Bring back swimming for light units

[Riekopo]

In Barbarian Invasion light units are able to swim across rivers. This feature added another tactical layer to battles. I would like to see this feature implemented in Attila. It could be expanded upon with things like water current, drowning, blood in the water, etc.

[PeonKing]

Woah. That's a really awesome feature actually. Especially since late game turns into a heavy elite unit spamfest in R2, it would add some interesting facets if there was some serious maneuvering consequences, not just 'They're heavy, they move slower and get tired quicker.' If there were things light units could do that heavy/cavalry couldn't that might justify keeping a few light units around late game.

[Highlander of Scotland]

I loved that feature however the issue would be that bridges would become useless against a full stack of bad units, perhaps giving them poor morale and more vulnerable to arrows to compensate

[PeonKing]

I loved that feature however the issue would be that bridges would become useless against a full stack of bad units, perhaps giving them poor morale and more vulnerable to arrows to compensate

Well you could have formation break up, so if, say, a full stack light all tried to swim across a river, the general with heavier units could just intercept them right when they get out of the water and kill them easily with a charge while they are trying to reform on the bank. It wouldn't be effective unless you tried to pin down the opposing heavy army on the bridge, and used a few units to circumvent and attack from behind. It could also be helpful in luring units, having a weak group of light units get chased by a stronger unit that can't swim, with the light unit escaping over a river.

[RedGuard]

your right it should be brought back. light units in Total war have always pretty much useless to me but it was a cool feature to have back in the day. whatever cheapness you get by having them swim across to flank the enemy could be easily offset by having the units be "tired" by the time they cross the river.

[Butan]

I see no negative to that idea. It should be brough back.

[Sebidee]

Hi riekapo!

[Noif de Bodemloze]

I have never seen any units in TW that can swim like that.

[Prof]

You know...in the original Rome Total War bridges were actual choke points.

Now on every bridge map there is at least one other crossing that is so wide that it is barely possible to block it properly, completely denying the defender any advantage from holding the bridge.

[spiderknight]

You know...in the original Rome Total War bridges were actual choke points.

Now on every bridge map there is at least one other crossing that is so wide that it is barely possible to block it properly, completely denying the defender any advantage from holding the bridge.

Yup just another way CA makes sure the player cant lose a battle...just like torches in sieges. Why do CA think we cant handle losing?

[GussieFinkNottle]

Yup just another way CA makes sure the player cant lose a battle...just like torches in sieges. Why do CA think we cant handle losing?

er... no, this makes it harder to win not harder to lose. The AI can flank you at fords.

OP: this would work well though it could be tweaked to make it more advanced than in BI, adding occasional deaths from drowning/being swept away like the men who fall when scaling walls in Shogun 2, and it should be very tiring to swim a wide river because of the current. It would be really cool if the units swimming went diagonally rather than straight across, thanks to the current moving them further downstream as well as horizontally across the river.

[spiderknight]

er... no, this makes it harder to win not harder to lose. The AI can flank you at fords.

OP: this would work well though it could be tweaked to make it more advanced than in BI, adding occasional deaths from drowning/being swept away like the men who fall when scaling walls in Shogun 2, and it should be very tiring to swim a wide river because of the current. It would be really cool if the units swimming went diagonally rather than straight across, thanks to the current moving them further downstream as well as horizontally across the river.

If i attack the ai at a river crossing i can block the bridge and usally get men across the river crossing before they block it. thus flanking the bridge stormers and winning. or vis versa. where as if there is only the bridge the AI has a way better chance of blocking the bridge and defeating me. If they attck me on a river crossing i already know they might flank so i block both crossings. If my army is small or undermaned then there really is no strategic reason to hold a river crossing cause i already know that they will cross a little farther down and flank me. If i only had to hold the bridge then my small army might beat the bigger AI army. Its about strategy and fighting in certain terrain for strategic reason.....something CA has seemed to have forgotten.

[GussieFinkNottle]

If i attack the ai at a river crossing i can block the bridge and usally get men across the river crossing before they block it. thus flanking the bridge stormers and winning. or vis versa. where as if there is only the bridge the AI has a way better chance of blocking the bridge and defeating me. If they attck me on a river crossing i already know they might flank so i block both crossings. If my army is small or undermaned then there really is no strategic reason to hold a river crossing cause i already know that they will cross a little farther down and flank me. If i only had to hold the bridge then my small army might beat the bigger AI army. Its about strategy and fighting in certain terrain for strategic reason.....something CA has seemed to have forgotten.

Or rather, no strategy at all. If a bridge battle just makes an entire map about just that tiny chokepoint, all strategic manoeuvring dies, it becomes about who has the best defensive infantry, and nothing else. There really are no tactics for a 1 bridge map besides block it, artillery the enemy or rush it. Not very interesting or strategic in my opinion, and at least now there's an opportunity for some give and take. I think the best solution would be some maps with one crossing, some with two or three. One can dislike a minor design feature, but this kind of unnecessarily hostile knee-jerk anti-CA line is frankly immature. It's all over the forum and it kills healthy debate or objective review of features.

[Abdülmecid I]

OP: this would work well though it could be tweaked to make it more advanced than in BI, adding occasional deaths from drowning/being swept away like the men who fall when scaling walls in Shogun 2, and it should be very tiring to swim a wide river because of the current. It would be really cool if the units swimming went diagonally rather than straight across, thanks to the current moving them further downstream as well as horizontally across the river.

Actually, occasional deaths while swimming did happen in BI. If a unit was tired, then it'd gradually lose his units, while swimming. It didn't happen very often, because swimming usually occured during the early stages of the battle, but it was possible. Current was also present (you could sea the dead soldiers slowly moving), but I'm not sure if it had an impact on swimming.

[Humble Warrior]

Actually, occasional deaths while swimming did happen in BI. If a unit was tired, then it'd gradually lose his units, while swimming. It didn't happen very often, because swimming usually occured during the early stages of the battle, but it was possible. Current was also present (you could sea the dead soldiers slowly moving), but I'm not sure if it had an impact on swimming.

Ah yes, another part of TW I really liked which basically died when Warscape appeared. People even fell off bridges into the water in battles sometimes and even floated downstream- I loved that realism. But now since Empire water is either impassible or two feet high. I wouldn`t be surprised if Warscape can`t handle swimming or people dying in deep water.

I never liked how there`s ALWAYS two crossing points on Warscape, It`s artificial and `gamey`. Nature does not give an optional way over a river every time to suit men at war - this should be rare so that sometimes you`re focused to attack on a bridge only (with able light units swimming if possible). Just to look to reality, sometimes there was only ONE crossing point- ONE. Deal with it.

It`s funny how a decade old game managed more authentic warfare mechanisms than the present day ones.

[Sebidee]

You know...in the original Rome Total War bridges were actual choke points.

Now on every bridge map there is at least one other crossing that is so wide that it is barely possible to block it properly, completely denying the defender any advantage from holding the bridge.

The fords are like 10m across. You can't block them?!

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

You know...in the original Rome Total War bridges were actual choke points.

Now on every bridge map there is at least one other crossing that is so wide that it is barely possible to block it properly, completely denying the defender any advantage from holding the bridge.

In RTW there were also sometimes more than one crossing point (on battles generated from campaign map), but 90% of the time it was just one so it's easy to have missed that.

@Some other user: Adding extra crossings doesn't make it easier, it makes it harder since it is usually the player and not the AI that try to benefit from chokepoints. Holding out as WRE may be even harder this time around without those Rhine river choke points...

[Butan]

Dont forget that in R2 naval battles, people can be simulated in the water and even somewhat float (in high sea its often completely desynced but whatever).
I think this proves that this engine can take it.

[Humble Warrior]

Dont forget that in R2 naval battles, people can be simulated in the water and even somewhat float (in high sea its often completely desynced but whatever).
I think this proves that this engine can take it.

You have a point. Never considered that. So another case where CA could implement this, but won`t.

[GussieFinkNottle]

Perhaps men could even try to swim ashore in coastal battles, most drowning along the way. Unlike the river battle swimming, this would be purely cosmetic, like the civilians in TW: Attila settlements, but would similarly take a minor amount of effort. CA still needs to sort out syncing the vertical movements of men drowning in sea battles and the waves they are supposedly floating on. Still you see men fly 5m up in the air above the water level, then plunge 5m below, all the time supposed to be treading water.