A new era, centuries XVI-XVII

JorgeRioF · April 28

This has nothing to do with Total war Three kingdoms and I understand this might bother someone when this game hasn't been released yet. But I wanted to give this suggestion.
In the future you could make a Total war based on the second half of the century XVI and the first half of the century XVII. This is the era of discoveries, exploration and when the spanish and portuguese empires connected the world for the first time in history. Also, there are differences in the military world before and after this period, that's why I don't add the whole centuries.
As Rome was the symbol of Rome II, in this case it should be the spanish empire, the most powerful nation of this era. There are so many conflicts it totally suits the Total war saga. The spanish and the portuguese empire would have the most advanced navy forces as they were really interested to develop the sailing's technology. Also, I want to see the spanish tercios. One of the best infantry units that ever existed. Comparable to the Roman legions and the Macedonian phalanx, although unfortunately most people don't know about it. It would be a campaign were naval battles are really important. The spanish empire fought Portugal, England, Sweden, German protestant rebels, dutch rebels, France, the Ottoman empire, the italian republics were rivals and of course, all the pirates around the world, european, african and asian. This is a really interesting era, but I hope you don't fall for the lies about the spanish empire, which are many. I guess I can trust your professionalism, but you are british, and I don't know why those are the ones that lie the most about the spanish empire. I'll just say something: The spanish black legend.

BillyRuffian · April 28

Moved to Total War General Chat.

Commisar · April 28

It's one of the more common requests for a new time period, often called as "pike and shot" TW.

Problem is we can't see a tercio in game as it required mixed unit roles.

davedave1124 · April 30

Commisar said:
It's one of the more common requests for a new time period, often called as "pike and shot" TW.

Problem is we can't see a tercio in game as it required mixed unit roles.

tbf if you look at 3 Kingdoms there are mixed role elite infantry. The is a spear infantry who uses 2 ranks of spears and 2 ranks of archers. I think CA are more than open to further this idea.

4:37

Commisar · April 30

davedave1124 said:
tbf if you look at 3 Kingdoms there are mixed role elite infantry. The is a spear infantry who uses 2 ranks of spears and 2 ranks of archers. I think CA are more than open to further this idea.

Yeah I saw them early on in the streams, they aren't quite the same. If you look carefully you can see all the men have both weapons. It's just new that those not in melee or braced can still use their bows. It's also important to remember these have indirect fire where as the guns used often in a tercio aren't.

It has also been brought up before in discussions that this might also go unhistorically with these units ending up under powered as they become jacks of all trades rather than masters. E.g. they will lose vs a pure musket troop at range or lose in melee vs a pure melee unit.

davedave1124 · April 30

Commisar said:

davedave1124 said:
tbf if you look at 3 Kingdoms there are mixed role elite infantry. The is a spear infantry who uses 2 ranks of spears and 2 ranks of archers. I think CA are more than open to further this idea.
Yeah I saw them early on in the streams, they aren't quite the same. If you look carefully you can see all the men have both weapons. It's just new that those not in melee or braced can still use their bows. It's also important to remember these have indirect fire where as the guns used often in a tercio aren't.

It has also been brought up before in discussions that this might also go unhistorically with these units ending up under powered as they become jacks of all trades rather than masters. E.g. they will lose vs a pure musket troop at range or lose in melee vs a pure melee unit.

Well, I think it proves CA can use a mixed formation. I actually think it the era of pike and shot those troops who can mix will be considered more elite. They can both shoot oncoming troops and guard against cavalry. I'd like them to become available through tactical breakthroughs. It's pretty much up to CA how they balance them.

Commisar · May 1

davedave1124 said:
Well, I think it proves CA can use a mixed formation. I actually think it the era of pike and shot those troops who can mix will be considered more elite. They can both shoot oncoming troops and guard against cavalry. I'd like them to become available through tactical breakthroughs. It's pretty much up to CA how they balance them.

They've had that ability for a while with a number of pike units being able to keep their pikes while some switch to swords. It's good they are working on it but still not going to represent tercios close to right.

Problem isn't how they balance it but how they make the game. Either all units end up being like them and mixed formation or they end up under powered. A pure pike formation is going to take some losses advancing sure, but then when they get in to melee they will have the numbers to win. Similarly at range a full gun line will have more firepower than them and shoot them to bits. Jack of all trades vs specialists.

davedave1124 · May 1

Commisar said:

davedave1124 said:
Well, I think it proves CA can use a mixed formation. I actually think it the era of pike and shot those troops who can mix will be considered more elite. They can both shoot oncoming troops and guard against cavalry. I'd like them to become available through tactical breakthroughs. It's pretty much up to CA how they balance them.
They've had that ability for a while with a number of pike units being able to keep their pikes while some switch to swords. It's good they are working on it but still not going to represent tercios close to right.

Problem isn't how they balance it but how they make the game. Either all units end up being like them and mixed formation or they end up under powered. A pure pike formation is going to take some losses advancing sure, but then when they get in to melee they will have the numbers to win. Similarly at range a full gun line will have more firepower than them and shoot them to bits. Jack of all trades vs specialists.

CA never really aim to replicate real world tactics, it's too difficult for any game to do. I'd also say there's a big difference between a weapon animation kicking in when an enemy is at a differing range. This has more to do with having to different troop types in a single unit. I brought up balance because you mentioned units becoming under-powered which is directly related.

As mentioned, there's nothing to stop the fire-arm element taking out their sword. CA could make possible formations more complex as time goes on.. separate units, Colunelas, Tercios, Dutch Cohort, Swedish Squadrons etc.

Every country could start of with a vanilla style of fighting and then start to combine arms offering serious bonuses. I could guess how to do it but my thoughts are CA are more than capable to do it themselves. I couldn't guess what they are or not capable of doing.

JorgeRioF · May 2

Commisar said:
It's one of the more common requests for a new time period, often called as "pike and shot" TW.

Problem is we can't see a tercio in game as it required mixed unit roles.

But they can add a mechanich which allows you to make very closed formations with different units (pikes and arquebuses), so it would be two units or more, but they would behave like one, rotating like it was done (they fire, the retreat so the pikes can protect them and if they can they advance to the front again, but you have to tell them when to do that of course).

Commisar · May 5

davedave1124 said:
CA never really aim to replicate real world tactics, it's too difficult for any game to do. I'd also say there's a big difference between a weapon animation kicking in when an enemy is at a differing range. This has more to do with having to different troop types in a single unit. I brought up balance because you mentioned units becoming under-powered which is directly related.

As mentioned, there's nothing to stop the fire-arm element taking out their sword. CA could make possible formations more complex as time goes on.. separate units, Colunelas, Tercios, Dutch Cohort, Swedish Squadrons etc.

Every country could start of with a vanilla style of fighting and then start to combine arms offering serious bonuses. I could guess how to do it but my thoughts are CA are more than capable to do it themselves. I couldn't guess what they are or not capable of doing.

I agree they can't fully do real world tactics, why they didn't do mixed units previously - game limitations. I know, balance is part of the discussion for them and why it's came up in most of the previously.

Problem is that's not a true Tercios though.

I'm basing it off what CA themselves have said before, during R2s development there was a request for mixed weapon barbarians. E.g. Sword, axe and spear. This was rejected over game limitations with too many weapon profiles.

JorgeRioF said:
But they can add a mechanich which allows you to make very closed formations with different units (pikes and arquebuses), so it would be two units or more, but they would behave like one, rotating like it was done (they fire, the retreat so the pikes can protect them and if they can they advance to the front again, but you have to tell them when to do that of course).

Be interesting if they can, but can see it having issues with shooting your own men...currently ranged units can be bad about that ~_~ Would be nice if they could at least have the pikemen side step so missile troops can move back or forward.

davedave1124 · May 6

Commisar said:

davedave1124 said:
CA never really aim to replicate real world tactics, it's too difficult for any game to do. I'd also say there's a big difference between a weapon animation kicking in when an enemy is at a differing range. This has more to do with having to different troop types in a single unit. I brought up balance because you mentioned units becoming under-powered which is directly related.

As mentioned, there's nothing to stop the fire-arm element taking out their sword. CA could make possible formations more complex as time goes on.. separate units, Colunelas, Tercios, Dutch Cohort, Swedish Squadrons etc.

Every country could start off with a vanilla style of fighting and then start to combine arms offering serious bonuses. I could guess how to do it but my thoughts are CA are more than capable to do it themselves. I couldn't guess what they are or not capable of doing.
I agree they can't fully do real world tactics, why they didn't do mixed units previously - game limitations. I know, balance is part of the discussion for them and why it's came up in most of the previously.

Problem is that's not a true Tercios though.

I'm basing it off what CA themselves have said before, during R2s development there was a request for mixed weapon barbarians. E.g. Sword, axe and spear. This was rejected over game limitations with too many weapon profiles.
JorgeRioF said:
But they can add a mechanich which allows you to make very closed formations with different units (pikes and arquebuses), so it would be two units or more, but they would behave like one, rotating like it was done (they fire, the retreat so the pikes can protect them and if they can they advance to the front again, but you have to tell them when to do that of course).
Be interesting if they can, but can see it having issues with shooting your own men...currently ranged units can be bad about that ~_~ Would be nice if they could at least have the pikemen side step so missile troops can move back or forward.

Yes but that was R2, I remember people asking for ship battles during M2 and of course, CA said 'game limitations. They are obviously making combined arms more a feature of the game especially in 3K, so to me current limitations is no longer a valid reason why anything will not eventually be part of the game.

I think the Trecio and above system is highly complex having the firearms, firing by rank, on the flanks and then retreating into the main square of polearms.. it does sound like a big challenge. Of course they always need to refresh the game every few years.

I'm hoping one day they open up a third perspective; 1.campaign map,2. battlefield and 3. new - single real time missions for assassins, saboteurs, special missions etc. A while off but I can dream.

Commisar · May 6

davedave1124 said:
Yes but that was R2, I remember people asking for ship battles during M2 and of course, CA said 'game limitations. They are obviously making combined arms more a feature of the game especially in 3K, so to me current limitations is no longer a valid reason why anything will not eventually be part of the game.

I think the Trecio and above system is highly complex having the firearms, firing by rank, on the flanks and then retreating into the main square of polearms.. it does sound like a big challenge. Of course they always need to refresh the game every few years.

I'm hoping one day they open up a third perspective; 1.campaign map,2. battlefield and 3. new - single real time missions for assassins, saboteurs, special missions etc. A while off but I can dream.

And it required an entirely new engine for them to add naval combat, which has now been dropped. Odds of a new engine any time soon? Doesn't seem likely.

No they aren't. As I said so far not seen any addition of combined arms, seen the same type we've had since I've been playing back with Medieval 1. Primary and secondary weapons.

Generally their "refresh" is new period and graphics and redoing the basic designs, combat has remained very similarly. They'd keep the current combat and have the player do the moving of units, easier for them and keeps the balance nice and simple.

It'd be nice if we could at least get the little vids back of them, they could at least be funny. Love the duel in Empire where they run away lol.

davedave1124 · May 7

Commisar said:

davedave1124 said:
Yes but that was R2, I remember people asking for ship battles during M2 and of course, CA said 'game limitations. They are obviously making combined arms more a feature of the game especially in 3K, so to me current limitations is no longer a valid reason why anything will not eventually be part of the game.

I think the Trecio and above system is highly complex having the firearms, firing by rank, on the flanks and then retreating into the main square of polearms.. it does sound like a big challenge. Of course they always need to refresh the game every few years.

I'm hoping one day they open up a third perspective; 1.campaign map,2. battlefield and 3. new - single real time missions for assassins, saboteurs, special missions etc. A while off but I can dream.
And it required an entirely new engine for them to add naval combat, which has now been dropped. Odds of a new engine any time soon? Doesn't seem likely.

No they aren't. As I said so far not seen any addition of combined arms, seen the same type we've had since I've been playing back with Medieval 1. Primary and secondary weapons.

Generally their "refresh" is new period and graphics and redoing the basic designs, combat has remained very similarly. They'd keep the current combat and have the player do the moving of units, easier for them and keeps the balance nice and simple.

It'd be nice if we could at least get the little vids back of them, they could at least be funny. Love the duel in Empire where they run away lol.

Warhammer/3K are the same engine, so a new engine is due on the next game. Also, I think there's a huge difference between no ships to ships compared to combined arms.

The new 3K allows a specific unit to allow the first 2 ranks to stay in melee and the last 2 ranks to fire. There's no reason why this can't be tinkered with. It's totally different to some troops using swords while others use polearms (M2). In 3K they are given particular roles within a single unit. You're putting limitations on CA's ability to make further changes by referencing tech that's 10 years old.

I'd say the Warhammer refresh was pretty substantial.

It would be nice to be able to do things in a Skyrim type RPG that impacts the battlefield and strategy map. A while off though I think.

Commisar · May 9

davedave1124 said:
Warhammer/3K are the same engine, so a new engine is due on the next game. Also, I think there's a huge difference between no ships to ships compared to combined arms.

The new 3K allows a specific unit to allow the first 2 ranks to stay in melee and the last 2 ranks to fire. There's no reason why this can't be tinkered with. It's totally different to some troops using swords while others use polearms (M2). In 3K they are given particular roles within a single unit. You're putting limitations on CA's ability to make further changes by referencing tech that's 10 years old.

I'd say the Warhammer refresh was pretty substantial.

It would be nice to be able to do things in a Skyrim type RPG that impacts the battlefield and strategy map. A while off though I think.

Based on what? After the issues they had when they last switched engines I can see them holding back and keeping on a modular upgrade path. I wouldn't. Ships were rather like siege weapons in many ways. Of course wasn't the only change with the engine.

6 years and only just getting a unit able to keep firing when in melee combat. That's not good progress for them to add mixed role units. No, I believe what they say and think they know their engine. Plus as said the balance for them would make these historically good units bad which also pushes them to not look in to it.

Also not really different to pole and sword armed forces. The unit can use both at the same time in the same formation, it being context based from what I've seen, same with these special units in 3K.

Seems very far off, I can't recall any games that have tried it.

davedave1124 · May 9

Commisar said:

davedave1124 said:
Warhammer/3K are the same engine, so a new engine is due on the next game. Also, I think there's a huge difference between no ships to ships compared to combined arms.

The new 3K allows a specific unit to allow the first 2 ranks to stay in melee and the last 2 ranks to fire. There's no reason why this can't be tinkered with. It's totally different to some troops using swords while others use polearms (M2). In 3K they are given particular roles within a single unit. You're putting limitations on CA's ability to make further changes by referencing tech that's 10 years old.

I'd say the Warhammer refresh was pretty substantial.

It would be nice to be able to do things in a Skyrim type RPG that impacts the battlefield and strategy map. A while off though I think.

Based on what? After the issues they had when they last switched engines I can see them holding back and keeping on a modular upgrade path. I wouldn't. Ships were rather like siege weapons in many ways. Of course wasn't the only change with the engine.

6 years and only just getting a unit able to keep firing when in melee combat. That's not good progress for them to add mixed role units. No, I believe what they say and think they know their engine. Plus as said the balance for them would make these historically good units bad which also pushes them to not look in to it.

Also not really different to pole and sword armed forces. The unit can use both at the same time in the same formation, it being context based from what I've seen, same with these special units in 3K.

Seems very far off, I can't recall any games that have tried it.

No, ships on water are totally different to how siege engines work, they wouldn't have been able to add ships to M2.

From the release of R2 to WH we've seen the introduction of magic, flying units, huge units etc. The reason you haven't seen much change in unit changes is because there was no point. It may be difficult to do, but what was the point of adding mixed units to Warhammer? If they decide to do the above period there's a reason to do it and I'm sure the programmers at CA are more than capable.

I don't think balancing will be an issue at all. a unit of 200 vs a unit of 200, whether they are half melee specialist and half firearm they can all use swords whether they have a polearm or a firearm. CA could easily buff the newer formations as they've done in the past, balance isn't a serious block for this type of system. Whether they've said it's difficult in the past or not, they said the same about naval warfare, but eventually they can do it.

tbf no other company has tried to copy the TW format so it makes sense that CA are the only company likely to do it.

Commisar · May 10

davedave1124 said:
No, ships on water are totally different to how siege engines work, they wouldn't have been able to add ships to M2.

From the release of R2 to WH we've seen the introduction of magic, flying units, huge units etc. The reason you haven't seen much change in unit changes is because there was no point. It may be difficult to do, but what was the point of adding mixed units to Warhammer? If they decide to do the above period there's a reason to do it and I'm sure the programmers at CA are more than capable.

I don't think balancing will be an issue at all. a unit of 200 vs a unit of 200, whether they are half melee specialist and half firearm they can all use swords whether they have a polearm or a firearm. CA could easily buff the newer formations as they've done in the past, balance isn't a serious block for this type of system. Whether they've said it's difficult in the past or not, they said the same about naval warfare, but eventually they can do it.

tbf no other company has tried to copy the TW format so it makes sense that CA are the only company likely to do it.

I said rather like, not the same as.

"Magic" has been in the game before RO2, FotS brought in the first element with the naval bombardment. It's not a hard thing to add, easier to add than a battlefield unit as you just need the effect. RO2, Attila & ToB all had a reason to add mixed units. They've done many time periods where they've not included mechanics or units that existed, pretty sure there's been complaints in WH about units not being included. So just because they go to the 1600s wouldn't mean it gets added.

Problem is they'd under perform and lose against similar priced melee or firearm forces. Jack of all trades vs specialists. Balance is a problem when you have to spend money to make a new system for it. Naval now seems to be falling off as well which might mean less likely to invest in such elements.

There has been other companies making strategy and tactical games. DoW 1 expansions and 2 sort of have a bit...but that's out the window with the flop that was 3 lol.

Edit:
Additional, I'd hope if we get a game set during the discovery/colonial period we'd have more of the world map. But then we run in to other problems they've added lately, mainly the limit on armies and fleets. That would be a pain to try some of the historical expansions that nations did during this time period. Plus means no trade nodes like we had in Empire-Napoleon-Shogun 2. I personally thought they added to the naval value of the game.

davedave1124 · May 10

Commisar said:

davedave1124 said:
No, ships on water are totally different to how siege engines work, they wouldn't have been able to add ships to M2.

From the release of R2 to WH we've seen the introduction of magic, flying units, huge units etc. The reason you haven't seen much change in unit changes is because there was no point. It may be difficult to do, but what was the point of adding mixed units to Warhammer? If they decide to do the above period there's a reason to do it and I'm sure the programmers at CA are more than capable.

I don't think balancing will be an issue at all. a unit of 200 vs a unit of 200, whether they are half melee specialist and half firearm they can all use swords whether they have a polearm or a firearm. CA could easily buff the newer formations as they've done in the past, balance isn't a serious block for this type of system. Whether they've said it's difficult in the past or not, they said the same about naval warfare, but eventually they can do it.

tbf no other company has tried to copy the TW format so it makes sense that CA are the only company likely to do it.
I said rather like, not the same as.

"Magic" has been in the game before RO2, FotS brought in the first element with the naval bombardment. It's not a hard thing to add, easier to add than a battlefield unit as you just need the effect. RO2, Attila & ToB all had a reason to add mixed units. They've done many time periods where they've not included mechanics or units that existed, pretty sure there's been complaints in WH about units not being included. So just because they go to the 1600s wouldn't mean it gets added.

Problem is they'd under perform and lose against similar priced melee or firearm forces. Jack of all trades vs specialists. Balance is a problem when you have to spend money to make a new system for it. Naval now seems to be falling off as well which might mean less likely to invest in such elements.

There has been other companies making strategy and tactical games. DoW 1 expansions and 2 sort of have a bit...but that's out the window with the flop that was 3 lol.

Edit:
Additional, I'd hope if we get a game set during the discovery/colonial period we'd have more of the world map. But then we run in to other problems they've added lately, mainly the limit on armies and fleets. That would be a pain to try some of the historical expansions that nations did during this time period. Plus means no trade nodes like we had in Empire-Napoleon-Shogun 2. I personally thought they added to the naval value of the game.

The fact is the age of pike and shot requires a mix of units working together with differing roles. The implementation of these mixed strategies is a way of adding complexity to the battlefield. The fact that they have added new features like ship bombardments, magic, flying creatures and built up unit complexity to allow a mix of range and melee troops tells me that they are more than capable of applying these types of tactics. Your original issue was because of the need of mixed units for pike and shot it wouldn't happen, my point was it could happen, whether it does or does not is beyond my pay-scale.

They'd under perform if CA did not add buffs or make it so they are on balance better than single role units, I don't understand how you see this as a major challenge. There's a big difference between a trained Trecio formation and a group of guys with base training and a single weapon:

Trecio's overall have a higher melee, meaning all the troops in a single formation will have just as many on melee as an all melee unit. A melee only unit is not a 'specialist', they are a group of men with a single weapon.

Trecio's and later options have more men per unit.

Due to better training Trecio range troops will have better accuracy.

The Trecio has an advantage as in they can quickly hide ranged troops in an armoured square

Single range units will have nowhere to go if they are on the front line and get charged by melee; the tightly packed infantry behind will either be too tightly packed to allow a retreat or the retreating ranged units will break their formation.

In essence there are many ways for CA to deal with balance. I don't think naval would be anywhere near as complex of mixing units.

I think there are lots of companies who are starting to see the advantages of mixing game styles. The main issue is CA have no experience with RPG style Skyrim games. Hopefully this new 1st person they are doing may help.

If it's the Great Northern War then trade nodes would be possible and also Diplomacy options with hidden powers like the UK and Turkey giving access to troops and trade deals.

Commisar · May 14

davedave1124 said:

They'd under perform if CA did not add buffs or make it so they are on balance better than single role units, I don't understand how you see this as a major challenge. There's a big difference between a trained Trecio formation and a group of guys with base training and a single weapon:

Trecio's overall have a higher melee, meaning all the troops in a single formation will have just as many on melee as an all melee unit. A melee only unit is not a 'specialist', they are a group of men with a single weapon.

Trecio's and later options have more men per unit.

Due to better training Trecio range troops will have better accuracy.

The Trecio has an advantage as in they can quickly hide ranged troops in an armoured square

Single range units will have nowhere to go if they are on the front line and get charged by melee; the tightly packed infantry behind will either be too tightly packed to allow a retreat or the retreating ranged units will break their formation.

In essence there are many ways for CA to deal with balance. I don't think naval would be anywhere near as complex of mixing units.

I think there are lots of companies who are starting to see the advantages of mixing game styles. The main issue is CA have no experience with RPG style Skyrim games. Hopefully this new 1st person they are doing may help.

If it's the Great Northern War then trade nodes would be possible and also Diplomacy options with hidden powers like the UK and Turkey giving access to troops and trade deals.

Again the problem there is the choice between a jack-of-all-trades unit with less micro vs specialist units that need more micro. It means they wont buff them to be that powerful as they have trade offs.

They wouldn't. 120 men with say 80 being armed with pikes and sword vs 120 men armed with pikes means they have less men in melee. It would require a larger size vs other units for it to have a larger melee component. And yes they would be, in game their role is melee, so they are a specialised unit rather than one with can fill multiple roles.

Again nope, training has nothing to do with the formation. The Tercio was a change in formation and unit organisation so no more training than a standard missile unit can get.

Yes their melee does give their missile protection. Which is part of their advantage by neutralising melee cavalry as a threat to their missile troops. Which makes them a good unit for the flanks of the army.

No, they can move back like in all previous TWs. It disrupts formation but it is possible. This just means more micro.

Alien Isolation was a great single player game from them, but the controls were a nightmare.

They should be possible in most of the TW games but they've dropped them off for some reason which is a shame.

Intranetusa · May 14

Commisar said:
It's one of the more common requests for a new time period, often called as "pike and shot" TW.

Problem is we can't see a tercio in game as it required mixed unit roles.

Warfare during the Warring States to Three Kingdoms often involved pike and shot-esque warfare (with crossbows instead of guns) on the central plains. So it is disappointing that there are no pike units in the game. Eg. There could have been rotating crossbow volley lines like upgraded muskets in Empire TW, mixed unit formations with pikemen and halberdiers protecting volley fire crossbowmen (pikemen crouched in front of crossbows), etc.

"Duan Jiong's tactical arrangement for his first attack on the Xianliang Qiang in the winter of 167/168 AD was three ranks of long halberds (changzum), swordsmen (liren), and pikes/long spearmen (changmao), supported by crossbows (qiangnu) with light cavalry (jingji) on each wing."
-Fire over Luoyang: A History of the Later Han Dynasty 23-220 AD By Rafe de Crespigny

"In field battles against foreign cavalry, the Chinese infantry would have a row of pikemen with shields, rows of archers, and a row of crossbowmen. When the cavalry approached, the crossbowmen would shoot first above the crouching pikemen and bowmen. The pikemen and archers would shield the slower-firing crossbowmen, who, however, could inflict more damage." https://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/miltech/crossbow.htm
https://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/index.htm

"The Qin also employed long spears (more akin to a pike) in formations similar to Swiss pikemen in order to ward off cavalry. The Han Empire would use similar tactics as its Qin predecessors. Halbers, polearms, and dagger axes were also common weapons during this time."
-Tools of War: History of Weapons in Medieval Times

See this Pike and Shot for TW3K topic I made over a year ago:

https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/211883/pike-amp-shot-warfare-in-tw-3k

davedave1124 · May 14

Commisar said:

davedave1124 said:

They'd under perform if CA did not add buffs or make it so they are on balance better than single role units, I don't understand how you see this as a major challenge. There's a big difference between a trained Trecio formation and a group of guys with base training and a single weapon:

Trecio's overall have a higher melee, meaning all the troops in a single formation will have just as many on melee as an all melee unit. A melee only unit is not a 'specialist', they are a group of men with a single weapon.

Trecio's and later options have more men per unit.

Due to better training Trecio range troops will have better accuracy.

The Trecio has an advantage as in they can quickly hide ranged troops in an armoured square

Single range units will have nowhere to go if they are on the front line and get charged by melee; the tightly packed infantry behind will either be too tightly packed to allow a retreat or the retreating ranged units will break their formation.

In essence there are many ways for CA to deal with balance. I don't think naval would be anywhere near as complex of mixing units.

I think there are lots of companies who are starting to see the advantages of mixing game styles. The main issue is CA have no experience with RPG style Skyrim games. Hopefully this new 1st person they are doing may help.

If it's the Great Northern War then trade nodes would be possible and also Diplomacy options with hidden powers like the UK and Turkey giving access to troops and trade deals.
Again the problem there is the choice between a jack-of-all-trades unit with less micro vs specialist units that need more micro. It means they wont buff them to be that powerful as they have trade offs.

They wouldn't. 120 men with say 80 being armed with pikes and sword vs 120 men armed with pikes means they have less men in melee. It would require a larger size vs other units for it to have a larger melee component. And yes they would be, in game their role is melee, so they are a specialised unit rather than one with can fill multiple roles.

Again nope, training has nothing to do with the formation. The Tercio was a change in formation and unit organisation so no more training than a standard missile unit can get.

Yes their melee does give their missile protection. Which is part of their advantage by neutralising melee cavalry as a threat to their missile troops. Which makes them a good unit for the flanks of the army.

No, they can move back like in all previous TWs. It disrupts formation but it is possible. This just means more micro.

Alien Isolation was a great single player game from them, but the controls were a nightmare.

They should be possible in most of the TW games but they've dropped them off for some reason which is a shame.

No, I'm arguing that CA are capable of thinking of a way to balance them.

The jack of all trades unit will fire but possibly not allow the second and third ranks to fire, Trecio's and further units past Trecio's do meaning they fire more efficiently (by rank) and you can add higher accuracy which will counter a 'firearm only' unit quite easily, something CA have done in the past (ETW had no rank fire for early units). Whether this is 100% accurate or not doesn't matter, as CA have never been 100% accurate with tactics.

To counter a melee only unit the combined arms could still bring to bear all of their troops in a single unit on a melee fight. As we've seen before a musketeer is more than capable of getting his sword out. It would be 80 pikes at the front and 80 swords at the back. Also Trecio formations were much bigger than the older formations.

Training has everything to do with a formation. The better the training the better a soldiers ability to exist as a cohesive force. The Trecio and later Dutch, Swedish counter formations used complex tactics that required better training. Each one was an improvement on the last be it fire by line or better positioning. Again, it's an idea that CA can run with. It's pointless arguing it's not 100% historical, it just needs to be similar and allow CA to add upgradable mechanics.

The formation of a unit will play a bigger role in this type of game, whether CA's done it in the past means little. They have to apply new mechanics.

They may return as missions like in 3K, although I'm not sure about trade modes, they maybe a little simple these days.

Welcome

Categories

A new era, centuries XVI-XVII

Comments

Welcome

Quick Links

Categories

A new era, centuries XVI-XVII

Comments