Using shieldwall...

[italiano]

I did a seach on this and found some threads, but noone seemed to know how to actually use it.

Ok, first of all flanking it. I surrounded the enemy when they were in shield wall, while I was not, and it did not have the desired affect. The enemy (with stats barely better than my troops) were faring much better than my own troops until I went into shield wall.

When 2 shield walls attack each other. They clashed but didn't stay as a wall, but instead kept going and created a huge melee. As cool and realistic as it looked, it defeated the purpose of them being in shield wall mode.

Is the formation really that useful?? How much does it affect 2 units fighting with one in SW and the other one in normal?

How well does it fair against flanking? Did I just have a bad experience or isn't it all that effective?

Sorry if there have been any in depth threads discussing this, I just didn't find any that had 'facts'.

[antaeus]

try charging some cavalry into that shield wall from the front... then compair it to charging the wall from behind...

[Sétanta]

try charging some cavalry into that shield wall from the front... then compair it to charging the wall from behind...

bloody barbarian

[Ahiga]

I'm finding a lack of use with it because of the fact that the unit charges foward, it generally defeats the purpose of it. It's impossible to keep a 'phalanx' feel to it (An unbending or unbroken line of units) because the one that is attacked will begin to surge forward, presenting it's flanks to the enemy.

[italiano]

From what I've experienced so far I have to say LT did a much better job of a shieldwall in SPQR. Works very well there.

I kind of like the surge, although it defeats the purpose of a 'wall'.

[guyyug]

From what I've experienced so far I have to say LT did a much better job of a shieldwall in SPQR. Works very well there.

I kind of like the surge, although it defeats the purpose of a 'wall'.

in a sheildwall fight the troops always pushed forward to either surrond it or brake it

[antaeus]

i would imagine that you can curb the tendency for units to charge foward by setting them to guard mode so they never allow themselves to move that far foward. also you have to remember that the shield wall, is not a phalanx. it was a tactic used by germanic armies 2-400 years after the period this game is set in. the battles it was used in rarely actually had much in the way of a decisive cavalry element - particularly in anglo saxon england - so the risk of flanking moves was somewhat reduced. although, i have noticed the computer in particular does not use the shield wall in the way it is described as being used in history... the saxons seem to charge their shield wall foward which seems illogical as it would by nature break it up.

[bestantreas]

Here's a pic I found somewhere in TWC, it explains how useless is shieldwall, I don't agree totally with it,I think it depends with the situation.

[antaeus]

its a blatantly flawed report on the shield wall...

to use the saxons as an example for rebuttal to that chart...

the saxons use the shield wall for starters, (the chart above says the Ai does not use it at all) they also apporach the enemy with multiple units (the entire front if theres enough units) along side each other in shield wall formation, thus the shrinking of individual units frontage (from having compressed ranks) is not such a flaw you will never see an enemy capable of shield wall attack you with a single unit.

[Sitarus Originalus PM-30+]

well first of all... i think shielwall is not the formation to make a lot of casualties to the anemy... actually it is about the dame as hold position with less casualties. i use this formation when i need time for my reinforcements to join the battle.

[Shadows]

I'm pretty sure that the sheildwall isn't useless. of course 9 time out of 10 your guys are idiots and dont use the wall to its full advantage, but it still has its uses. I remember a battle I had as the Saxons. I had two units that could shieldwall, 4 archers and two cavalry units. Against over two thousand Burgundian Horde soldiers. needless to say I lost the walls of the town I was defending and had to pull back into the city. I found a hill the enemy would have to climb to reach the square and on top I posted my archers. On the bottom I posted my infantry in the shieldwall formation. The cavalry was farther behind the archers in support. Everytime the enemy attacked my shieldwall they pushed it back, up the hill and every time i would charge my cavalry down to counter their attack. So I have concluded using this and other battles as evidence that the shieldwall formation can be useful if used in a situation when they are under heavy attack and cannot move out of place. and if you place them on a hill it always helps too.

[Ahiga]

Theres no denying the shield wall is not useful, being a sort of contemporary phalanx for urban fighting, but what seems to be useless about them is sadly, what their purpose was in real life - a method to hold the line.

Perhaps it's a failure of the engine itself. Considering the phalanx could operate the same way (Not a single line moving together, keeping cohesion while they advance) and had similiar failuires (Although it did not lack the inability to hold ground the way the shield wall does). If we could somehow have the entire group (Numbers 1,2,3 to 8,9,0) form a single shield wall, and have that move ahead the way that single unit does, it'd be effective.

The greatest failure of it is simply that it does not hold the line, and while it is perfect for hoplite phalangites, I am dissapointed at CA for including that grave mistake, ruining the real life purpose of it.

[Augustus In Command]

I just tested a mass shield wall consisting of levy spearmen on guard mode and I have to say that it did not hold a contiguous line. Rather, some units would advance forward whilst others held back, depending on which units were actually engaged in combat.

Poor, CA, very poor.

[Rari Garlor]

Maybe you should try moving the unit or units in shieldwall formation through the enemy line. Once they pushed themselfs into the enemy formation attack and watch the enemy fly around ... Well thats how i use the shieldwall formation. I use this tactic to break through enemy lines and with some support from behind and the flanks you`ll get the enemy running quick enough.

[crazyj]

Yea tell em to move through or give slow attack orders, so they don't charge until very close (if at all). Either way, just by being in shieldwall *even when spread out chargin* they still seem to fight better. Also, using a manipular formation with them is great, as they tend to fight off any attacks even if from the side.

[AlfonsoVIII]

Well, the shield wall is good against missile and cavalry charges, but not in melee has it can be easily surrounded. Wait, are we talking about the phalanx or the shieldwall formation? The principle is the same with each one.

Plus a 10 row 8 man deep formation will always get surrounded by a 20 row 4 man deep formation (80 vs. 80) everytime. The shieldwall works, where it is intended to succeed and fails when it is intended to fail. You might as well say giving archers the capability to melee is pointless and as flawed as the shieldwall as they always lose because of their stats.