Hammer and Anvil is the Only Tactic: Some Thoughts on How to Fix

[DakkaDon]

Hey guys, I am a huge fan of your mod, and love the slowed pace of combat, but some experience with DeI means all battles are fought the same way.

1) Pin their infantry with yours.

2) Flank with cav and javelins.

3) Win with absurdley low risk.


Now, just to make this absolutely clear, the mod is still brilliant and you guys have achieved so much compared to the vanilla game. I am just talking about refinement rather than a complete rework, but at the heart of this issue is the fact that shock or elite infantry are, when you really think about it, only ever good at not dying. In essence, the 'anvil' needs to be nerfed. When my 300 gold unit of peasant spearmen can pin Triarii for upwards of 6 minutes (give or take), then the only way to ever be threatened is have a superior cavalry force secure the field around that skirmish. This never happens, as the AI always builds less cavalry, less good cavalry and less well managed cavalry than the player.

This is not your fault, you're working within the confines of a game. But I think their are solutions.

A) DRAMATICALLY increase the mass of armored units. Make Principes smash through light spearmen. I understand dramatically upping the death rates would be a tough call, as the combat is well balanced, but sheer weight of infantry should be able to at least threaten your formations.

B) Buff the weapon deadliness of all elite infantry by about 30%. They should be able to kill or carve up most rabidly inferior opponents.

C) Nerf the health and defense skill of weak units. And again, dramatically reduce their mass.

D) All of the above.

We have a situation where any unit can be pinned by any other unit for a long period of time, and consequently, the only viable strategy is to exploit that. Now obviously hammer and anvil is always goingto be highly effective, but it would add a lot to the game if I could see my Gaulish infantry crumble in the center, and have to run in reserves to plug the gap. Thoughts?

TLR - The inability of elite infantry to gain a rapid advantage, or punch holes in light infantry makes cavalry from the rear universal. Nerf the anvil.

[Phil2]

We have a situation where any unit can be pinned by any other unit for a long period of time

Exactly.
Was very surprised at first, my leves without javelin ammos could stop and hold some time pretty good infantry troops.

[DakkaDon]

Yeah, it's obviously difficult because I along with most of us love the slower battles, but their has to be some punishment for sending the conscripted farmers against the best trained, best armored most ruthless infantry in the world that goes beyond them being very gradually defeated. Even if it's just them rapidly losing ground. You should be able to punch a hole with shock infantry. It's what supplies so much of the tactical depth in the center.

[Ultra123]

I agree with all the above, almost all my fights are now turning into hammer and anvil, it would be nice to see my vet legionaires managed to break a weak enemy unit on their own for once.

[lollaaja]

The requirement for hammer & anvil is a conscious design decision in DeI stemming from the ahistorical idea that everyone was roughly as good at fighting as everyone else. Historically, Romans were superior infantry, but in DeI they are absolutely nothing special in this regard.

[Scavrvs]

The requirement for hammer & anvil is a conscious design decision in DeI stemming from the ahistorical idea that everyone was roughly as good at fighting as everyone else. Historically, Romans were superior infantry, but in DeI they are absolutely nothing special in this regard.

In my opinion the point here is different: The problem is the OP of the light infantry compared to the heavy infantry (in all factions); The fact that the Roman roster have many heavy infantry makes it more evident in its faction, but you have the same problem for each faction...

[spartan117]

Yeah, maybe certain units should have greater shock ability or have that better represented. Increase lethality for just certain units? Maybe it depends on what effects shock should have, should it weaken morale in combination with greater inflicted casualties. I dont know. I havent really played any other mods and have not seen the different takes on combat mechanics.

Regarding tactics on the battlefield there really seems to be a limited amount of tactics especially prior to the widespread use of firearms. Basically all tactics involve some sort of flanking maneuver , now of course how this is achieved differs. But really that is all it is on a tactical level. I mean one can flank all sorts of ways.

In my experience playing on very hard, there is often great difficulty holding a battle line against the ai especially if you have low armored low morale units. The javelin throws before charges and skirmisher units can absolutely wreak havoc on units. And so because of this reason alone I am always very concerned with my lines breaking before I can complete any flanking maneuvers. And generally units do not run very quickly and if impeded in any way by enemy units can really get caught up and may be unable to flank before my lines crumble. And an even greater concern is enemy missile units targeting my flanking units. I dont know exactly know what the difference is between difficulties but I suspect the ai may get damage bonuses and increased morale. Simple flanking maneuvers are not enough to cause a mass rout. And some units can be incredibly stubborn holding out even when surrounded. For me it usually takes plenty of javelin throws in the rear of enemy lines and prolonged combat before I can initiate the routing of units.

Although breaking through ai lines with a frontal assault can be done. Of course this depends on what ai units you are encountering. If the ai has a shallow center for instance target javelin throws can really deplete ai unit strength and lesser units(armor/morale) will certainly crumble under the onslaught. But if the ai has deep lines than usually breaking through is out of the question as the ai units will share damage and unless the battle extends for a long time, the focus of the battle will be elsewhere.

The requirement for hammer & anvil is a conscious design decision in DeI stemming from the ahistorical idea that everyone was roughly as good at fighting as everyone else. Historically, Romans were superior infantry, but in DeI they are absolutely nothing special in this regard.

As I have only played the Romans in CiG, the legionaries are incredibly effective in that they are so very versatile. They can withstand hellish conditions as they have high attack, high defense, high morale. Their ability to form testudos is very useful against enemy barrages. They can likewise launch targeted javelin strikes. They have good stamina being able to cover lots of ground and do lots of things before fatigue kicks in. Not to mention cheap and highly available marian legionaries are very useful. I think their versatility and availability as historical strengths are well represented in this mod.

The Golden Horde never used flanking, they were legend tacticians and could come up with much better tactics, look up to them and maybe use their tactics

You mention the mongols. The mongols are famous for conducting feint attacks drawing out enemy formations and then would proceed with what are essentially flanking maneuvers.

If making an attempt at true historical accuracy engagements would be brief and units would be able to disengage with greater ease. And most armies over the course of a battle will exhibit few casualties. However battles that are only a few minutes long with even a simple maneuver leading to a mass rout, albeit more historically accurate, would be maybe lead to less interesting encounters.

[Scavrvs]

I tag along with you hoping the DEI team consider the request...

[TheOrangeProject]

Or just play above normal.

Or just use another tactic.

[Jean=A=Luc]

H&A/flanking is always the best tactic, it's always been in every TW game. It will always be the best no matter what you do. Even if you essentially turn off morale like Radious attacking from behind/side is still best simply because it kills faster. You can nerf charge values, lower morale, increase kill rates, flanking will always remain dominant unless you actually make it so that flanking carries an attack penalty which would be silly. Even the battle of Cannae was basically a large surround/flanking maneuver. The best you can hope for is to make flanking more difficult to achieve by having it require faster micro, better timing or to have better AI (heh).

The only occasional alternative is op (horse) archers and artillery.

[atila9000]

i actually think that hammer and anvil is the only tactic that one can make in any total war, except from the gunpowder ones (empire, napoleon, fall of the samurai)

[DakkaDon]

Hey guys, I see your points but I'm not saying I want to remove hammer and anvil, the obvious truth is that it was a powerful strategy which was capable of deciding battles, what I AM saying is that some basic diversity in the tactics available to the player is nice, and that the ability of elite infantry to beat weaker infantry relatively rapidly would allow the player greater consideration and involvement in battles where differentiated strenghts of infantry clashed.

I DO NOT think that hammer and anvil should be removed.
I fully support the slower kill rates and greater DeI equality.
I often play on very hard, but the higher the difficulty level, the increasingly mandatory hammer and anvil becomes.

All I want is elite infantry to force back or rout bad infantry a degree faster than they do currently.

[sleven93]

you are very correct, this makes the game stale, do it like Roma surrectum 2(the legends), they have lots of ways to win and its very hard to route men just by slamming in your assets from the behind

[Tripledot]

There's also the tactic of pinning an enemy formation and then peppering it with missile fire. Enemy javelinmen are always a huge threat for this reason.

[sleven93]

it doesnt make sense just because my men are surrounded that they route straight away, its not realistic, if i was surrounded in battle i would fight to the death not run away, i am soldier not a damsel in distress

[luck_ponte]

it doesnt make sense just because my men are surrounded that they route straight away, its not realistic, if i was surrounded in battle i would fight to the death not run away, i am soldier not a damsel in distress

Dude, soldiers are not suicidal. They will fight and they will hold, but at overwhelming odds, all they will care is their own lives. Fights to the death only happened when there was no chance to escape at all (or if the soldiers were legendary level badass, like Carthage's Sacred Band, but these were exceptions), if there was one, they would all run away (as exemplified by Trebia, were the only Roman survivors were the ones that broke through the enemy lines and then RAN LIKE HELL).

[sleven93]

Dude, soldiers are not suicidal. They will fight and they will hold, but at overwhelming odds, all they will care is their own lives. Fights to the death only happened when there was no chance to escape at all (or if the soldiers were legendary level badass, like Carthage's Sacred Band, but these were exceptions), if there was one, they would all run away (as exemplified by Trebia, were the only Roman survivors were the ones that broke through the enemy lines and then RAN LIKE HELL).

good day sir, so you mean to say there was no reprucussion for deserting battle?, in ww2 desrters were shot if they were runnin the opposite way

[luck_ponte]

Good day to you sir. There were indeed punishments for deserting/fleeing the battle. The Roman "decimation" is one of the best examples of that. However, it should be noted that:
a) Not every army at the time had such a strict discipline as the Roman army, and so this kind of behavior was not common sense at the time (better an army of cowards than one of corpses);
b) If your army lost the battle, the idea of living to fight another day makes complete sense. Actually, most battles of the time were not decided by the number of kills, but by who routed first. So, technically speaking, if you lost, it would be highly likely you would be running.
As much as I would love to see the "fight to the death" back to the picture, your point that in battle every unit should fight to the last is kind of broken.

[Elin4Lyfe]

good day sir, so you mean to say there was no reprucussion for deserting battle?, in ww2 desrters were shot if they were runnin the opposite way

Fleeing a route isn't deserting. They used horns and such to signal retreats, you know?

[Tripledot]

it doesnt make sense just because my men are surrounded that they route straight away, its not realistic, if i was surrounded in battle i would fight to the death not run away, i am soldier not a damsel in distress

Yeah, it's kind of dumb that CA took out "fighting to the death."