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

Improve Units' Formation and Movement Dynamics

SpectrositySpectrosity Posts: 3Registered Users
I'm still not sure if these are something that CA can't change because of the engine, or they just don't want to. I would love to be able to make an individual unit form a curved line instead of always being a straight block. I think this would make battles a lot different in a good way. For example, imagine having only a single unit to defend at a bottleneck, but the spot is just a little bit too rigid to cover the whole thing. I watch many Total War battles and constantly see situations where this mechanic would help tremendously.

Also, the way units charge could be a lot better. Again, maybe CA can't or won't fix it, I don't know. Either way, we've all seen it. The unit charges towards another and clashes a bit diagonally, and the units who miss continue to charge into nothingness for a good 20 feet sometimes. I can't help but cringe every time I see it happen. It would be great to see units actually curve their trajectory and actually charge into someone.

Another thing about the charging dynamic, which usually only happens when infantry are charging. Especially when they are charging other infantry. We are all victims of witnessing this atrocity. It is when an infantry unit clashes into another which is stationary, but only 1/4 of the unit comes into contact and the rest of the attackers come to a complete halt, then slowly move forward to engage. When this happens, it keeps the unit from getting a good charge bonus as a whole.

To be honest, I really thought these things I mentioned above would be discussed a lot more, as they seem like a very tedious issue and still haven't been addressed to this day. I cannot find a thread about this anywhere on any forums or through google search, nor videos.

Let me know what you think. Do you find this problematic too? Is it just me? Can none of these things be fixed? Is CA lazy? Any feedback is greatly appreciated, truly. Thanks.

Comments

  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Posts: 1,507Registered Users
    I fully agree. There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to tactical battles.

    The faltering charge thing happens with cavalry as well. It is more devastating because cavalry units rely on charge bonus more than infantry.

    There are major elements still missing from tactical engagements. Curved line as you said. There are others such as "push" and "withdraw". In Total War when two lines meet, they keep fighting in the same place until one routs. This rarely happened in melee engagements. Instead, lines should move forward and backwards based on whichever side is winning the engagement.

    Units in Total War always act like independent entities, like in a generic RTS game. This might make sense for Roman legions and similarly structured armies, but this was not universal. Ideally we should have the option to combine a few units of a similar type into one large cohesive unit (like a flank) that will act as one - an improvement on grouping.

    Currently you can basically just give two commands to an unit - move or attack. Along with them there could be other options such as "hold", "advance", "recon", "assault", "tactical retreat" etc. There could be stances / sliders determining how many casualties are acceptable, i.e. how aggressive or defensive an advancing / holding unit should be to achieve its objective. People who have played lite tactical wargames such as Command Ops or Scourge of War would know what I am talking about.

    ---------------

    That being said, not every Total War player would like this kind of detail. There is a large part of the fanbase who came over from games like StarCraft / Dawn of War etc who will be turned off. CA should consider keeping a "classic mode" which is as it is now, and a "grognard mode" which can incorporate some wargaming elements.
  • JerroserJerroser Posts: 198Registered Users
    One thing I would actually like to see added is for terrain to more directly effect the formations units are able to take. Such as some forests actively slowing down units or forcing them is to a loose formation, rather than just being hidden or getting a slight combat bonus. Perhaps with some units being far better at fighting as individuals in a forest while others that rely on their tight formations would be put at a disadvantage.

    @mitthrawnuruodo I would say that guard mode is effectively a hold position order given that it forces units to stay where they are and not peruse routing enemies. But some level of minor auto management commands might work well, like perhaps allowing units to change the way they are facing so that shields are covering them from arrow fire. Or for a groups of units that have been asked to move somewhere, to have a contingency order where if an enemy gets close to them they will get in to formation and face them to that they wont get attacked in the flank.

    Since one of the things that does annoy me a little bit when managing a large battle is where I'm reminded that I'm commanding an army of a thousand drones, without any level of self preservation instinct (beyond running once enough of them have died). Such as if you have one stationery unit, that won't turn to face another unit flanking it unless ordered.
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Posts: 210Registered Users

    [...] the way units charge could be a lot better. Again, maybe CA can't or won't fix it, I don't know. Either way, we've all seen it. The unit charges towards another and clashes a bit diagonally, and the units who miss continue to charge into nothingness for a good 20 feet sometimes. I can't help but cringe every time I see it happen. It would be great to see units actually curve their trajectory and actually charge into someone.

    Another thing about the charging dynamic, which usually only happens when infantry are charging. Especially when they are charging other infantry. We are all victims of witnessing this atrocity. It is when an infantry unit clashes into another which is stationary, but only 1/4 of the unit comes into contact and the rest of the attackers come to a complete halt, then slowly move forward to engage. When this happens, it keeps the unit from getting a good charge bonus as a whole.

    To be honest, I really thought these things I mentioned above would be discussed a lot more, as they seem like a very tedious issue and still haven't been addressed to this day. I cannot find a thread about this anywhere on any forums or through google search, nor videos.

    i think ure referring to the unit stiffness problem. its a gift from the mid stages of rome ii. somehow some vocal armchair historians mistook strict formation stiffness with "strategy". i suspect during rome ii's post release development the devs gave in to that crowd. now for historical titles we re left with this mess of global unit-block-obedience. thats why i think its important to emphasise the use of actual unit 'formations' that are activatable and toggleable rather than have unit behaviour b altered to the point of drone-like minions. and along jerroser's notion, extraversial effects such as difficult terrain, break throughs (low morale, charge, mass knock-down) or attacks from different directions, could additionally add gameplay dimension to tw skirmish as it would force units to abandon their formation and fight loosely - a chaotic setting in which sword types particularly excell for example.
    __

    @mitthrawnuruodo
    generally agree, especially the combining of two units into one organisation seems interesting;
    but i would not so much submit the notion that classical rtt/rts gamers preferring action heavy titles like starcraft r more likely to prefer a simpler tw (theres already not much going on tbh) just for their favourite rts having a lot of action going on in a relative short amount of time.

    btw, have u ever tried ultimate general: civil war. if so, what do u think of it? im not too much into the setitng but the gameplay system imo is just great. if u havent, well, for a brief alternation, at least i find it recommendable.
    __

    i would like to see friendly damage not b exclusive for missile attack but for melee charge attack. it would make tw skirmish less abusable and less ludicrous, and i think tactically more enticing rather than the opposite (in this case, less freedom is more value).
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!!

    appeal to CA:

    skirmish related (applicable for historical titles):
    new innovations in the ToB campaign look very promising! skirmish need that kind of revamp too!
    pls, dont overemphasize unit r/p/s counter-matching as the hierarchical confluence of all decision making
    - ! make unit formations (and perhaps abilities) great again! (charlemagne)
    - ! same with LoS system! (tw:arena/UG:CivilWars)
    - ! same with terrain (ridges) (tw:arena/shogun2/UG:CivilWars)
    you've already made the tools!
    just make use of them!


    menu related (mp skirmish lobby):
    * add "large army" option to quickmatch pls!
    * have "large army" settings be tagged visually in lobby selector (so that all players have easier time in lobby select)
    * pls introduce scheduled rank resets to quickmatch as means to repress unsportsmanlike conduct related to stat fetishism
    * enable shared team funds (sum == opposition funds irrespective of player count) that all members can (optionally) submit to that facilitate the setup of uneven teams

    campaign related:
    + kudos for adding a basic supply system to the ToB campaign
    * for a much more elegant way of addressing autoresolve of not so decisive battles and how armies reinforce each other mount and blade's marshal system could b a fitting reference. mbe there is a way to integrate the marshal concept in one way or the other
    -or-
    * instead of imposing a hard cap of 20 units per army introduce a more organic approach of having lower ranking officers command ~ 10/15 units at max and higher ones up to ~ 40 (with supply, replenishment and all considered)
    * * reinforcing armies in this case would trickle in so a count of 40 intact units is kept rather than exceed 40+ units
    * dynamic quest/notification-event system (may b interesting for 3 kings)

    + thx for addressing spaghetti lines
    + kudos for adding a basic supply system to the ToB campaign


    • Tier1: Shogun 2 / Wh 2 / Warhammer
    • Tier2: Age of Charlemagne / Napoleon
    • Tier3: Attila / Medieval 2 / Rome
    • ....
    • Accident: Rome II

    • pending: ToB is yet to b acquired
    • pending: Three Kings not been released yet
    image

    Team Shadowgave
    Team Cao Wei
    wu xing graph

    casual survey on tw skirmish battles
    casual survey provisional analysis
    let's learn about the diplomacy game first before comlaining about vassals!
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Posts: 1,507Registered Users
    edited January 8
    Jerroser said:


    @mitthrawnuruodo I would say that guard mode is effectively a hold position order given that it forces units to stay where they are and not peruse routing enemies. But some level of minor auto management commands might work well, like perhaps allowing units to change the way they are facing so that shields are covering them from arrow fire. Or for a groups of units that have been asked to move somewhere, to have a contingency order where if an enemy gets close to them they will get in to formation and face them to that they wont get attacked in the flank.

    Since one of the things that does annoy me a little bit when managing a large battle is where I'm reminded that I'm commanding an army of a thousand drones, without any level of self preservation instinct (beyond running once enough of them have died). Such as if you have one stationery unit, that won't turn to face another unit flanking it unless ordered.

    Yes, that is precisely how commands works in those games. "Hold position" means defend current position (a specific area on the map), not something rigid like guard mode. It sets an objective for your formations like in real battles, as opposed to giving them right-click orders like a generic RTS games.

    @ma7moud_al_sharif, yup I have both Ultimate General games. They are a step in the right direction, however still too arcady IMO. Civil War makes a massive improvement on the first game, but the campaign still requires some more nuances and decisions. I am hoping the next game in the series has a more diversified setting like Napoleonic Wars.

    Also I am not really discounting being "action heavy" as something undesirable. In fact I want the action heavy audio-visual extravaganza that is Total War, but with more nuanced and realistic command and control. I prefer more detailed tactical control to micromanagement. Battles should feel like the player is commanding an army made up of officers, flanks, divisions, regiments and so on, instead of controlling a bunch of mindless bots.

    The decision to introduce some command hierarchy to the armies in Three Kingdoms (i.e. each army seems to be made up of a 4 / 5 individually commanded forces) is a very refreshing move. I hope it is a sign of good things to come.
Sign In or Register to comment.