be deployed when entrenched in a position or assaulting walls, as you say
  • kinjokinjo Senior Member ArizonaRegistered Users Posts: 1,524
    edited December 2017
    My gut still cringes at the thought of artillery, there are literately no accounts of artillery in Britannia at this time besides the Romans and when they start to show up again around 1200 AD. They simply have no place in shieldwall battles and that is all there to say unless you want a technology that is seriously at least 300 years out of period.
  • Nortrix87Nortrix87 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,000
    I would like to see mixed units. As the normal thing of Viking hirdman/huscarls for example was to train with and have many weapons. Spear, Sword or two handed axe as primary weapon. One handed axe and seax as secondary weapons. All with shields, in case of using the two handed axe, shields were on the back ready to be used if you draw your secondary.

    Like the left one below:




    In a shieldwall first and maby second line would use secondary weapons for close quarter fighting. Second or third line would use spears, two handed axes etc. Behind arrows were shoot and spears trown over the Skjoldborg/shieldwall-castle.

    With one handed axes you could hock enemy shields exposing youre oponent open for a stab from the spearman behind you or the guy with an seax beside you. Also to hock the legs tripping an oponent.
    The video under show a bit what i mean:

    youtube.com/watch?v=I-YdoIYw5m0

    Basicaly i would like to see more than yust the first line engaged. and feel its a bit non historical that all grunts in the unit use the same weapons. Like a sword unit for example.

    Would aslo be nice to see mixed armors. As Vikings traveled and fought around europe they gather different armor types. Would be nice to see some use lammelar armor , next guy chainmail etc. Aspechely swedish vikings adopted alot of lammelar as they went mostly east into russia and byzantine lands. We know the great heaten army had gathered forces from all scandinavia and viking baltic under danish leadership. This variety could be nice.
    A victory could also upgrade unarmored as they loot enemy armor.

    Aslo would like to se one or two "shieldmaidens" in a unit. As there was some whommen who had the strength and skill to challenge men.

    news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/09/viking-warrior-woman-archaeology-spd/

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=W_eDG__jyDs

    I see all this would be difficult for CA, but a toggle option were you on a push of a button can make your unit change from spears to seax for example should be possible. Right?

    The levy should be more limited, but a professional unit should be more adaptable.



    "We men are the monsters now. The time of heroes is dead, Wiglaf - the Christ God has killed it, leaving humankind with nothing but weeping martyrs, fear, and shame."

    - Beowulf
Sign In or Register to comment.