Why those fixed numbers units?

[KuroKen]

Why do we use those 60 or 120 men units?
For realism? Is it realistic to not being able to form just one line with no holes? Just try and remake Battle of Cannae in TW...

Why this totally unrealistic replenishment?
Simply because fixed number units = mandatory replenishment possibility. Who can use 20 people units? They take the room for 1 unit and are of no battle value. If you can't replenish, you disband.
How do you replenish your war elephants when you're in Gaul?

Proposed solution :
Just say "your army contains 1234 hastatii and 230 equites". At the beginning you have 2 units, then you can split them into several units. You can also make a line or a curve with them.

==> no more units with 10 men that you just cannot use, no more room between units, no more impossibility to command correctly your men due to unit sizes!

At the beginning this would be : one unit per type of men and maybe weapon/armor typeif you have this feature. No difference for EXP. Maybe just a button to say if you want the most experimented to be in the front, in the back, left or right.

What's your opinion on this?

[torongill]

Why do we use those 60 or 120 men units?
For realism? Is it realistic to not being able to form just one line with no holes? Just try and remake Battle of Cannae in TW...

Yes for realism. Read a bit about the strength of the maniple for example. Or the Syntagma.

Why this totally unrealistic replenishment?

Simply because fixed number units = mandatory replenishment possibility. Who can use 20 people units? They take the room for 1 unit and are of no battle value. If you can't replenish, you disband.
How do you replenish your war elephants when you're in Gaul?

you don't, which is why Hannibal had only ten or so when he came to Italy.

Proposed solution :

Just say "your army contains 1234 hastatii and 230 equites". At the beginning you have 2 units, then you can split them into several units. You can also make a line or a

curve with them.

==> no more units with 10 men that you just cannot use, no more room between units, no more impossibility to command correctly your men due to unit sizes!

At the beginning this would be : one unit per type of men and maybe weapon/armor typeif you have this feature. No difference for EXP. Maybe just a button to say if you want the most experimented to be in the front, in the back, left or right.

What's your opinion on this?

what do you mean no more impossibility to correctly command your men? You realize that you can transfer soldiers from one unit to another to make one unit up to strength, right? Besides, having units that are under strength is realistic. Units with ten men can be used to garrison forts, scout forward and be used as replentishment for future battles. Also when you have two understrength units, you can group them together and make a virtual one unit of the two.

[Condottiere 40K]

Easier book-keeping; organized armies tended to have units with standard numbers, and ad hoc distribution of personnel prior to battle does not make great cohesion when the crunch happens.

[Lacedaemon]

I always just use the small units as replenishment for injured troops, and once they get really low send them to a town to be retrained. I personally like the system it is at the moment and like the ability to have seperate troops of same warriors on the battlefield. It lets you create much more intricate moves and allows for multi front battles.

[KuroKen]

I always just use the small units as replenishment for injured troops, and once they get really low send them to a town to be retrained. I personally like the system it is at the moment and like the ability to have seperate troops of same warriors on the battlefield. It lets you create much more intricate moves and allows for multi front battles.

To have separate fronts, just split with as many men as you want. It is only more flexible this way : if you want 60 men for the second front and your units are 120, in this solution, you can send just 60 men. Right now, it is 120 or nothing.
And the goal is that you no more send your unit back for replenishment, but just send more troops. Do you imagine Hannibal sending his men back home for replenishment? No they sent more men (who got slaughtered though). Same for elephants, etc... Replenishment like in S2TW would be an insult as the elephants WOULD replenish in Gaul!

Multiple units that you can give separate commands to is absolutely essential.

Sure. The point is to have flexibility in their number. And being able to form a good line without having it weaker where the unit is undernumbered. This would just bring a simpler way to do the same : you have the same max number of units, just that you create the units with the men you want. So no more use to command 10 units at a time when you can use a 10 times larger unit at once.

To explain differently, the goal here is:
- to put replenishment at an end as it makes no sense. I will not send my troops back home to refill my numbers, but just ask to send more troops.
- to have more flexibility in battles : split my troops just as I wish is freedom.
- simplify the troop gestion : 1 unit per type = simpler gestion of campaign map

BTW: explain how I form a continuous line of constant depth in RTW with some diminished troops...

[torongill]

BTW: explain how I form a continuous line of constant depth in RTW with some diminished troops...

In RTW the units will be deployed in their default depth, which is four for most of them. You just have to put the units next to each other without gaps and then group them. The frontage will be less than with units with full strength, but the depth will be the same.
If for some reason you want to change the depth of the line, you have to do that unit by unit. That means using +/- to increase/decrease the depth of the formation until you're satisfied and then position them and group them. I do not understand the problem.

What is this thread even about?

Damfino.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Hannibal used the elephants that survived the crossing in the first battle I think but after that they died off or were of no use, cant remember. But realistically speaking how would you replenish your elephants in Gaul? You cant. You have to recruit them in Africa or ME and ship them over.

In my games I would recruit mercs which are very useful but since they cant be retrained and become valueless when they reach 20-50 men I just send to towns as garrisons and re-recruit the mercs. After awhile I get a lot of these guys and I can just merge them into new units.

[redxavier]

Just say "your army contains 1234 hastatii and 230 equites". At the beginning you have 2 units, then you can split them into several units. You can also make a line or a curve with them.

Having your army split into separate units on the campaign map or split before the battle starts makes little difference. The end result is still the same. Multiple units that you can give separate commands to is absolutely essential.

I agree that the auto-replenishment system needs to go, as it's a simplified and lazy approach to managing your armies, but the solution to lump all your men together doesn't address this.

The two problems you raise already have solutions present in game. You can form a line with no gaps very easily so not sure why you're having trouble with that, and you can merge depleted units together on the campaign map or move them out of the army back towards your settlements for re-training/safety.

[Tim_Ward]

What is this thread even about?

[Condottiere 40K]

If it's in regards to regenerating units and recruitment, you could have agents with the ability to recruit local mercenaries; commanders could have this additional ability, or a trait that enhances their ability to attract them. You could also have march battalions that arrive occasionally from their recruitment region.

[KuroKen]

torongill => In RTW, when you start, there is room between units. This room may not be huge, but for phalanxes it is a weak point that can be attacked. And please agree that moving each unit the right place is kind of boring, right?

Tim_Ward => not about trolls, so you're not concerned.

If it's in regards to regenerating units and recruitment, you could have agents with the ability to recruit local mercenaries; commanders could have this additional ability, or a trait that enhances their ability to attract them. You could also have march battalions that arrive occasionally from their recruitment region.

Of course. But you will recruit locals. For ex. Hannibal arrived to Italy with his Carthaginians and some Gauls. This is not about replenishment but about mercenaries, very different. Once your men are dead, they are dead, you can only hire some more. If you are abroad, you can hire mercenaries, or ask home to send more troops. But good idea though, an agent that helps hire mercenaries.

[torongill]

torongill => In RTW, when you start, there is room between units. This room may not be huge, but for phalanxes it is a weak point that can be attacked. And please agree that moving each unit the right place is kind of boring, right?

Tim_Ward => not about trolls, so you're not concerned.


Of course. But you will recruit locals. For ex. Hannibal arrived to Italy with his Carthaginians and some Gauls. This is not about replenishment but about mercenaries, very different. Once your men are dead, they are dead, you can only hire some more. If you are abroad, you can hire mercenaries, or ask home to send more troops. But good idea though, an agent that helps hire mercenaries.

Oh FFS... How long have you been playing RTW? When you are in battlefield mode before you start the battle arrange the units how you want them(3-10 deep if you wish it, facing diagonally or turned with their asses to the enemy), then put them next to each other to eliminate the spaces and group them. Don't put them in the preset formations by pressing the buttons. Do. It. Yourself.

I agree, it's a bit boring. But it takes like half a minute to do it for a full stack and then you can start your battle.

[Humble Warrior]

Why do we use those 60 or 120 men units?
For realism? Is it realistic to not being able to form just one line with no holes? snip for brevity...

What's your opinion on this?

just think about it a little...

Well if you look at reality (always the best place to start) and ask yourself, `Why are they using unit numbers and don`t just have one or two huge units?` then the answer becomes clear.

Management. Ginormous huge numbers might sound great in the mind, but are a nightmare to near impossible to sort out in any meaningful way.

Not everything in reality is done for `tradition` or because `we`re used to it` some of it is actually done for very good practical reasons.

And as others have said, REMEMBER to MERGE units that are deplenished. If too deplenished move them to a city to replenish or disband them. Some things just cannot be replenished because they come from particular resources, it`s logical and realistic.

[KuroKen]

I must admit I didn't know about that merging stuff. And it makes a big difference. Now for this problem :



In current TW, how do I do this move? It is very simple in reality : just everybody advances. (arrow means time passing...)


edited: torongill => I didn't wait for you to do this. But making a good straight line moving each unit is boring. It may not take a lot of time, but it is no fun...

[torongill]

I must admit I didn't know about that merging stuff. And it makes a big difference. Now for this problem :



In current TW, how do I do this move? It is very simple in reality : just everybody advances. (arrow means time passing...)


edited: torongill => I didn't wait for you to do this. But making a good straight line moving each unit is boring. It may not take a lot of time, but it is no fun...

Emm, if you want to do this with just two units, not possible. There are limitations to the engine, after all. But in this specific example it would make much more sense to me to advance to the oblique with the left unit and pin the enemy, while the whole right unit slides to the right and then advances, flanking the enemy. The truth of the matter is that most of the engagements we enact in TW are basically small scale actions. To have the same frontage that a consular republican 2+2 legion army had, the RTW Roma Surrectum II player would need 8 Polybian cohorts deployed 4-deep and 8 Allied polybian cohorts deployed 4 deep. And that's just for the first line of the infantry. The Romans generally operated with three lines, meaning you'd need 32 units of Polybian cohort and 8 units of Triarii. What I mean to say with this? On grand scale you can have flanking and double envelopment. But not when you have 2 units.

[KuroKen]

This is my point: with the unit organization I suggest, it would be possible: I split the initial unit (the 2 units are only one in this view) into 3, and I can do it.
It would NOT be tougher for the engine: the limitation in the number of units would be the same! Just that the one who decides what composes an unit would be me, and I would be able to change an unit's definition during the fight. It wouldn't change the whole game, but I truly think it would be an improvement.

[torongill]

This is my point: with the unit organization I suggest, it would be possible: I split the initial unit (the 2 units are only one in this view) into 3, and I can do it.
It would NOT be tougher for the engine: the limitation in the number of units would be the same! Just that the one who decides what composes an unit would be me, and I would be able to change an unit's definition during the fight. It wouldn't change the whole game, but I truly think it would be an improvement.

So basically what you want to do is this: be able to tell the engine to split a mass of men into a number of units of your own choosing. So if you have say 3000 hastati you want to be able to tell the game to create 2 units of 1500 or 3 of 1000, or 10 of 300 say up to 50 units of 60 each. And that's just if you want to split them equaly. What if you want a unit of 1600, one of 300, one of 500 and another of 600. Do you get what I'm saying? This will be unnecessary, heavy to execute and wouldn't be much of an improvement. Even the so-called barbarians had units(according to legend Camillus reformed the roman legion to use maniples and centuries after he saw the flexibility of the Gallic army that sacked Rome)

I have no problem if the tribal units of Gaul or Hispania have a modifier that gives you variable number of the units under your command when you recruit them, but it would be much easier to just recruit a fixed number, which will allow easier recruitment, merging of units, etc. Historically I'm sure that tribes provided their separate contingents, in which different clans were grouped together, thus the modifier. However, I don't think it's realistic to lump them all together when preparing for battle. The ancients sure as hell didn't. And one more thing - "civilized", professional militaries usually had fixed unit strength, which allows easier command and control and administration.

Actually for multiplayer battles it would be awesome to have one supreme commander and a few "captains" in charge of the center, left and right wing, left cavalry and right cavalry. Get routed on the right, but manage to push back the enemy line in the center and envelope him on the right.

[Humble Warrior]

I must admit I didn't know about that merging stuff. And it makes a big difference. Now for this problem :



In current TW, how do I do this move? It is very simple in reality : just everybody advances. (arrow means time passing...)


edited: torongill => I didn't wait for you to do this. But making a good straight line moving each unit is boring. It may not take a lot of time, but it is no fun...

Just group them. You can select any two or more units and group.

So pick all of one kind of unit at the start (or during game, though everyone will have to walk making it fiddly) and then push that whole unit as one. Looking at your diagram 5-8 units would make the row you want. Once you have the block you want, begin battle.

Press and hold the Space Bar as that will show you a line to where your units will go. While holding the bar clicking with the Mouse where you want your troops to be. Keep holding the space bar and you`ll see where they will end up and how it will look. then use the `Right\left` rotate button so they are facing the correct way and let go. Your troops will head exactly the way you told them to and straight into the enemy. guess I should make a UTUBE demo as it`s easy.

I don`t use this tactic much as you don`t have much control (it`s just one block moving forward). I tend to take over when they get close and direct each unit to each specific part of the AI army I want engaged.

So, to be honest, most of your complaint should really be `Why doesn`t CA explain these things in a MANUAL?`

[Condottiere 40K]

If I understand it correctly, you want to (re-)organize a Roman Legion prior to battle. Whereas I agree an ad hoc amalgamation during battle between two units is an interesting option, or the ability to split a unit or separate a detachment, but I wonder if the game engine can allow this?

[KuroKen]

I'm not in Sega's team, but I'll bet it's not too hard: it would still be units like now, but different sizes... The only new point would be the possibility to split/join, but I don't see the difficulty.

The prior to battle reorganization is more of a consequence of the battle reorganization: if you can split them just as you wish, why should you bother having many units of the same type in the army? This would make army gestion easier.
Obviously this feature of splitting must be completed with the joining of units because what is for sure is that you won't be able to have 100 units in game : not the engine for it nor the time for the player to bother controlling too many units.