[Discussion] Formations Review

[FeXoR]

OK, still there is an unnatural 80% bonus for the first line. So my concerns remain.

[Mythos_Ruler]

There could be a rather simple way of addressing a few concerns, while adding some (minor) depth to the concept of formation combat.

Since we'll probably slash the number of formations (and revamp how they are represented in the UI), we can also give some formations a couple of options, like this:

Add Depth: Brings that "security" to the soldiers so they gain 100% of the armor buffs, but as Fexor points out, fewer of them are actually in combat and dealing less damage to the enemy.

Add Width: Less stable and less secure, perhaps easier to "break", the soldiers only gain 50% of the armor buffs, but because more of the men are on the front lines they are dealing more damage to the enemy.

Something like above gives some realistic mechanics to the depth of a battle formation. They would allow the player the option of security for his men or dealing more damage to the enemy.

Also, keep in mind, soldiers being attacked on the sides of the formation won't just stand there and do nothing. They'll fight back, so in a lot of cases it's not just the front line dealing damage to the enemy.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Dont forget give a animation for some formartion. Testudo for example.

Syntagma when fights, and are more close wall of units with pikes.

Shield wall for other factions.

[FeXoR]

Depth/width concept sounds ok...

What about needing an quite tough (like 10 times the HP of an standard unit) "general" unit to be able to gather other troops in a formation instead of granting an attack. He could be about 25% less fast than an average food soldier and the formations move speed would be limited to that (still the units in the formation would keep their regular speed to be able (without hacking) to follow the formations contortion). On the other hand the general could give all the units in the formation a bonus of 50% of something like armor (level) or attack damage (or level if it also is changed to exponential increase) or any distribution of both depending on the chosen formation type. The general could cost about 10 times as much as an average food solder to justify this bonus. If the general dies the formation breaks.

Still ranged units in a formation with 50% offensive bonus might be a bit uber.

Whatever is done to make formations work don't force the player to use them by making them overpowered or not granting an option at all (as is now AFAIK).

Edited October 9, 2013 by FeXoR

[Lion.Kanzen]

When morale is out automatically the battalion breaks the formation.

In order to give alternatives can be weaks vs guerrilla Warfare. Where few units can destroy a big army.

The guerrilla can bring down the morale like Teutoburg forest. A big army surprised marching in a ambush.

With speed see the counter tactics when syntagma are destroyed by roman or Gallic army.

In Samnite Wars and Gallic Invasions the greek tactic used by roman dont have good performance.

[FeXoR]

That was just a suggestion of another approach. Moral is another valid one for me, yes (though moral should effect all units not only those in a formation).

Edited October 9, 2013 by FeXoR

[Lion.Kanzen]

Yeah is brainstorming only. But we can ear programmer like you Fexor is important do things that are realizable or not hard to implement.

By the way see in TW center forums about lack some formation in RTW2 like continous attak when first line change with the second and second with third line.

Other interesting to implement is. Cavalry edge where the attack calvalry shock increased and defense is reducing.

[greenknight32]

OK, still there is an unnatural 80% bonus for the first line. So my concerns remain.

Another aspect of combat was physically pushing the enemy back. If, pushing with their shields, they could drive the enemy backward stumbling over each other, the enemy's fighting would be hampered. The enemy formation could even collapse. This was a major strength of the Phalanx, and a big offensive advantage - the first rank would push their wall of shields against the enemy's, the second rank would push on the first, the third rank on the second, etc. The deeper the Phalanx, the harder it could push. Phalanx vs. Phalanx battles were basically shoving matches.

-snip-

Also, keep in mind, soldiers being attacked on the sides of the formation won't just stand there and do nothing. They'll fight back, so in a lot of cases it's not just the front line dealing damage to the enemy.

This was the major weakness of the Phalanx - with their spears woven through the formation, they couldn't easily turn to face a flank attack. As strong as they were in frontal attack, they would quickly go to pieces if attacked from the side. This was a big reason the Romans, with their more-flexible formations, could overcome them.

Any formation is weakened by attacks from the side, though. A lot of the advantage of fighting in formation was that they had to worry only about what was in front of them, flank attacks took away that advantage from those on the ends of the front rank. If they stepped back to avoid being attacked from two directions at once, the ends of the formation begin to crumble. This is how the Greek achieved victory at the battle of Marathon, when outnumbered almost 3 to 1 - they strengthened the wings of their line and rushed the Persians, pushing in the flanks and causing the Persian army to dissolve into panic.

[FeXoR]

Yeah is brainstorming only. But we can ear programmer like you Fexor is important do things that are realizable or not hard to implement.

And that's exactly the problem: Well working formations are not trivial to implement. Indeed I've never seen a good implementation (for me).

Edited October 10, 2013 by FeXoR

[Donner]

Will the formations be flexible?

As of now I see two main problems with the formations: The formations are too rigid (It is quite amusing to watch large formations of units march around making point turns and looking at the units at the front and back of the columns rushing to keep formation as the formation degenerates into a spiral flurry. Works with line formations also), and the formations just fall apart when contact with hostile units is made. I know the latter problem is is being addressed but the former I also see as a problem at least from an aesthetics point of view. To me, the formations should flow, especially the column formations, and should snake around the paths the units take. The line formations should be more rigid of course, but the units should not rush around to keep formation, and formation reforming and turning should be slowed down to do this, with an added benefit of slowing down the forming of formations being that it places more tactical importance on pre-battle planning.

The flexibility of the formations is also important when the formations meet hostile formations with fronts narrower than the other formations (an example being, say, a ten man wide front against a three man wide front). In these situations, will the larger formation keep its form and waste manpower that could have been used to end the hostile threat more quickly, also reducing attrition to the formation, or will the formation flex, achieving the destruction of the threat faster with less loss of health, but compromising form and making it vulnerable to a subsequent attack made right after the last attack. This may also add complexity to the formation system as there is no absolute front, back, and flanks anymore relative to the formation as an envelopment by it essentially turns the formation into one side front and flanks and three back sides (This also applies to surrounded formations which are essentially three sides front one side back. This effect would apply even if the formations were rigid).

Finally, what happens to the formations front when a unit at the front gets killed? Obviously the side which had the unit would send another unit to fill the gap in the formation, but will the other side force one of its units into the gap. If it does this, it would be interesting to see how the front line evolved over the course of the battle, but sending a unit into the gap is essentially also breaking formation.

[Loki1950]

(It is quite amusing to watch large formations of units march around making point turns and looking at the units at the front and back of the columns rushing to keep formation as the formation degenerates into a spiral flurry. Works with line formations also)

That is a path finder issue not directly related to formations as such but it is one of the complications in the implication.

Enjoy the Choice

[sanderd17]

For the too ridgid formations, I think the solution is relative places. Currently, every unit has a fixed place in the formation (based on unit type and id).

But instead, a unit could walk to a certain distance from the unit before him. A move command should be given to the central unit on the first row. And every unit (except the first row) should follow the unit before him. This can give a natural looking reaction time before the turn command reaches the end of the formation. When the turn is too sharp (almost a complete turn), the units should get new places inside the formation (i.e. a new unit is the first one).

[Lion.Kanzen]

http://youtu.be/puob-Snr1Og

Check 11:24 this game was popular many years after of it the release.