De pugna et animo: Argumentum ad alterationem

[Alexander Iulianus Verus]

This source:

http://garyb.0catch.com/fighting1/fighting1.html

Strongly makes the case for combat involving protracted 'lulls' and frequent 'micro-retreats'. Especially in cases where a cavalry charge approaches to the flank or the rear, units would often retreat. In fact, most casualties were thought to have occurred during the retreat, rather than during the battle itself.

This ties into the suggestion made that most soldiers acted out of self-preservation rather than wound-inflicting. Human nature leads to behaviors which aim to avoid pain and injury, and so it would make sense that this mindset persists, even today, i.e., you will most likely be taking cover the majority of the time, rather than shooting.

While I LOVE the protracted nature of combat, I feel that units do not rout easily enough when cornered or completely surrounded; if anything, they should be fighting to the death more often.

DEI Mod and Rome 2 Total Realism strongly execute this style in a way that makes sense, and I feel some consideration to those systems would be helpful.

I do know this source is Roman-centric, but much of what it says remains applicable to military matters in general.

Thoughts?

[pokeytrev]

Yes, I've read that web article before; it's a great source. I think it goes without saying that troops would be very concerned with self preservation (fighting to avoid being killed and taking small little stabs and afterwards retreating behind their shield). I also read once that battled were either over very quickly or were full of micro-retreats/rests as you mentioned (fighting for your life and under pressure can wear one out very quickly).

I think the slow speed of combat is excellent as it gives me time to zoom in an watch the battle, and it's much more realistic than the speed of battles/kills in Rome II.

I agree that units need to route a lot more quickly if completely surrounded (which would be more realistic, too).

[Iguanaonastick]

I've read various books and articles by Sabin and Goldsworthy that this article is based on, and indeed find the arguments therein quite compelling. However, I don't think such lulls in combat or extended missile exchanges can really be modelled in the total war engine. EB does the next best thing: by slowing combat down the overall pace feels right, and you can just assume that in reality there would be brief bursts of aggressive fighting separated by longer lulls where the combatants stand off and throw stuff. The overall effect is about the same. Can't judge the speed of units routing yet as I haven't played that much of the mod yet.

[QuintusSertorius]

I think the more protracted melee, often decided by morale rather than kills, we see in EBII at present is good (and realistic). I like it.

What I don't think is working in the current balancing are two things: skirmishers (and missile units generally) are basically useless, and cavalry charges do little.

[Sar1n]

I think cavalry charges are good the way they are now.

We're at antiquity, not medieval. Cavalry wasn't often used as shock troops, and even when they were, it was against troops unprepared for it (best examples are Alexander's Hetairoi at Gaugamela and Issus when they charged moving or already engaged troops, and Parthian Cataphracts at Carrhae, where they forced the Roman cohorts out of testudo). In all cases the effect was breaking enemy morale rather than outright slaughter.

My biggest problem with EBII's portrayal is, in fact, the amount of shock and heavy cavalry. In antiquity, most cavalrymen would carry a few javelins or another ranged weapon (eastern nations prefered bows), and would fight mostly using that, spears, lances and backup melee weapon. Most of the time, they would engage with enemy cavalry in skirmishes, loose melee and even personal duels, and after gaining superiority that would allow them maneuvering advantage, they would harrass and disrupt the enemy, but engaging in full charges against infantry was rare, and if the infantry was prepared for them, disasterous.

[Alexander Iulianus Verus]

I think cavalry charges are good the way they are now.

We're at antiquity, not medieval. Cavalry wasn't often used as shock troops, and even when they were, it was against troops unprepared for it (best examples are Alexander's Hetairoi at Gaugamela and Issus when they charged moving or already engaged troops, and Parthian Cataphracts at Carrhae, where they forced the Roman cohorts out of testudo). In all cases the effect was breaking enemy morale rather than outright slaughter.

My biggest problem with EBII's portrayal is, in fact, the amount of shock and heavy cavalry. In antiquity, most cavalrymen would carry a few javelins or another ranged weapon (eastern nations prefered bows), and would fight mostly using that, spears, lances and backup melee weapon. Most of the time, they would engage with enemy cavalry in skirmishes, loose melee and even personal duels, and after gaining superiority that would allow them maneuvering advantage, they would harrass and disrupt the enemy, but engaging in full charges against infantry was rare, and if the infantry was prepared for them, disasterous.

Sar1n, you're on target here, I too do NOT want more damage done by cavalry, I think that's fine that way it is, and this is also reflected in the link I provided in my OP. However, my original point was that the morale needs to be adjusted for units which are surrounded/flanked. I am sure that the Romans at Cannae were terrified and 'fighting-to-the-death' when they were double-encircled by Hannibal's forces.

I also think that, as with Elephants, a rush of horses nearby (even just the noise and dust and incoming projectiles) from behind you while your comrades are engaged in melee would be startling and compelling as a reason to retreat.

Let me know your thoughts.

[QuintusSertorius]

I think cavalry charges are good the way they are now.

We're at antiquity, not medieval. Cavalry wasn't often used as shock troops, and even when they were, it was against troops unprepared for it (best examples are Alexander's Hetairoi at Gaugamela and Issus when they charged moving or already engaged troops, and Parthian Cataphracts at Carrhae, where they forced the Roman cohorts out of testudo). In all cases the effect was breaking enemy morale rather than outright slaughter.

My biggest problem with EBII's portrayal is, in fact, the amount of shock and heavy cavalry. In antiquity, most cavalrymen would carry a few javelins or another ranged weapon (eastern nations prefered bows), and would fight mostly using that, spears, lances and backup melee weapon. Most of the time, they would engage with enemy cavalry in skirmishes, loose melee and even personal duels, and after gaining superiority that would allow them maneuvering advantage, they would harrass and disrupt the enemy, but engaging in full charges against infantry was rare, and if the infantry was prepared for them, disasterous.

Which period in antiquity are we talking about? Because shock cavalry were a significant innovation of the Hellenistic age, along with fighting in formation (the Thessalian-inspired wedge or rhomboid). The sort of cavalry you're describing characterised the Classical Age of the Greco-Persian Wars, not the era the game is set in.

To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying heavy cavalry should be able to charge the front of a formed up unit of heavy infantry and rout them. Or even cause much harm. However, a charge to the rear of a formation (by lancers) should do damage (like it does in EB1) and more importantly have an impact on morale.

[Iguanaonastick]

One thing I have noticed is that cavalry charges are much more effective at sweeping away light skirmishers and archers now. To be expected, considering this is the Medieval 2 engine, but also very welcome.

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

You cannot micro retreat in Medieval two's dopiness The sluggish movements will cause huge amount of casualties for the unit, which really sucks ):