Flanking and envelopment not historically accurate...

[logartist]

I was very excited to install EB 0.81, and even more excited about all the historically accurate units (especially the Ptolemaic Egyptians...always hated the non-Hellenic, bronze-age units of vanilla). However, I find some aspects of game-play frustratingly unrealistic. I understand the intent to make battles last longer by increasing the time it takes for an outclassed, outnumbered, or outflanked unit to rout...but I think this good idea was applied in the extreme. Most battles of this period were not fights to the last man, but ended in full-scale routs once one army had successfully outflanked the enemy. My gripe is that gaining the enemy's flank has almost no effect in EB. I can have an infantry unit fully enveloped...pinned with heavy infantry in front, attacked by light infantry on the flanks, and pounded into by heavy cavalry in the rear...and they just keep on fighting! Eventually, (though not always) they end up routing, but not until an obscene amount of time has passed, often totally ruining the purpose of the flanking maneuver. This is totally unrealistic, and for me, completely ruins game-play. Flanking and enveloping were the CLASSIC methods for winning battles from Philip/Alexander on...and for good reason. Look at many of the major set-piece battles of the time: Chaeronea, Issus, Cannae, Zama, Cynocephalae, Pharsalus, etc. In only one of these did a unit fight to the death after full encirclement (Theban Sacred Band at Chaeronea), all others ended in a rout rather quickly once the line infantry was outflanked...ESPECIALLY when phalanx infantry, with their unwieldy sarissae and neck/wrist strapped shields were flanked. I think this feature should be restored to EB. And if they don't rout right away, they should be taking heavy casualties at a rapid rate until they do. I like EB's long-fighting infantry in frontal engagements, but I think it gets down right ridiculous at times when nearly every unit fights to the death despite being completely surrounded.

[Entropy Judge]

Actually, I think Cannae ended in a majority slaughter as well, since the Romans were surrounded and didn't have much of a chance to escape; I don't know enough about the others. Also, two things about your problem: First, if the unit doesn't have an escape route, that's when they fight to the death. If you have them flanked and engaged in the front, and then charge home from the rear, they won't rout, they'll fight to the death because there's nowhere for them to go.

Secondly, it depends on the unit and the position. For example, when I have a line of units engage a similar line of enemy units, I use my cavalry to get a good charge in on the end of the line units (usually one dead from the rear, the other hitting at an angle, to let my end-line units get flanking status), and the unit I hit almost always routs. If I try this in the middle of the line, it won't work (and I'll usually get my cavalry chewed up before I can pull them out for another charge anyway).

Two other things I just noticed: First, EB is up to 1.1, so you're using an old release that may not have things finished. Second, you don't mention the Battle Difficulty, but I believe that Hard and Very Hard give the AI morale bonuses, so that would influence your inability to rout enemy units as well.

[QuintusSertorius]

Why are you playing 0.81? 1.1 has been out for ages.

Also, have you heard of paragraphing? Solid blocks of text are really unappealing to read.

[pirates_say_arrgg]

Why are you complaining about that....
Encircled units do take a lot of damage and when I hit a enemy unit with cavalry, when it is outflanked on one side or both it always routs. It's all about timing and what units you use to flank the enemy unit.
I think you should install EB 1.1.

[logartist]

Thanks for the suggestions...

As I mentioned in the end of my post, if they don't rout when flanked or enveloped, they should take extremely heavy casualties (as at Cannae, Chaeronea, etc.) Yes, I had been playing on VH battle setting, unaware of the silly AI stats bonuses on that setting. I didn't know what the differences were between the settings, and assumed it would be in the area of AI aggression, rather than turning otherwise mediumto low quality units into 5th century BC Spartans. I started playing on M difficulty and the problem is less severe.

As for other suggestions...like "timing" or "angles" of charge...timing was crucial in flank attacks historically, (just ask Phurus) I understand that, but it has not seemed to matter when I do it so far in EB...result is still lackluster. As for charging at an angle, or not hitting the center of the enemy's rear, I really don't think that should matter. If a unit is fully engaged frontally, and gets slammed into in their unprotected rear by a heavy cavalry force of any significant size, there should be catastrophic consequences to the enveloped force. That's one aspect of vanilla I actually liked: dudes flying through the air on impact from an initial heavy cav charge. 1200 lb armored horse/man/lance combos don't seem to do much in EB.

Anyway, I'll look for a download of the newest version...I tend to lag behind in the mod/patch/upgrade department anyway. And, I'll keep playing on M battle setting.

Thanks for the tips. Aside from this problem, I think EB is a masterpiece.

Later

[logartist]

Accidental double post. My apologies.

[Foot]

Are you charging correctly? You need to be at a decent distance from the enemy units for a full charge. You can tell that you have performed a full charge because your cavalry will lower their spears (if they are using spears overarm or are using an alternate weapon this won't happen of course). The most efficient way of doing this is to single-click rather than double-click to attack. This will cause the cavalry to walk to their targets until they are within charge distance whereupon they will lower their spears and charge.

As for historical accuracy, having people launch into the air from an attack is not only historically inaccurate but, without the benefits of a trampoline, physically impossible. Its likes hollywoods obsession with 9mm weapons throwing people off their feet. Its a theatrical representation of the shock of being hit. We've lowered mass so that people being chucked into the air no longer happens.

Foot

[Entropy Judge]

We've lowered mass so that people being chucked into the air no longer happens.
Foot

Often, anyway. Every once in a while, I'll get a "Powerful Charge" cavalry unit send a guy or two flying.

[logartist]

As for historical accuracy, having people launch into the air from an attack is not only historically inaccurate but, without the benefits of a trampoline, physically impossible. Its likes hollywoods obsession with 9mm weapons throwing people off their feet. Its a theatrical representation of the shock of being hit. We've lowered mass so that people being chucked into the air no longer happens.

Foot

You're right, flying high into the air is an unlikely result from being slammed into by an armored horse, but being sent several linear feet is a definite likelihood...only slightly less likely than being simply trampled over...neither of which happens in RTW or EB. RTW has men flying as if they were picked up and tossed by an elephant, while EB has next to no effect. Very few men of the rear rank are killed, while their mates simply turn around, draw swords and fight as if it were no big deal, with the rest of the formation continuing on as if nothing were happening at their vulnerable rear. At times, even the threat of this was enough to break an army (at Pharsalus, Caesar's right wing cavalry, bolstered by 8 cohorts, routed Pompey's cav. Knowing this would lead to a rear attack by Caesar's cav, Pompey fled, and his army was routed.)

While I absolutely applaud almost all aspects of EB over vanilla, and all other mods I have looked into for that matter, I actually preferred the unrealistic elevation of bodies in vanilla over the even more unrealistic (IMO) lack of response to 1200 lbs of flesh, bronze and steel slamming into the unprotected backs of men on foot.

As for charging techniques, yes, I give them plenty of distance to gain speed, and yes, they are lowering their spears. I'm wondering if 1.1 is better in this respect.

Question: do I have to uninstall my current version of EB, or will 1.1 overwrite it? (Don't knock my clumsy terminology...I know next to nothing about modding, altering files, or anything else beyond pointing and clicking).

[QuintusSertorius]

Question: do I have to uninstall my current version of EB, or will 1.1 overwrite it? (Don't knock my clumsy terminology...I know next to nothing about modding, altering files, or anything else beyond pointing and clicking).

Uninstall. You categorically never install over the top, you need to remove RTW as well and start from scratch.

[pirates_say_arrgg]

Here is where you get the newest version.
http://www.europabarbarorum.com/downloads_mod.html

[pirates_say_arrgg]

There are just somethings that EB can't change and the charge isn't bad. It was the shock of the charge that kills the enemy soldiers the best, for best results charge, pull your cvalry back and charge again. If you can time it right, the first charge at the enemy's back should rout them or cause major moral loss. Then, another charge should finish the job. Keep in mind though, the cavalry of EB is nothing like RTW Vanilla's cavalry.
You just have to deal with it and enjoy everything that EB has done.(For example, the trait system. Watch your good general gain human like traits and become a military genius or the next Octavian! And you can't forget the reforms, truly amazing!)
Here is some info on how to install EB1.1.

And yes you need a clean RTW file to install EB1.1 and here is the link with screen shots for help.
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=80270

Edit- I would install these fixes too if I was you.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=158029

[mcantu]

Installing 1.1 and keeping battles on Medium difficulty will correct the issues you're having...

[barbarossa pasha]

i too have had that problem, after reading accounts of historical battles, units in EB seem far too impervious to flanking attacks - in real life attacks in the rear tended to cause panic and rout whether the charge was perfect or not.

to get around the problem i just dramatically increase armour - especially defense skill - and dramatically lower morale. this has the added bonus of making the stars/traits of the general far more important in battle.

my system is to add (+3) to armour, multiply defense skill by 2, and add (+2) to shield.

i then reduce the morale to a graded system ranging from 1 (levy) to 10 (elites).

this tends to work well, and i enjoy the battles much more. just my two cents.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Quicker routing would be fine in EB, provided that most of the routed army can escape to fight another day. Historically only cavalry and skirmishers would spend ages chasing down routers, medium and heavy infantry would not, at least not for very long, because they would soon be too tired to run in all their equipment.

Ideally, exhausted troops in RTW/EB should automatically be forced into guard mode, and not be able to pursue anyone. Sadly it can't be done.

[SlickNicaG69]

I think what the issue is that the "un"realistic part is the fact that a unit can be fully enveloped, and still have high morale, such as eager or steady. That is just biologically impossible, even the most savage beast, when confronted with certain death, will either run in panic or fight to the death - the typical "fight or flight" response we all learn about in science.

In EB there is no response unless there is some extraordinary cause, like a massive cavalry charge in the rear or the general dying. A typical example would be the example of the phalangites being surrounded on 3 sides, and a unit of cavalry engaging it from behind...

The phalangites, in EB, do not rout unless it is a dead on charge. If the cavalry simply pin it and encircle it, there is little, if any, damage to moral and the unit fights on. This is simply unrealistic and very important to gameplay, because even if a unit fights to the death, it still dies at a much faster rate than normal. Thus, 3 units of legionnaries would make short work of even an elite macedonian pikemen unit, and could move on.

Furthermore, in real life ancient battles, it would not be uncommon for a particular unit to rout and then return to the battle... That is exactly why reserves were used... to relieve and encourage those who may be wavering...

[mamik_yev_konak]

I think what the issue is that the "un"realistic part is the fact that a unit can be fully enveloped, and still have high morale, such as eager or steady. That is just biologically impossible, even the most savage beast, when confronted with certain death, will either run in panic or fight to the death - the typical "fight or flight" response we all learn about in science.

In EB there is no response unless there is some extraordinary cause, like a massive cavalry charge in the rear or the general dying. A typical example would be the example of the phalangites being surrounded on 3 sides, and a unit of cavalry engaging it from behind...

The phalangites, in EB, do not rout unless it is a dead on charge. If the cavalry simply pin it and encircle it, there is little, if any, damage to moral and the unit fights on. This is simply unrealistic and very important to gameplay, because even if a unit fights to the death, it still dies at a much faster rate than normal. Thus, 3 units of legionnaries would make short work of even an elite macedonian pikemen unit, and could move on.

Furthermore, in real life ancient battles, it would not be uncommon for a particular unit to rout and then return to the battle... That is exactly why reserves were used... to relieve and encourage those who may be wavering...

You almost sound like a historian here. Great necro!

But anyways, I'm not going to give my 2 cents. I'll intrigue y'all. I get the whole units-not-routing-fast-enough bit. That's cool. I guess you could lower morale by half for each unit and you'll get what you want. But I'd done a study yesterday and this thread makes me wonder, when Diadochi Macedonian Phalanx met Macedonian Phalanx on the battlefield, did they pike each other to the bitter end or did one of the Phalanxes rout with still a substantial number of men remaining in the unit? I ask this because my study would indicate whether EB is representative of at least that aspect of warfare, that tiniest aspect (Diadochi vs Diadochi pike). You can read the study report HERE. These tests were on Large, so the units had about 122 men in each company, if I'm not mistaken. Therefore, as you can calculate for yourself using my data table, the winning side of a Mak Phalanx vs Mak Phalanx battle in Europa Barbarorum has a survival rate of 26% (i.e. the percent of soldiers left standing after the enemy has routed). The losing side has a survival rate of 10%. Does this correspond to the data any of you historians may have on Diadochi battles?

[Constantius]

I would agree with logarist to a point, the phalanx not routing quickly enough, or they turn to face their attacker with a sarrissa if attacked from behind, it makes the Roman maniple versus Makedonian phalanx insignificant.

[Hakomar]

This thread is very old.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Maybe you are used to vanilla when even the slightest tickle of a flank manuver can send two or three full almost untouched units running for their lives. Yes flanking in history was effective but by no means what you see in RTW. Often times outflanked units did continue to fight. They don't really have the birds eye view to tell that they are being flanked which sometimes can and other times will not work in your favor.