Max unit on field based on tactical systems used

[PROMETHEUS ts]

I always wondered how to represent proper manipular behaviours of roman infantry , tough in RTW it usually ended with a clash of units of opposing sides both of them having the same number of units and usually with a very similar number of men ...

How if it coudl be possible to represent the manipular formations to have units and subunits orders , like each maniple to have subunit centuries that could perform syncd tactical manouvers endependantly one of the other but still beeing pertinent to the same maniple ...

Or even better Allow Roman army to field more units than a greek army for example , but with smaller men units so to have centuries paired in maniples that could be selectable ( grouping two centuries for example ) rather than a bigger unit of many men ...

this woudl allow so a limitation of a max number of unit per civilization tactics rather than number of units deployable at max on field ...

and represent better the tactical manouverability of roman manipular formations ...

also the evolution tech of the tactics could allow for a completely dedicated tech tree to military tactics that could evolve those and allow for more or less units to field , rearrange units of men and so on....

then evolve the manipular tacticsin cohort tactics grouping bigger numbers of men like 6 centuries etc ....

actually the player coudl even be able at some point to define his own tactical solutions ...

so A greek tactic based on phalanx could field supersized units that are comprised of many men etc etc ...

[FilipVonZietek]

Thats a great problem, every army has same structure and command system, there is no difrence in comanding phalanx or legion excepting unit stats.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Perhaps the suggestion I posted could help ?Limiting the number of men rather than the number of units so u can either mass concentrate men into one single impenetrable phalanx line , or split them into maniples , or reorganize in centuries etc ...

[Lord Dakier]

I'd rather it just stay the way it is.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

why you like that all the factions fight in the same way with same numbers of units more or less ?

have a round circular warband formation for barbarians , a 3 lines long formation for phalanx and a square formation for cohorts? but have them all have the same similar number of men and behave at the same level due to the same number of units on field?

[UghUghUgh]

I really like that idea, because it is so different from the usual streamlined one-size-fits-all approach and demonstrates real world structures of ancient armies. But I don't see CA doing this.

[Lord Baal]

It would be a wonderful improvement to get size of the units depending on the faction and type of unit, having different command chains and all that. What a delight would be! Sadly, I don't see CA doing this.

[Ichon]

Maybe if different unit types had more or less advantages to ranks? Phalanx for example would benefit more from being several lines deep with additional mass while Roman Cohorts would share that benefit to a certain lower amount but get a stamina bonus if in the right width and depth while Germanic tribes would have a bit higher mass when spread out compared to a phalanx but gain nothing from deeper ranks and no stamina bonus.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

why think that CA can't implement that ?

[Raglan]

it sounds good for the stategic player. But i can see the mindless masses that probably make up the majority of total war players being baffled by such a system. And hence something that is unlikely to occur.

Though speaking personally its a cautious yes from me (cautious because its taking me a moment to wrap my head around the idea, but i still like it)

[Lord Dakier]

Simply put one army must be able to match another army especially the case for online.

[Ichon]

Simply put one army must be able to match another army especially the case for online.

Does that mean armies have to be exactly the same numbers and stats? Stupid, go play AoE or something. Not even Starcraft or Warhammer has that.

I am not sure what reason to resist if the end result remains basically balanced?

[Adreno]

a reasonable easy thing to mod in later aswell, just change unit stats

[PROMETHEUS ts]

a reasonable easy thing to mod in later aswell, just change unit stats

Not really if then you will have lots of supersized in comparison phalanx unit outnumbering the rest for example .... and the units of faction vs faction woudl be the same ....

[Asgaroth]

I'd rather it just stay the way it is.

Me to.

[hochmeister devin]

If online is confern uust split it so for online everything is normal total war and in single player its like this. They already dothis with troops so its not that big of a deal.

[krisslanza]

It sounds a little more complex then needed really. The system has worked fine I feel since... always. Maybe except that small, powerful units lose to mass swarms due to "staggering", but I'm not sure if that's still present in later TWs.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

It sounds a little more complex then needed really. The system has worked fine I feel since... always. Maybe except that small, powerful units lose to mass swarms due to "staggering", but I'm not sure if that's still present in later TWs.

the game so far has been nice, enjoable , cool , surely but historically accurate ? not really , they have moved toward historical accuracy for the units , for the look of buildings , even the map now seems a painting and its great looking , but why not focus also on tactics and mechanics , I feel this stuff is stuck in time since shogun I ....

[Jester]

would be cool, but i cant see that happening in the near future let alone in Rome II

that would require a lot more work on the AI and more different AIs. and we know, the AI was never the shining star of TW games anyway
we can be glad if it s actually improved in it s current form this time around.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Why what would be the problems in just limiting unit selection based on number of total men rather than units?