Unit Depth and Weight in battle?

[Exiled Spartan]

I have just started playing recently as Rome to figure out the game, and was wondering how accurately unit mass and pushing is done? Obviously not all units would have the effect, but can the heavier infantry push through lighter and looser units? Or if you mass 2 units to attack the same target, will that have a "pushing effect?" It seems like that would help make more realistic and tactical battles.
If not done in Vanilla, are mods able to make this happen more effectively?

Thanks in advance.

[Ano2]

The warscape engine has significant issues accurately portraying unit mass which is why one phalanx deployed at a choke point can hold up an entire army. Compared to the previous engine unit mass is a joke in R2 and there is nothing that can be done about it (As far as I know).

[Mangalore]

The warscape engine has significant issues accurately portraying unit mass which is why one phalanx deployed at a choke point can hold up an entire army. Compared to the previous engine unit mass is a joke in R2 and there is nothing that can be done about it (As far as I know).

In RTW1 one phalanx unit in a choke point was a 100% secure city defense. A well formed phalanx was essentially untouchable in RTW1 because nothing got through. I prefer the more organic buckling and bending of phalanx units in RTW2, even though the bunching up of units is a mess, it feels more natural than the order line of death where everything touching the spear points died.

So yeah, it has issues but the false claim is that former engines had no issue.
100% tactic of MTW1: arablest + spearmen = 20 000 dead mongols against your single stack (the one interesting thing was ammo management).
100% tactic of RTW1: form a phalanx... that was it really
100% tactic of MTW2: arablest + spearmen, the spearmen in shiltron formation held a lot of abuse but MTW2 was really the best mix of suffering casualties and managing to inflict dynamic defeats on the enemy

STW2 always feels like a big mess

[Causeless]

Phalanx is a bit overpowered with mass and never budge, but it's not an engine issue. Frequently in Rome 2, especially with heavy hoplites and in siege battles, I'm able to literally push weaker units out of the gates once they enter.

[Man o' War]

In RTW1 one phalanx unit in a choke point was a 100% secure city defense. A well formed phalanx was essentially untouchable in RTW1 because nothing got through. I prefer the more organic buckling and bending of phalanx units in RTW2, even though the bunching up of units is a mess, it feels more natural than the order line of death where everything touching the spear points died.

So yeah, it has issues but the false claim is that former engines had no issue.
100% tactic of MTW1: arablest + spearmen = 20 000 dead mongols against your single stack (the one interesting thing was ammo management).
100% tactic of RTW1: form a phalanx... that was it really
100% tactic of MTW2: arablest + spearmen, the spearmen in shiltron formation held a lot of abuse but MTW2 was really the best mix of suffering casualties and managing to inflict dynamic defeats on the enemy

STW2 always feels like a big mess

So basically your whole approach to the TW series so far has been to find the cheesiest and lamest solutions to the problems posed, steamroller your way through just so you could say "I won" and then claim that previous titles were easy compared to Rome 2.

Interesting.

[GoTW Kubee]

In RTW1 one phalanx unit in a choke point was a 100% secure city defense. A well formed phalanx was essentially untouchable in RTW1 because nothing got through. I prefer the more organic buckling and bending of phalanx units in RTW2, even though the bunching up of units is a mess, it feels more natural than the order line of death where everything touching the spear points died.

So yeah, it has issues but the false claim is that former engines had no issue.
100% tactic of MTW1: arablest + spearmen = 20 000 dead mongols against your single stack (the one interesting thing was ammo management).
100% tactic of RTW1: form a phalanx... that was it really
100% tactic of MTW2: arablest + spearmen, the spearmen in shiltron formation held a lot of abuse but MTW2 was really the best mix of suffering casualties and managing to inflict dynamic defeats on the enemy

STW2 always feels like a big mess

I have to disagree about the phalanxes in RTW. Of course they were powerful, but they were fairly easy to counter with pila-throwing sword inf, even from the front. The way to deal with pikes in a bottleneck was to make sure your legionaries had thrown all their pila, take guard mode off and then to give them a move order behind the pikemen. You would suffer some casualties but the result would be your swords were close enough to the pikes to be able to strike at them. This would result in a victory for your swords more often than not. A sword unit should be able to beat a pike unit of the same cost bracket if used right (there are some exceptions), especially as the AI didn't know any of the tricks for reforming phalanx formation. Anyway, shooting pikes from the back with missiles or swarming them with cav were other good ways of countering them.

@OP, R2 does not have the best representation of unit depth/weight I find as unit collision is still pretty dodgy. RTW and M2 handled this area far better and it made for much better melee engagements.

[perifanosEllinas]

Have you guys never heard of the battle of Thermopylai? A well placed phalanx was indeed able of holding a whole army back in real life.

[Stavroforos]

Have you guys never heard of the battle of Thermopylai? A well placed phalanx was indeed able of holding a whole army back in real life.

Apparently not.

[Causeless]

Ok, let's be more specific; a phalanx held back an entire army UNTIL they were flanked. So even more like TW:R2.

[Man o' War]

... I prefer the more organic buckling and bending of phalanx units in RTW2, even though the bunching up of units is a mess, it feels more natural than the order line of death where everything touching the spear points died.

Can you perhaps point us to a video or a save game of yours whereby this organic buckling and bending takes place which adds to difficulty and realism?

[Exiled Spartan]

Thanks for the replys guys. I do know in EB for FTW the phalangite units were godly. They really seemed OP, but it did make for fun battles similar to Alexander's and Macedonian hammer and anvil tactics. You could be sure your pikes would hold them in place while your Cav on the right flank could win their battle and sweep them off the field. OP yes, but very fun, especially in the begining with little money and a few good units. I literally had to deploy my Pike units as Alexander did at Gaugamela by slanting and echeloning the army to the left and hope they held out long enough for the Cav on the right to come back(they usually did)

The only mod I am using currently as I have not played very long and want to understand the core of the game is Phalangitisis' more accurate phalanx mod. Being Rome Ive only been able to fire a few Veteran Merc Hoplites, but his description of the mod makes alot of sense with the bonuses and penalties. It doesnt sound like it would give them more mass or weight to exploit, but it should also balance them down some.

[JaM]

Apparently not.

and not just that.. several hundreds years later, Romans fought through Thermopylae facing Hellenic Pike Phalanx, yet still only losing around 200 men in the fight...

[BigHairyMelon]

Also have to remember that the Persian soldiers were light infantry and had weapons that weren't that great at killing heavy infantry.

[Causeless]

and not just that.. several hundreds years later, Romans fought through Thermopylae facing Hellenic Pike Phalanx, yet still only losing around 200 men in the fight...

Is that a fair comparison though? The phalanx never got a chance to engage, they ran away to their camp where they didn't have time to reform and that's where the deaths happened.

[JaM]

Is that a fair comparison though? The phalanx never got a chance to engage, they ran away to their camp where they didn't have time to reform and that's where the deaths happened.

hard to say.. Romans managed to outsmart them by sending another column around their position to attack the camp, while main force faced phalanx at the pass, and pushed it back until they took cover behind a wall. yet once they realized Romans are coming from rear they ran away..

[perifanosEllinas]

Apparently not.

A really bad one mate

[Stavroforos]

A really bad what?

[Mangalore]

So basically your whole approach to the TW series so far has been to find the cheesiest and lamest solutions to the problems posed, steamroller your way through just so you could say "I won" and then claim that previous titles were easy compared to Rome 2.

Interesting.

No, my approach is that the claims the former titles were better is rubbish if you actually played them thoroughly. It's not an engine issue (there may be engine issues but this is not an example of it), the former titles were crap at it, too. What I described is what was complained about in RTW1 for CHrist's sake: It was a boring overpowered easy I win option. I think EB and other mods had to seriously up armor other inf and downgrade attack points of phalanx units to halfway get them to not being unstoppable.

Funny how you try to spin an ad hominem out of this because you have no point to offer as an actual argument on your side. Better luck next time.

have to disagree about the phalanxes in RTW. Of course they were powerful, but they were fairly easy to counter with pila-throwing sword inf, even from the front. The way to deal with pikes in a bottleneck was to make sure your legionaries had thrown all their pila, take guard mode off and then to give them a move order behind the pikemen. You would suffer some casualties but the result would be your swords were close enough to the pikes to be able to strike at them. This would result in a victory for your swords more often than not. A sword unit should be able to beat a pike unit of the same cost bracket if used right (there are some exceptions), especially as the AI didn't know any of the tricks for reforming phalanx formation. Anyway, shooting pikes from the back with missiles or swarming them with cav were other good ways of countering them.

@OP, R2 does not have the best representation of unit depth/weight I find as unit collision is still pretty dodgy. RTW and M2 handled this area far better and it made for much better melee engagements.

You only describe a MP counter. I didn't say phalanxes were were good in RTW1's AI's hands. They were not. I said you could play really eploitative in RTW1 with the phalanx because the RTW1 engine didn't handle this stuff well either. They were different issues but you could essentially create a phalanx line, put skirmishers behind and go have a drink because the AI certainly wouldn't get through that. And in sieges the AI got cut to ribbons either way if it didn't get stalled by ballista towers wrecking the siege towers and rams. The later is not an excuse for RTW2 AI, it's just what the bad old days were like, too. You played VH to fight AI boni, not the AI.

[GoTW Kubee]

No, my approach is that the claims the former titles were better is rubbish if you actually played them thoroughly. It's not an engine issue (there may be engine issues but this is not an example of it), the former titles were crap at it, too. What I described is what was complained about in RTW1 for CHrist's sake: It was a boring overpowered easy I win option. I think EB and other mods had to seriously up armor other inf and downgrade attack points of phalanx units to halfway get them to not being unstoppable.

Funny how you try to spin an ad hominem out of this because you have no point to offer as an actual argument on your side. Better luck next time.





You only describe a MP counter. I didn't say phalanxes were were good in RTW1's AI's hands. They were not. I said you could play really eploitative in RTW1 with the phalanx because the RTW1 engine didn't handle this stuff well either. They were different issues but you could essentially create a phalanx line, put skirmishers behind and go have a drink because the AI certainly wouldn't get through that. And in sieges the AI got cut to ribbons either way if it didn't get stalled by ballista towers wrecking the siege towers and rams. The later is not an excuse for RTW2 AI, it's just what the bad old days were like, too. You played VH to fight AI boni, not the AI.

Well then surely it's a problem with the AI and/or balancing, not the engine. The engine in RTW was fine.

[alQamar]

Just came over from the guard mode thread to this one... ah the nostalgia again. At least a skilled multiplayer like Kubee can and will understand the issue the OP has with Rome 2 (among some others).

Before we get into arguments and semantics or nitpicking on if this or those unit are overpowered etc again, is there a mod by any chance introducing any physical effect the unit depth and weight causes on the masses of soldiers like Rome 1 had?