An analysis of mass and its role in Rome 1 and Rome 2

[RGA]

Recently I ran quite a few tests in both Rome 1 and Rome 2 to elucidate the role of mass in both games. I used mods (EB 1.2 and DeI 0.96) to significantly reduce the kill rate, making the effects of mass much easier to see. My battle setup was both infantry vs. infantry and cavalry vs. infantry. I used units with high mass such heavy infantry or cataphracts against relatively light troops such as barbarian spearmen.

Below are my observations and analysis:

In Rome 1, unit formation is viewed as a rigid object. When two units collide, given the frontage is equal, a clear frontline will be formed along which troops fight with unspecific attack moves (i.e. "slashing the air"). Units with higher mass often have advantage and will slowly push lighter unit back. During the back pushing, there are two important observations: 1. The frontline is constantly maintained. It may bend a little bit but in no case being disrupted. 2. There is zero penetration (i.e. troops fighting among enemy formation). That's why I said unit formation was viewed as rigid object: when they collide, they might deform, be pushed back but not destroyed.

In Rome 2, unit formation is viewed as soft object. Imagine two pieces of clay being smashed against each other and you get the idea. When two units fight, they penetrate other's formation and form in the middle zone a so-called "melee zone" where troops engage in 1 vs. 1 animations (someone likes to call it "moshpit"). Troops who are not in the melee zone stay back and reinforce their companions there. Due to the existence of such buffer zone which is constantly fed with new troops, there is little or no pushing back and forth unless one unit is vastly superior; even then the pushing is only barely noticeable. Formation attack significantly reduce the size of the melee zone to practically one rank (i.e. no pushing).

Mass works differently in Rome 2: it does not affect pushing but formation penetration. Simply put, units with high mass will be able to penetrate deeply into enemy formation, especically at speed (cavalry charging). In extreme case, heavy cavalry is able to penetrate the whole depth of the formation, turning it as a whole into a melee zone. I don't know if penetration has any effects on how melee is calculated, but I believe it does. Once the formation is penetrated, it is also easier to rush you troops through it into the rear, punching through the front line with minimal casualties. I don't think it is possible with Rome 1. Infantry counters it by bracing, considerably reducing the penetration.

In conclusions:
- In Rome 1, formation is rigid and could not be penetrated. Instead, heavier troops push lighter one back while both maintaining their formation.
- In Rome 2, formation is more flexible. Mass now decides how far enemy formation could be penetrated, even punched through. The effect of cavalry is more noticeable, as infantry has quite a few options to negate formation penetration (formation attack, bracing).

Which system is better, is up to your personal taste to decide.

[Sint]

1. The frontline is constantly maintained. It may bend a little bit but in no case being disrupted.

Well :A long batte can actually lead to one side of the flank being pushed back(same unit)while the other does the same to the enemy shifting the whole line (With nearly equal units).
Also ,especially with low lethality ,single units will try too walk past the enemy line and attack the flanks.Sometimes parts of the formation will also penetrate deeper into enemy units because they kill them faster
The pushing espcially in sieges can actually break lines.

[Sheridan]

On the contrary, formations are more flexible in the original Rome since they are mobile, whereas they're not in Rome 2. That's the difference. Mass is not a factor that determines how deep invididual soldiers, or groups of them, penetrate a formation in Rome 2; animations are. There is a fundamental difference.

Rome 2 lacks collision, cohesion and pushing mechanics which were all part of the original game. Instead the combat largely revolves around the animations and kill moves, which are the cause for troops penetrating enemy formations. Whether the somewhat extreme penetration of formations is a positive thing is a different matter; it does look silly and unreasonable that individual soldiers would manage to dance their way deep into enemy formations (as if indeed no mass, and therefore forces, were involved), let alone that they'd willingly do so and abandon the safety of having allied soldiers covering their flanks.

In conclusion; mass does not serve a role in how far troops penetrate formations in Rome 2. In fact it serves little purpose whatsoever in infantry on infantry engagements. It serves a decisive role in the original however, where there would not only be pushing and movement on unit scale, but also on individual/group scale.

As for cavalry, that's a different thing. Mass is the decisive factor in terms of how far they penetrate infantry lines in the charge in both games, the difference being that cavalry units are treated as a solid formation in the original, being able to push back infantry formations (which is silly).

[IGdood]

Warscape is a bad melee engine. Honestly a graphically updated Rome 1/M2 engine would've been much better.

[TheCenturion24]

I created a comparison video sometime back which compared similar scenarios in both Rome I and Rome II, however this was on a much earlier patch and it has significantly improved since then.



Either way, regardless of which engine is more advanced, Rome I wasn't bogged down with complex animations and mechanics, and hence was a lot smoother and more to the point. Rome II formations still don't work 100% naturally, though obviously are magnitudes better than early versions of Rome II.

[PointOfViewGun]

Pushing in Rome II happens, but very slowly. It's most obvious when you defend an unwalled town with pikemen facing a full stacks. You'll notice that the pikemen that try to hold their ground against multiple enemy units are pushed back. Sometimes, if you have a slinger or archer unit right behind that pikemen they can get sucked into battle because of this.

Try a city siege and give no siege weapons to the enemy so that they'll break down a gate and try to use only that path. This creates a nice testing ground for one unit against multiple. I put Heroes of Sparta against a full stack of Celtic Spears.

Starting positiong:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The unit first pushed back in the middle:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Later on, however, the whole unit is pushed back:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If you actually pay attention to the back row, you'll see that they're taking very small steps back every now and then.

[Garensterz]

Pushing in Rome II happens, but very slowly. It's most obvious when you defend an unwalled town with pikemen facing a full stacks. You'll notice that the pikemen that try to hold their ground against multiple enemy units are pushed back. Sometimes, if you have a slinger or archer unit right behind that pikemen they can get sucked into battle because of this.

Try a city siege and give no siege weapons to the enemy so that they'll break down a gate and try to use only that path. This creates a nice testing ground for one unit against multiple. I put Heroes of Sparta against a full stack of Celtic Spears.

Starting positiong:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The unit first pushed back in the middle:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Later on, however, the whole unit is pushed back:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If you actually pay attention to the back row, you'll see that they're taking very small steps back every now and then.

I have tested this quite a lot before I was playing Rome 2. But frankly units in Rome 2 doesn't step back when being charged in by another unit they all just slide back. In Rome 1 all units are very flexible. They step back when being pushed in the front, it steps left when being pushed from the right, vice versa, and they automatically reform/arrange ranks by stepping back or by using the "GUARD BUTTON" that Rome 2 hasn't.

[PointOfViewGun]

I have tested this quite a lot before I was playing Rome 2. But frankly units in Rome 2 doesn't step back when being charged in by another unit they all just slide back. In Rome 1 all units are very flexible. They step back when being pushed in the front, it steps left when being pushed from the right, vice versa, and they automatically reform/arrange ranks by stepping back or by using the "GUARD BUTTON" that Rome 2 hasn't.

Well, I witnessed to the contrary about an hour ago when I made those screenshots.

[LordInvictus]

...it does look silly and unreasonable that individual soldiers would manage to dance their way deep into enemy formations (as if indeed no mass, and therefore forces, were involved), let alone that they'd willingly do so and abandon the safety of having allied soldiers covering their flanks.

To be fair, the Romans didn't have formation attack on and would, therefore, fight without formation.

I created a comparison video sometime back which compared similar scenarios in both Rome I and Rome II, however this was on a much earlier patch and it has significantly improved since then.



Either way, regardless of which engine is more advanced, Rome I wasn't bogged down with complex animations and mechanics, and hence was a lot smoother and more to the point. Rome II formations still don't work 100% naturally, though obviously are magnitudes better than early versions of Rome II.

*Units with guard mode are pushed back. I thought the point of guard mode was to hold your ground?

I have tested this quite a lot before I was playing Rome 2. But frankly units in Rome 2 doesn't step back when being charged in by another unit they all just slide back. In Rome 1 all units are very flexible. They step back when being pushed in the front, it steps left when being pushed from the right, vice versa, and they automatically reform/arrange ranks by stepping back or by using the "GUARD BUTTON" that Rome 2 hasn't.

Units in Rome 2 also step back when they are too close to one another, though this only happens with non-formation attack units, and in extreme cases, with formation units as in Setekh's siege.

[TheCenturion24]

*Units with guard mode are pushed back. I thought the point of guard mode was to hold your ground?

Not sure what you mean? Guard Mode in Rome I meant that a unit would try its best to retain its formation. Whereas if you had Guard Mode switched off, the individual soldiers would slowly expand and would be less prone to being pushed back, which is a natural side effect to trying to maintain a formation.

Formation Mode in Rome II isn't the same as Guard Mode. Similar idea, but it doesn't have the same impact or effect.

[Yerevan]

Not sure what you mean? Guard Mode in Rome I meant that a unit would try its best to retain its formation. Whereas if you had Guard Mode switched off, the individual soldiers would slowly expand and would be less prone to being pushed back, which is a natural side effect to trying to maintain a formation.

Formation Mode in Rome II isn't the same as Guard Mode. Similar idea, but it doesn't have the same impact or effect.

AND one of the biggest feature of the toggable R1 guard mode was that when an unit not in guard mode would defeat another it would automatically pursue it, and thus escape from your control for a while. I

t doesn't look much but it brought a lot of realism and surprises. But I'm slightly out of topic here, sorry.
I think the whole mass question brings an interesting debate. I appreciate this thread even if I disagree with the OP.

[Huberto]

I don't think you can look at TWR2 and see intention in some of its features, naval combat is a good example of slap dash game execution. Yes they wanted exploding triremes but they didn't want all the glitches with boarding, for example. Also as Modestus said the game is rife with workarounds and so the question must be why so many workarounds 1 year after release and possibly including Attila?

@Jam edit: ok looks like you answered this as I was posting

So when James Russell says in the Carthage video that CA was "working our guts out" developing TWR2, he was being less than candid?

[PointOfViewGun]

When you turn off the formation attack the pushing gets little bit more but faster. Here, the same situation:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Initial impact:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

They start taking more steps back:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And more:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And more:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The amount of pushing changed from time to time. At one point the Spartans filled in the gaps in the enemy ranks and that made a forward push by them, but, all in all, the Spartans were pushed packed a full depth of their unit in matter of minutes.

[Sheridan]

Setekh, that's not pushing..

You need to be aware of what mechanics that are part of an engagement in order to understand what happens. When you disable formation attack, units "space out", or simply start to "respect" each others' absolute zone of integrity. That zone is defined in the files and varies depending on unit type. There's no pushing involved in your first batch of screenshots. Instead, soldiers that aren't actively fighting are spacing out, while the soldiers who have died in the front (roughly 40 in many of the screenshots) are getting stampeded upon by eager enemies who want to attack the next soldier as soon as possible, hence shifting location with the soldiers you've already lost.

As for your five screenshots with formation attack on, it's a mix of the same mechanics. The soldiers don't space out with the attribute enabled, so you too should notice how the formation starts to look bent a while into the fight. As with the other example, enemy soldiers slowly take up the original positions of soldiers who have died from your unit (I'm guessing that's simply because they're far superior in numbers, and therefore more likely to do so).

All in all, there's no pushing involved at all. But you might think so, because certain factors that are involved in the engagement makes it look as though the unit was being pushed, while in reality it's not.

[Fanest]

Instead, soldiers that aren't actively fighting are spacing out, while the soldiers who have died in the front (roughly 40 in many of the screenshots) are getting stampeded upon by eager enemies who want to attack the next soldier as soon as possible, hence shifting location with the soldiers you've already lost.

this expanation doesnt hold water, the difference between first and last screenshot is 7 men on screens with formation attack off and 20 men with formation attack on. It would take much more men to die to take that much space - as u said 40+ probably

[PointOfViewGun]

Setekh, that's not pushing..

You need to be aware of what mechanics that are part of an engagement in order to understand what happens. When you disable formation attack, units "space out", or simply start to "respect" each others' absolute zone of integrity. That zone is defined in the files and varies depending on unit type. There's no pushing involved in your first batch of screenshots. Instead, soldiers that aren't actively fighting are spacing out, while the soldiers who have died in the front (roughly 40 in many of the screenshots) are getting stampeded upon by eager enemies who want to attack the next soldier as soon as possible, hence shifting location with the soldiers you've already lost.

As for your five screenshots with formation attack on, it's a mix of the same mechanics. The soldiers don't space out with the attribute enabled, so you too should notice how the formation starts to look bent a while into the fight. As with the other example, enemy soldiers slowly take up the original positions of soldiers who have died from your unit (I'm guessing that's simply because they're far superior in numbers, and therefore more likely to do so).

All in all, there's no pushing involved at all. But you might think so, because certain factors that are involved in the engagement makes it look as though the unit was being pushed, while in reality it's not.

In the first test, between the first and the last screenshot only 20 died. In the second test, only 7. Not 40+. Yet, the entire unit is pushed a full depth of it's initial location. That's 120 soldiers (Heroes of Sparta). You explanation would only make sense only if the first row of Spartans are filled with enemy soldiers.

[Sheridan]

In the first test, between the first and the last screenshot only 20 died. In the second test, only 7. Not 40+. Yet, the entire unit is pushed a full depth of it's initial location. That's 120 soldiers (Heroes of Sparta). You explanation would only make sense only if the first row of Spartans are filled with enemy soldiers.

I take it you didn't read my second, more in-depth explenation? If not, it might be worthwile doing so. You've constructed a scenario that simply does not apply to a field battle, or any other area besides the gatehouse in a siege. The mere fact that you decided to present what you perceive as pushing under such unusual circumstances, going through all the effort it must have taken to organize a siege where the enemy run through that specific gate and into your unit, made me doubt the validity of the test. Modding experience is enough to realize that your conclusion is not accurate.

@Fanest

I'd happily do so. In fact, I can do it right now.

Update: Here are the specifications concerning how the test was carried out,

I changed the mass of heavy and very heavy infantry types to 1000, while keeping the mass of medium infantry units to 100. Hit points were increased to 400 per entity, bonus hitpoints not changed. The AI was given a Karian Axemen unit (medium), while I picked a now extremely heavy Parthian Swordsmen unit. In other words, my unit had ten times more mass than the AI's. In the initial screenshot, you'll see the moment of contact as a reference to where the two units first started fighting. As the fight goes on, the Karians initially get their formation bent, while on the other hand staying firm and even "gaining" some ground on the flanks. Later on, the bent shape is beginning to look more straight again and you'll notice how neither unit has moved even a bit, beyond initiating combat sequences with the other and "spacing out". Note that neither unit used formation attack.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[PointOfViewGun]

I take it you didn't read my second, more in-depth explenation? If not, it might be worthwile doing so. You've constructed a scenario that simply does not apply to a field battle, or any other area besides the gatehouse in a siege. The mere fact that you decided to present what you perceive as pushing under such unusual circumstances, going through all the effort it must have taken to organize a siege where the enemy run through that specific gate and into your unit, made me doubt the validity of the test. Modding experience is enough to realize that your conclusion is not accurate.

It does hold water. I didn't check the manpower count properly, thought it was an ordinary 160 man unit. Either way to the point, notice the unit's relative position to the capture point flag. It's the very same in all pictures with formation attack off. The phenomena that is perceived as pushing here is again a combination of various factors. Most importantly it's due to the fact that the individual soldiers give each other more space in the example where formation attack is off. The other relevant thing here is that there are some 8 units pouring through the gatehouse, all bouncing around since they're standing on an area that is not sufficiently large to accomodate the integrity zone of each individual soldier. As a result, every time a Spartan dies or leaves an inch of space due to "spacing out", batches of enemy troops will immediately fill up that void because they're too compressed.

As for the example with formation attack on, a similar chain of events is going on. Each time a Spartan soldier steps out of line to perform a matched combat sequence (be sure to check the screenshots, there are many examples of that), batches of enemy warriors bounce right in to fill up the void. All this while soldiers are dying, creating more empty space that quickly gets filled up. In the end, the Spartan formation only gets bent; it never actually gets pushed back.

This scenario which might appear as if one side was pushing the other, would certainly not look the same if you had one, two or three units fighting a single one in an open field battle for the simple reason that there's no bottleneck (e.g. gatehouse) compressing these units, regardless of if formation attack is enabled, disabled or any combination in there between.

There are quite a few problematic points about your observations.

The unit in both tests does not maintain it's same position through out the screenshots. You can easily notice that if you check based on the distance to two units on the back. While the Spartan unit is pushed it's normal that the sides remain somewhat less pushed as the pushing weight is on the middle, not the sides. So, in each screenshot the unit makes more of an arc shape as the middle is pushed back.

The individual soldiers giving more space to other soldiers would make sense just after the initial impact but not after 5 minutes of fighting. That kind of spacing out that we can observe when your units attack an other does not exist here. The spacing out happens slowly. Perhaps too slow for some people's liking.

As I said before, very few Spartan soldiers died in both tests. 20 in the first one, 7 in the second one. At best, that would give enough room for the enemy to advance one line of soldiers, not the entire depth of the unit.

Enemy soldiers don't get teleported into the gaps opened by a Spartan soldier's attack animation. There are no examples of that in the screenshots. There is one example to the contrary though with one Spartan soldier a few steps to the front with a gap behind his back which is empty in that shot.

You can't bend something without partially pushing it.

I don't know what makes you think it's such an effort to make such tests. What took longest was to keep double clicking on Galatian Spears to add 19 of them. I created this scenario to show that it happens. It's hard to get many AI units attack the same unit that wouldn't rout quickly. So, I used Spartans for their extreme valor. Not that if I tried really hard to come up with this test it would mean that the conclusion is not accurate. It's senseless to suggest that.

[Sheridan]

Well allow me to address these your claims one by one then, if you think that serves a purpose.

There are quite a few problematic points about your observations.

The unit in both tests does not maintain it's same position through out the screenshots. You can easily notice that if you check based on the distance to two units on the back. While the Spartan unit is pushed it's normal that the sides remain somewhat less pushed as the pushing weight is on the middle, not the sides. So, in each screenshot the unit makes more of an arc shape as the middle is pushed back.

The center is being bent in both instances, the reason why explained thoroughly multiple times at this point. I'm not going to repeat myself here.

The individual soldiers giving more space to other soldiers would make sense just after the initial impact but not after 5 minutes of fighting. That kind of spacing out that we can observe when your units attack an other does not exist here. The spacing out happens slowly. Perhaps too slow for some people's liking.

Each time a combat sequence is initiated, there's a good chance that one of the soldiers involved bump into a soldier from their own side. When this happens, their integrity zone is not completely utilized, hence they space out. It can happen after any minutes of combat as long as the animation sequences play a part.

As I said before, very few Spartan soldiers died in both tests. 20 in the first one, 7 in the second one. At best, that would give enough room for the enemy to advance one line of soldiers, not the entire depth of the unit.

That's not relevant. The fact that any Spartan soldiers die is enough for - as said before - batches of enemy troops to fill up the void. A single casualty would be enough to cause this. That said, it's not the only reason why what happens happens. In the case with your unit using formation attack, the zone of integrity is being ignored to a point. Your unit is being compressed; not pushed or moved. You can replicate this from time to time by charging units with formation attack into a pike wall, there too they will compress. In the case with your unit not using formation attack, it's to a greater extent a matter of combat sequences causing the void I've mentioned so many times now, while the troops space out creating further empty space that may or may not be taken depending on how the numerous combat sequences play out.

Enemy soldiers don't get teleported into the gaps opened by a Spartan soldier's attack animation. There are no examples of that in the screenshots. There is one example to the contrary though with one Spartan soldier a few steps to the front with a gap behind his back which is empty in that shot.

That's simply because screenshots taken with multiple seconds of time in between cannot display this. A simple test, or a video, will and can however.

You can't bend something without partially pushing it.

True. But what's causing the "pushing" is a different matter as explained.

I don't know what makes you think it's such an effort to make such tests. What took longest was to keep double clicking on Galatian Spears to add 19 of them. I created this scenario to show that it happens. It's hard to get many AI units attack the same unit that wouldn't rout quickly. So, I used Spartans for their extreme valor. Not that if I tried really hard to come up with this test it would mean that the conclusion is not accurate. It's senseless to suggest that.

Well, if you found it easy to demonstrate then good for you. It seemed rather suspicious to me that you would pick a siege battle to represent something that is - or rather would be if it existed - more easily represented in a single one on one unit engagement in the open.

I hope that restores your faith in my ability to actually counter each point in a way that suits you. This isn't a way I like to arrange a post as it often comes across as hostile or less than friendly, anyway. If it works with you however, I'll keep that in mind.

[Sheridan]

this expanation doesnt hold water, the difference between first and last screenshot is 7 men on screens with formation attack off and 20 men with formation attack on. It would take much more men to die to take that much space - as u said 40+ probably

It does hold water. I didn't check the manpower count properly, thought it was an ordinary 160 man unit. Either way to the point, notice the unit's relative position to the capture point flag. It's the very same in all pictures with formation attack off. The phenomena that is perceived as pushing here is again a combination of various factors. Most importantly it's due to the fact that the individual soldiers give each other more space in the example where formation attack is off. The other relevant thing here is that there are some 8 units pouring through the gatehouse, all bouncing around since they're standing on an area that is not sufficiently large to accomodate the integrity zone of each individual soldier. As a result, every time a Spartan dies or leaves an inch of space due to "spacing out", batches of enemy troops will immediately fill up that void because they're too compressed.

As for the example with formation attack on, a similar chain of events is going on. Each time a Spartan soldier steps out of line to perform a matched combat sequence (be sure to check the screenshots, there are many examples of that), batches of enemy warriors bounce right in to fill up the void. All this while soldiers are dying, creating more empty space that quickly gets filled up. In the end, the Spartan formation only gets bent; it never actually gets pushed back.

This scenario which might appear as if one side was pushing the other, would certainly not look the same if you had one, two or three units fighting a single one in an open field battle for the simple reason that there's no bottleneck (e.g. gatehouse) compressing these units, regardless of if formation attack is enabled, disabled or any combination in there between.