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

(For CA/Feedback) Loose Formations for Ranged and Melee As Anti-Artillery

EpilepticSeaHorseEpilepticSeaHorse Posts: 4Registered Users
edited May 2018 in General Discussion
I understand the purpose of shield screen for the melee units as a counter to ranged, but three things continue to confuse as they just don't make sense for me.

1. Why on earth do non-shielded melee units have access to loose formations but not ranged? Loose formations enable you to move forward and engage artillery with ranged without suffering 10-20 casualties every time you get hit by a rock. It doesn't make sense to limit them further since they already have the range and positioning disadvantages against artillery.

This doesn't even address ranged vs ranged combat, which is now brought to an ignorant density for exaggerated casualties on one another that make absolutely no sense at all. The default state of ranged engagements has been brought to the level of the lowest involvement and skill possible short of locking them in place once firing (like melee engagements). (If Eastmen Archers are bugged and supposed to have this ability but don't, well, see #3.)

2. Why don't melee keep loose formations for artillery salvos that you must weather on approach? This seems like a grotesque oversight as well, as the ham-fisted approach to not manage formations by integrating shield-wall defaults has now left these units getting slammed by boulders on their advance. Since when were swordsmen too stupid to realize that they shouldn't stand shoulder-to-shoulder when giant pieces of detritus are en-route to crush them at regular intervals?

This is especially pertinent given that some shield castles fill the defensive testudo (forced immobility) role in the .pack, so there is absolutely no way to approach with a melee unit that mitigates risk to them. I understand this brings the micro down a bit for new players, but again, this rolls around to #3.

3. I searched through data.pack and could not find a single reference to enable loose formations for these units so I could at least share with my friend who I play head-to-head with. This is obscene. Why on Earth is this hardcoded (like barricades still, if I am correct, even though other siege escalation variables and tables exist within the .pack) and unworkable?

I would love any response CA has in regards to this, because if it can be explained away well, I'd deal with it. That being said, I'm skeptical you can actually make sense of men wandering to their deaths with the intellectual capacity of Orc Boyz.

Comments

  • Jack_Lusted_CAJack_Lusted_CA Creative Assembly Brighton, UKPosts: 1,346Registered Users, CA Staff Mods, CA Staff
    Missile units are already arranged in a loose formation, certainly looser than melee units. Hence why they don't have the option to form it themselves.

    Melee units with shields don't have loose formation to counter artillery, as artillery is quite rare in the game so generally the main ranged units they're concerned with are archers and such who can be countered with shield castle.

    2 handed axe units have loose formation as they don't have shields and are generally the most aggressive melee units.

    You can set units to have loose formation in the land_units table.
    Game Director - Thrones of Britannia

    Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Creative Assembly or SEGA.
  • EpilepticSeaHorseEpilepticSeaHorse Posts: 4Registered Users
    edited May 2018
    Much appreciated! I assume the Eastmen Archer thing is a bug of sorts, and I'll see if it's just a table error or if it's a problem in-engine or on my end. The unit is PACKED in though, so it still seems like they'd suffer horrific casualties even if they are more spread out. That's why I was searching for their extremely loose formations. Thank you for the swift and informative reply!

    Also artillery as a rarity makes more sense, as someone who tends to strategize around the way it can control enemy field position implementation difficulties would be exaggerated by my play style.
  • Jack_Lusted_CAJack_Lusted_CA Creative Assembly Brighton, UKPosts: 1,346Registered Users, CA Staff Mods, CA Staff
    As said missile units aren't meant to have loose formation as an ability, as all missile units are by default in a loose spacing anyway.
    Game Director - Thrones of Britannia

    Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Creative Assembly or SEGA.
  • EpilepticSeaHorseEpilepticSeaHorse Posts: 4Registered Users
    edited May 2018
    I'll keep that in mind when looking at how to best balance this, as maybe minor tinkering to default spacing will serve my tastes better. Thank you again for your help. I can get these changes in, and hopefully, on the workshop soon should that be released in the near future.

    As one last quick question, does the Accuracy stat bend arrows' trajectories like Shogun 2, or does it merely decrease the spread radius on a constant trajectory shot?
  • Jack_Lusted_CAJack_Lusted_CA Creative Assembly Brighton, UKPosts: 1,346Registered Users, CA Staff Mods, CA Staff
    No projectiles in Shogun 2 'bent' towards targets, nor do they in games since. Accuracy defines how likely an arrow is to hit within an area depending on factors, which generates a sort of cone, the higher the accuracy the narrower the cone.
    Game Director - Thrones of Britannia

    Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Creative Assembly or SEGA.
  • EpilepticSeaHorseEpilepticSeaHorse Posts: 4Registered Users
    edited May 2018
    Gotcha. It had just appeared, during slow time, that sometimes arrows would "seek" a moving target in Shogun 2, but I hadn't seen the interaction in Attila. I did see the CAI was still programmed with Chosokabe, Date, and the like (as long as you have your keys linked as needed for function - which you obviously do, who cares?), so I didn't know how many concurrent projects might be using mildly different versions of the overall engine and how to account for that. Thanks for that clarification. Have a great day Jack and all of CA, and cheers to a great franchise continuing to move forward.
Sign In or Register to comment.