Combat System Recommendation

[Thee Dugster]

I would be very grateful if you could somehow make melee soldiers fight in formation and not a collection of 1 versus 1 duels, like how it is now in Attila. This is realistic and would give much more immersion to the gameplay (if it is even possible).

[Petellius]

I would be very grateful if you could somehow make melee soldiers fight in formation and not a collection of 1 versus 1 duels, like how it is now in Attila. This is realistic and would give much more immersion to the gameplay (if it is even possible).

We've already implemented this for both the Rome 2 and Attila versions of AE . Though thankfully Attila allows a special extra addition of having all death animations being the synchronized kills which is cool.

[shawn858]

We've already implemented this for both the Rome 2 and Attila versions of AE . Though thankfully Attila allows a special extra addition of having all death animations being the synchronized kills which is cool.

Is this already present in the warriors of faith battle mod?

[Petellius]

Is this already present in the warriors of faith battle mod?

I couldnt say for sure, sorry.

[Sheridan]

Welcome to the forum.

If you mean formation attack, then that's an option we're discussing. Besides of that there is already group fighting, so to say, where multiple people target single individuals with more basic animations. Improving these would be something we might want to look at, as they're not very impressive as is.

[shawn858]

Welcome to the forum.

If you mean formation attack, then that's an option we're discussing. Besides of that there is already group fighting, so to say, where multiple people target single individuals with more basic animations. Improving these would be something we might want to look at, as they're not very impressive as is.

yeah, while it's not 100% necessary to take care of, I've always hated the hollywood fighting of the newer total wars. It just looks plain silly when every soldier is pullo and breaks formation to dance across the battlefield. If you guys could manage to make a fairly realistic looking fight then i'll be sold xD Is it so hard to ask for a unit to stay in a tight cohesive formation and fight? COME ON CA!

[Petellius]

yeah, while it's not 100% necessary to take care of, I've always hated the hollywood fighting of the newer total wars. It just looks plain silly when every soldier is pullo and breaks formation to dance across the battlefield. If you guys could manage to make a fairly realistic looking fight then i'll be sold xD Is it so hard to ask for a unit to stay in a tight cohesive formation and fight? COME ON CA!

already dealt with

[Thee Dugster]

Thanks guys. I am so happy you agree with me, and I will get this mod right when it comes out.

[La Tene]

Just a quick vote that AE take a look at R2TR battle mechanics for some inspiration: units are units.. you don't pass them through each other expecting a smooth experience, they can't storm across the battlefield in spite of heavy armor, shields and multiple weapons in hand, cavalry are not rocket projectiles

I don't know what WoF is like I'm just a realism fan and want to see more realism in every mod.

[Petellius]

Just a quick vote that AE take a look at R2TR battle mechanics for some inspiration: units are units.. you don't pass them through each other expecting a smooth experience, they can't storm across the battlefield in spite of heavy armor, shields and multiple weapons in hand, cavalry are not rocket projectiles

I don't know what WoF is like I'm just a realism fan and want to see more realism in every mod.

Well it's a good thing I'm aiming towards realistic combat then eh? .

The combat system me and Phillip have been working on is quite unique, it will feel rather different any other battle mod as it has low casualties and relies more the morale effects of battle and the importance of fatigue

[La Tene]

Got Attila at -33% the other day so excited to check it out.

[Maetharin]

will there be a combat beta? I´m seriously considering buying this game ^^

I love the idea of morale being of more importance, I´ve recently written a paper on greek warfare in which I outlined several theories on ancient combat.
One of the most interesting thing I read while researching was the notion that rank depth was very important not because of actual weight or mass, but rather for moral support.

Xenophon writes that the best men should go to the front and back of a phalanx. The first rank obviously had to fight and the last ranks were there to hold back the more infirm individuals in the middle.
As most hoplites were not warriors first but rather of some other profession, they would most likely be afraid in battle, apart from the second and third rank they wouldn´t know how the battle was going!
It has been speculated that the security of knowing your back safe enabled the men in the front to advance and behave more aggressively.


I don´t know how this could be implemented even if you wanted to, I just wanted to further provide some ideas^^

IMO, at least for professional or trained troops (legionaries f.e.) fatigue shouldn´t have a significant impact on melee defence until in the later stages of battle.
It must be terrifying being in a front line, and adrenaline would make sure these guys would concentrate on surviving.
I at least would ignore any fatigue if it were to safe my life to just lift my shield^^

Melee attack though should suffer a lot more when fatigued!

BTW, would it be possible for morale to influence performance?
Like:
High Morale = normal melee attack
Low Moral = lower melee attack, but a little increased melee defence?

Best regards

[Sheridan]

Well, as you mention it, Maetharin, we've actually developed systems very similar. For fatigue, we've implemented four base stamina levels. These depend on how heavy the equipment is, but also how conditioned a unit is (e.g. legionaries were accustomed to their heavy armour). The better the level, the longer it will take for that unit to fatigue. This means that it can be really tough to catch light infantry or skirmishers with your heavy troops, which are not only slower but also tire more quickly. As for the implications of fatigue, that's something Petellius has been working on.

With morale and melee attack, they both depend on something we call "discipline", which is how drilled and ready a unit is before seeing action - whereas experience improves their combat proficiency afterwards. Discipline affects both these things as well as defense, charge bonus, missile attack (estimate of damage from missile units) and more. So in a way, there is a connection between base morale and melee performance. You could say that, it also represents a kind of "initiative" in combat. You mentioned rank depth before also; that's interesting, and I'm sure a lot of people would like to see that factored in for morale. Shogun 2 had a morale bonus for being in column, which is similar. I'm not sure it's possible to do much about it though, but we'll see.

To answer your original question, I don't think we're planning on that, unless you count the open test as a sort of beta by itself. But we are very determined to make battles and campaign alike a most enjoyable experience, and as you may have noticed, with some influences from previous titles and mods.

[Maetharin]

I´ve just recently come upon this video here
Could you explain why the player´s infantry gets smashed frontally so fast?
Seems rather imbalanced to me.

Best regards

[Sheridan]

At the time, a whole table was essentially missing from the preview. We had just launched it on steam and some things were mixed up. It isn't really remotely representative of the mod, besides of the 1-hp system featured in the video. You should check TotalWarZone's video on it, which is far closer to what is coming up. (Thanks to HeirofCarthage regardless for covering it)

[Maetharin]

BTW, i think units should start wavering at about 70% unit strength, with levy units losing it even earlier and professional troops obviously later.

One has to think of the psychological factors in battle:

For the player 70% still looks like a completely usable unit, as it still has 70%!
It still has formidable potential, just a few less ranks, but still able to fight.

But then for the soldiers it looks completely different.
70% are less then 3/4 of a unit, which means more than 1/4 of the unit has fallen.
Nigh all of these have died in the front lines! Only an idiot would still want advance in this case!

Let´s say a unit is made of 200 men, with a rank depth of 8 this makes a frontage of 25 men.
30% of 200 are 60 men, who nearly all died in the front. This means more than the first two ranks have died!
It must be terrifying to just see your comrades in front of you drop like flies.
Even soldiers, and especially levies want to live!

I hope I have provided you with some interesting input,

Best regards!

[ipwnu678]

the units do a similar thing already, and honestly 90% of the time these 70% units never return to the battle

[Maetharin]

well levy units should, would you return to a battlefield where more than 1/4 of your comrades died?
I certainly would not!

(Semi-)Professional units like legionaries are a different kind of story though, they should be able to stay until about 60% strength

Certain Elite units should fight until about 30%, like a royal guard or so.

I´m intrigued how the moral system works, do general losses and recent losses get differenciated?
Because total losses of 30% over several engagements in a battle should be easier to take than 30% losses in just one engagement!

[Petellius]

well levy units should, would you return to a battlefield where more than 1/4 of your comrades died?
I certainly would not!

(Semi-)Professional units like legionaries are a different kind of story though, they should be able to stay until about 60% strength

Certain Elite units should fight until about 30%, like a royal guard or so.

I´m intrigued how the moral system works, do general losses and recent losses get differenciated?
Because total losses of 30% over several engagements in a battle should be easier to take than 30% losses in just one engagement!

Very much so it is what I am working on right now, recent losses incur much more of a penalty and units will flee very easily if the unit drops under 15% in the first few minutes. This is, as you say, for historical reasons. I found that 10% of an army was usually lost by the victors with 30% by those defeated (unless of course under exceptional circumstances). So far the differentiation in units isnt what I would like. I would say I could have elite units flee a tad later than they do atm and levies a lot later. I'd also like some elite units to pretty much fight to the death. There are several instances of elites and bodyguards in particular fighting until a very low strength before surrendering, maybe not surrendering at all, and inflicting grievous casualties on their assailants.

[Maetharin]

it depends on the period, but in hoplite battles f.e. the winner lost at about 5% and the loser at about 15%, with these losses concentrating on the front ranks...

This at least applies to frontal combat...

Could you further elaborate what you meant with "So far the differentiation in units isnt what I would like"?
Did you mean how it is now?

Another thing that just came to my mind would be how in DeI KAM 2150 emphasised shield defense and armor, even more so in melee formations.
He even went as far to decrease "normal" defense stats in said formations, this way he was able to emulate the devastation of a rear/flank charge!!