Unit cohesion

[Chevalier IX]

Could it be possible that in future versions of your work you could perhaps look into an increased sense of unit cohesion,by this of course i speak of closing the files even more so than they are currently,to give the wall of flesh and steel effect that was so sought after in this era.It can and has been done to great effect in other notable mods,but this is the only factor of said other mod that I prefer to your own,otherwise your work has proven itself superior for my play tastes in many different ways

[Quixote07]

I would like to make the units closer. The only problem is that if I tighten it up a notch, we start to run into quite a few pathing bugs, especially when it comes to buildings. Some special fire drills can also bug out.

That said, I'm definitely gonna test this out after the patch hits, to see if they fix those issues.

[RyuNoKami]

yea...hmm i don't know if it is intended but grenadiers would not use platoon fire in guard mode....

[Pares]

I would like to make the units closer. The only problem is that if I tighten it up a notch, we start to run into quite a few pathing bugs, especially when it comes to buildings. Some special fire drills can also bug out.

That said, I'm definitely gonna test this out after the patch hits, to see if they fix those issues.

Do not make them closer! It is buggy, and it also causes several FPS drops... I think they are right now.

[Chevalier IX]

actually"The other Mod"finally seems to have gotten it right,closing up the ranks without clipping and pathing issues,making for a successful display of battlefield prowess

[Gora sahib]

It has seemed to me that IS as it stands already causes some odd behavior due to the tighter cohesion (in melee in particular), and I can only imagine that it would get worse with even tighter formations.

I also take some issue with the claim that a "wall of flesh and steel effect that was so sought after in this era." First of all, maintaining tight formation, over terrain, while moving, while under fire, while firing and reloading, is (even for the most highly trained troops) extremely difficult. Also, reloading and firing a musket requires a degree of, shall we say, 'personal space' (I know this from personal experience) - and if you are literally shoulder to shoulder with your mates its going to hinder your battle drill.

The cohesion in IS seems correct as is, or at least a good approximation of history - and an approximation is always the best TW can hope for.

Please dont tighten cohesion further.

PS - Ill try and dig up some sources that will show why "wall of flesh and steel effect that was so sought after in this era" isnt exactly correct.

[Chevalier IX]

I never at any point stated that the theory worked in practice.Many sources state that only the Prussians were able to come close to maintaining this high level of parade ground formation,and even then it was only slightly better than their contemporaries.I am just of the opinion that it works rather well and shows to be quiete impressive during practice in the other mod that has implemented such(it is bad form to discuss other works in the forum of another that is why I omit the usage of the name)for point of reference to my claim of tighter cohesion we need only look to the contemporary paintings and sketches of the time,demonstrating the Theory of what was sought after,but as we know this is never fully attained under the duress of combat,but if we were to go by what is real vs what has been expressed to us in manuals from the era,there are a lot of things that we likely must change.I vote more cohesion.

Edit:after looking through several manuals and books written by some of the luminaries in the field of black powder warfare(David Chandler,Archer Jones amongst others)the reference to how a properly formed line must be presented to the enemy is in fact consistently shoulder to shoulder upon the firing line,I am yet to see any reference to a foot or two between the men.whether or not this is the reality or not is suspect seeing as none of us were present during the inauguration or practice under fire of these tactics,having only the references of scholars and theorists of the time to judge by,and I am of the opinion that we should be developing our experience based upon these pieces rather than what we feel to be the reality based upon how we see it to be true vs the ideas of those that witnessed it to be true.But for the sake of good taste i will state that perhaps a heightened sense of cohesion should be left as an option in the next update,if it is detailed at all,therefore no one is left wanting for the experience they so desire.

Edit:thus far only British manuals dictate anything about the possibility of elbow to elbow firing upon the line.also when speaking of room to reload,I concur completely,but I also point out that the idea of general blazing (firing at will)so to speak was largely frowned upon so it stands to reason that the rank might slightly open upon the command to reload,reclosing when the call to make ready is made(I have seen this in execution as well during re-enactments of the 7 years war in America.And let us not forget that when speaking of the necessity of closed ranks,that this new found formation,of a much closer scope than in previous linear years,was the entire reason that the uniform changed to a slightly closer fit and the wide brimmed hats were upturned,if not completely,at least on the side of the man next firing to yourself)

[Gora sahib]

Ikusa,

Just to be clear, Im not trying to start a forum argument with you, but do allow me to counter some of what you raised in your last post.

First, I never said tight formation wasnt a goal of the period, just that a wall of steel and flesh seemed to paint an inaccurate and unrealistic picture. You seemed to be advocating a shield wall from a different era, and your later edits showed that you werent really advocating roman legions, but I still take issue with your call for more cohesion.

Bayonet drill and reload/fire drill does require elbow room. As you readily admitted, theory rarely translates into reality (especially on the battlefield) - once the lead starts flying, and once troops are moving over broken terrain, are tired, are confused etc. etc. formations will not look parade ground spiffy.

Now, Ill have to dig it out, but I have read that the drill late 18th/early 19th century called for firing with roughly a foot between men. Now on paper, I guess, a foot may seem like a lot of space, but if you actually line up with folks, with a mere 12 inches between you and your comrades, and then try to excecute something like the reloading of a black powder musket ... I think you'll find that a literal shoulder to shoulder simply wont work.

So, does IS as it stands give a good approximation of the 18th Century battlefield? I think it does. I think we have to have a balance between what may be effective in the game, what is realistic, and what maintains good gameplay. In my opinion, tighter cohesion will skew all that in the wrong direction.

My two rupees.

[Chevalier IX]

Points taken sir,and excellent ones at that.Although i still advocate for a tighter formation,it may be said that for continuity of the game play and to avoid any other issues that may arise from it,marring an already excellent experience,I suppose as is will suffice for the time being,although I do stress that i feel there should at least be some experimentation in the matter

[General A. Skywalker]

Please don't increase cohesion! Soldiers stand waaaaay to close to each other in "the other mod"!! It looks ridiculous once they start marching.

[JAMiAM]

LoL! I love this beating around the bush, and euphemistic labeling of "the other mod". Why don't we just shorten it to Tom? Then we can all say "well Tom does this...," or "Tom does that...," and all the IS newcomers will wonder WTF "Tom" is...

[Chevalier IX]

@Skywalker
check the new version of the mod,it has been completely altered and they retain the same cohesion but no longer get mixed up with one another on the march,it looks really good now

[Gora sahib]

Not to derail or sidetrack this thread, but it seems like as good a place as any to discuss unit cohesion as is in IS. As I posted earlier Ive found the unit cohesion at times awkward in IS, more awkward than vanilla in certain situations, and Ive wondered if that has something to do with the tighter cohesion.

What Ive noticed since I began using IS is that certain units, when engaged in melee seem to act in a more unrealistic fashion compared to vanilla E:TW. For example, with IS, I often have cavalry (while chasing routing units) reform into a block - this is different from vanilla where the individual cav. figures would stay loose or 'free' to chase down their targets. Ive seen the same thing with infantry - in IS they seem to constantly want to reform into their line, even when engaged in melee, where in vanilla they would only do so once melee had ended or I gave them the command to reform.

I must note that Ive not actually tested this by reinstalling vanilla and doing a compare (I will try this tonight), but its something that struck me the moment I had my first IS battle.

Has anyone else noticed this or is it in my imagination? Is this a behavior in vanilla and IS that I just didnt notice before? If this is behavior due to the IS mod, is it a result of tighter unit cohesion?

Also, when speaking of unit cohesion in E:TW ... are unit cohesion (the ability of units to stay in formation, and reform formation) and the tightness/spacing of units (the physical distance between unit figures) the same thing in E:TW? Are these characteristics determined by one parameter or are they two separate things?

Cheers and thanks ahead of time for the answers/thougts.