Im worried about the melee combat

[Christian Strand]

Ok, im not gonna lie.. im just gonna say that this worries me almost as much as the AI.

This thing about the melee combat animations still being 1vs1(as i understand), really makes me wonder.. the fighting is not going to look much more realistic than in Shogun2 im afraid.. its going to be the same but with better graphics ofcourse.

Dont get me wrong, i like the fighting style in Shogun2, it looks fine for a game like that. And i understand there are more important things in the game to look at, but i just have this dream about the combat, looking as real as possible, it allways makes me kind of obssessed with the thought of how real it possibly can get every time a new TW game is coming. So every time i see a new announcement, i have this same question inside my head.. is the combat animations finally going to be what i hope for? With CA going in this 1vs1 fight style direction, i cant see how things will improve much in the future. There has to be other ways to go, right? or is it just too complicated to do? maybe it would require more work into that than making the actual game itself.

Whats your thoughts about this?

Edit, edit ..

[Prof]

I think it was Jack Lusted (not sure about who it was though) who said that the 1vs1 thing is only for the animations and that the numbers of the units facing eachother still influence the killrate...so this is a purely visual thing...and since I think, it would be an awful lot of work to make animations for all sorts of constellations, I'm fine with this for now.

[Mincecraft]

I think I heard that the formations will affect the way they do them (ie. roman hastati will keep in rank), so it should look different than the 1 on 1 heroics of the samurai.

[Ngazi]

Is Rome 1v1?

[Durnaug]

Is Rome 1v1?

With regards to RTW vanilla I am not sure what 1v1 really means: I have seen 1 guy getting hacked by a several opponents but he is definitely being targetted. So in that sense, I think it is 1 v 1.

Any real experts here with a more definitive answer?

[DisgruntledGoat]

With regards to RTW vanilla I am not sure what 1v1 really means: I have seen 1 guy getting hacked by a several opponents but he is definitely being targetted. So in that sense, I think it is 1 v 1.

Any real experts here with a more definitive answer?

No rome is not 1 v 1. Again, 1 v 1 is just regarding animation syncing. Rome 1 had animation loops based only on the single guy. If he found a target his animation would play for his actions. This would result in the guy swinging wildly and hitting nothing but scoring damage. His opponent could be doing anything including fighting someone else. M2 added death animations that did sync with the attacking animation. What 1 v 1 added in Empire and has been improved is that when a guy targets an opponent (just like they did in RTW) the animations of the opponent are synced. So you can have a much more elaborate combat sequence between the two opponents. What's happening underneath the combat animations hasn't really changed from RTW to Empire to Rome 2. Just the way it is shown has changed. Empire, Napoleon, Shogun are all capable of have men attacked by mulitple opponents. SHOWING them via animations however is not being done. Because just think about it, think of the amount of animation work required for 1 v 1 animations. Now double it for 1 v 2 where the 1 dies, now triple it for 1 v 2 where 1 dies but so does one of the 2's. Now quadruple it for 1 v 2 where 1 dies but kills the other 2. Now quintuple it for where 1 kills both his opponents. Now that's only for when both opponents are facing him. What if one opponent is behind him and the other is in front, or on the one side or the other side. It becomes impracticable to show all this variations on fighting when it doesn't affect core game play (except for formation breaking in Empire).

[ironbrigade]

Ok, im not gonna lie.. im just gonna say that this worries me almost as much as the AI.

This thing about the melee combat animations still being 1vs1(as i understand), really makes me wonder.. the fighting is not going to look much more realistic than in Shogun2 im afraid.. its going to be the same but with better graphics ofcourse.

Dont get me wrong, i like the fighting style in Shogun2, it looks fine for a game like that. And i understand there are more important things in the game to look at, but i just have this dream about the combat, looking as real as possible, it allways makes me kind of obssessed with the thought of how real it possibly can get every time a new TW game is coming. So every time i see a new announcement, i have this same question inside my head.. is the combat animations finally going to be what i hope for? With CA going in this 1vs1 fight style direction, i cant see how things will improve much in the future. There has to be other ways to go, right? or is it just too complicated to do? maybe it would require more work into that than making the actual game itself.

Whats your thoughts about this?

Edit, edit ..

I could not agree with you more.

[daelin4]

So....you think combat animations are very important?

[Christian Strand]

So....you think combat animations are very important?

Yes, one of the main things for me for sure! It makes up for the action in the game in the same way as in a movie.

[Adreno]

They can now mocap upto 5 people at the same time.. so who knows..

[Bringer Of Storms]

I hope they still keep the formations accurate. Legionaries didn't break formation and fight one on one Hollywood style. They kept behind the shield wall and thrusted their swords out.

[karamazovmm]

I hope they still keep the formations accurate. Legionaries didn't break formation and fight one on one Hollywood style. They kept behind the shield wall and thrusted their swords out.

I find it interesting that we have no idea how people fought, only those dreadful early ''historians'', seriously we dont have anything.

What you are saying to me is like Odyssey is a real fact, it happened just like that.

[SirCymro]

I hope they still keep the formations accurate. Legionaries didn't break formation and fight one on one Hollywood style. They kept behind the shield wall and thrusted their swords out.

Gonna have to contradict you here, and several of you others.

Fighting face to face, the legions never broke formation (unless routed) and that mixed with their discipline and the gladius was why they were able to crush most armies that came against them, as for example, the Greeks spears were rendered useless in close combat as were the Britons longswords.

However, you seem to forget that Teutoburg Forest was not a formation battle, it was a 1 v 1 duel, or more 2 v a lot. That was why the Romans got defeated in ambushes because they had no time to deploy, the majority of enemy armies, in a 1 v 1 instance would defeat a Legionnaire as all they were trained to do was.......Shield forward, thrust, shield forward, thrust etc, whereas other armies were taught 1 v 1 combat skills as well as formational fighting e.g. Greek hoplites.

Therefore i think that each 'legion' (century, cohort, auxillary force etc) should have a small deployment time where they can present the shield (in battle command) and form properly with no gaps, and the full force of the legion training behind them. They should also have several formations, such as Wedge (yes infantry used wedge) Square and line. Square hampered movement speed but was an effective defensive formation to defend from all sides (if out flanked and you react in time)

The other reason i think there should be a small set up time is partly due to ambushes. If a hidden unit attacks a unit by some thinking it will be, the legionnaires can reform and easily repel the enemy, no. They should be able to charge in and break the formation apart thus making the fight more balanced and more likely to favour the attackers thus rendering the legions training useless. These tactics were often used by barbarian hordes as they worked so well against the legions, just look at Caratacus for example, lost every fight in an open field, but managed to deal costly damage to supplies, patrols, foraging parties etc.

[Aquila Romana]

@SirCymro

You obviously know what you're talking about, but I wouldn't say myself that a Roman legionary would have been such a push-over in a 1 on 1 fight. There have been several instances in history where Roman soldiers (and officers) have proven to be extremely skilled 1 on 1 fighters. (e.g. Decius Mus, Siccius Dentatus, Pullo, Vorenus, Manlius Torquatus, indeed Scipio Aemelianus himself won a single combat in Iberia). However, as with any man, I think skill in 1 on 1 combat was down to the individual. I think there would have been plenty of Roman veterans that would have given a celtic warrior a run for their money.

However, since we are talking about a game here, not reality, I think what you say is a good idea because it then equalises gameplay. I do not believe that a game (at this stage anyway) could portray ancient warfare so accurately.


EDIT: If anyone is interested in the subject of single-combat (or conventional combat) in Roman warfare, I would recommend R. Cowan's "For The Glory Of Rome". He presents good arguments in his work, and he backs them up with convincing evidence. Some scholars have turned up their nose to Cowan's work (probably through arrogance rather than actually analysing his material), but it is definitely worth a read since it explores a largely overlooked subject concerning the Roman army.

[DisgruntledGoat]

I don't understand what your issue is. 1 v 1 animations is merely the term used to describe one unit syncing with one other unit for animation set. It is entirely possible to have roman 1 v 1 animation sets that accurately depict roman fighting styles against single opponents. Its not like they will be rolling around like they do in shogun. The community doesn't seem to understand 1 v 1 animations at all. Not to mention Rome will use several animation rule sets (including animation sets similar to RTW) to depict combat.

[Modestus]

I don't understand what your issue is. 1 v 1 animations is merely the term used to describe one unit syncing with one other unit for animation set. It is entirely possible to have roman 1 v 1 animation sets that accurately depict roman fighting styles against single opponents. Its not like they will be rolling around like they do in shogun. The community doesn't seem to understand 1 v 1 animations at all. Not to mention Rome will use several animation rule sets (including animation sets similar to RTW) to depict combat.

I think the worry is that soldiers will break formation to perform the animation duel rather then the actual type of animation for the duel, remember that one of aspects of the Warscape engine for ETW at least was that soldiers would seek out individuals to fight, its the seeking out part that has people concerned.

Anyhow I would be very surprised if CA were not aware of this and Lusted already said that individuals will be much closer together and I would imagine that mass will also play a part in holding a unit together.

[Shaggy1973]

I agree, animations should not make units break formation and duel. I really hope it doesn't. However, Jack has also stated that there is a much greater emphasis on formation fighting in R2 so although it worries me a little, it won't be S2 with different skins for sure.

[Prof]

Have you actually watched any interviews on the game?

I think, there is not a single interview where they don't say that Romans will only break formation if you order them to do so. (and no, you don't have to post links to interviews where this wasn't mentioned)

[Aquila Romana]

Guys, i wouldn't worry about this, I think CA know what they are doing. To have the Romans fighting holly-wood style, out of formation would be pretty damn stupid, they wouldn't do that. It has been emphasis that cultures will have their own fighting style. Romans will fight in formation, and 'barbarians' will fight as individuals, it has been mentioned in an interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP5PjSPAbig Go to 1:45 on this interview hope this sheds some light on the topic.

[CptAustus]

To have the Romans fighting holly-wood style, out of formation would be pretty damn stupid

Well, FOTS did remind me of Tom Cruise.