Formation tree

[LienRag]

Having combat heavily dependent on formation is the only way to ever have a combat system vaguely resembling what happened historically.

As of now, switching from a formation to another takes a lot of time and makes many units do very unproductive moves, making it a problem in combat.

It's not entirely unhistorical, as getting soldiers in formation could indeed be a real hassle and take a lot of time.
There's a least one battle won because one side took too much time to get in formation and the enemy were able to charge them before they were ready.
(no, I don't remember which battle)

But there were also formations that were supposed to be easily switched from one to the other in the battlefield.

So, shouldn't we have something like a "formation tree" where switching from one "branch" to the other takes a lot of time and shouldn't be done under enemy fire, while switching from one formation to another in the same "branch" is quick and painless ?

Edited October 23, 2023 by LienRag
typo

[sternstaub]

It is an interesting thought to have these different formation trees. Tightening a square formation should go relatively fast. Changing from a square to a line should not. But - is this not the case already? The units have to always walk the distance to their new formation.

Anyway - formations have already been discussed on the forums before. Is there a planned time / version when this may be addressed? There are certainly multiple layers of impact to the formations topic, not only how fast they can be changed. Imo, having a "formation patch" / "tactics patch" does make as much sense as having a naval overhaul patch. Or having an "atlas + campaign mechanics" patch (drifting a bit OT here)

But if so, it would most likely take quite some time (year+) until this would actually become a priority at hand.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 22/10/2023 at 6:37 PM, LienRag said:

There's a least one battle won because one side took too much time to get in formation and the enemy were able to charge them before they were ready.
(no, I don't remember which battle)

Several battles actually 

[LienRag]

19 hours ago, sternstaub said:

 But - is this not the case already? The units have to always walk the distance to their new formation.

 

From my experience, yes, and they do it very awkwardly, especially in combat.

My take is that inside the same formation "branch" those movements should be smoother and not imperil the formation's coherence.

Changing from one formation "branch" to the other should be done outside combat (in the preparation phase) and if done too late, should indeed bring catastrophe to the army doing that, as was historically the case.

But movements from one formation to another one in the same "branch" is exactly what the soldiers were trained to do in combat, so should not expose them too much to enemy action.

[alre]

units are currently very quick at switching formation, because they run instead of walking as they always do. any faster and they'll need to teleport.

besides, would you explain please what do you mean by switching formation in combat? please make an example of such formation switch and its historical use in the battlefield.

[LienRag]

Well, in the roman army and in the Greek hoplite armies, the sources seem to say that line-to-column formation was a simple 90° turn, as the back-to-front spacing for marching was the one from one man to his fellow on the left in standard formation.

Also, in greek and macedonian armies, standard order to synapismos was just the second rank advancing into the space left in the first rank; and reverse for synapismos to standard order : the (former) first rank moves one step forward while the (former) second rank stays in place.

And in Astérix Légionnaire, we see the Roman army doing the quinconce and testudo formation, but I reckon that it's a less historical source (though the authors did research well what was known at their time about the Gauls and the Romans, they used their knowledge for comic effect, not for realism)...