Core ATTILA Game Changes

[dapancakeanator]

Hey everyone,

I find it very annoying that in every total war units are lined up perfectly. Especially medieval levies; they should be more loose, spread out, and inconsistent. Seeing cavalry ride around in perfect battle lines feel inorganic.

I know this is probably impossible for the devs... but I would like to hear other peoples opinions on this matter.

It's also cringe worthy to see units of [insert cav, spears, or archers...] having the exact same uniforms and armaments.

Good Day.

[Scaevola]

An easy way would be a change to unit spacing. That would allow you to change the spread for every unit. However they are lined up in one way. Another downside would be the relative space this unit would need. We are talking about low tier unprofessional troops which probably come in great numbers. They would already need more space in a formation of different units. Add an increased spacing. Could be problematic to have them in a useful formation inside your army.

There are a couple of mods for Attila which provide an overhaul of barbarian formations and unit spacing.

[Kjertesvein]

Hey everyone,

I find it very annoying that in every total war units are lined up perfectly. Especially medieval levies; they should be more loose, spread out, and inconsistent. Seeing cavalry ride around in perfect battle lines feel inorganic.

I know this is probably impossible for the devs... but I would like to hear other peoples opinions on this matter.

What leads you to believe levies fought in loose, spread out, and inconsistent formations? and that mounted warriors didn't fight in formation?

When it comes to trained medieval warriors of the time I'm actually reading a thesis on medieval warfare in Scandinavia around 1300s right now and I came across the topic of strategy and tactics. The thesis brings up papal letters, Templar regulations, historical accounts from crusaders fighting in the Levant and descriptions of William of Tyre as reasons to believe that the medieval man's ability to think tactically and strategically was well developed. The reasons why the crusades are drawn in is because of the amount of literary sources are quite extensive compared to the fighting in the west.

There were many companies to be seen, the finest men of Christendom ever seen on earth, formed up in such close ranks, as though they were welded together. The front line was broad and long, able to withstand mighty charges, and the rearguard was so full of good knights, that it looked almost endless if you stood on a hill. It was impossible to drop a plumme except on knights in shining armour.

( Verbruggen, J. F., The art of warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages: from the eighth century to 1340, Amsterdam 1977., p.33)

In a depiction of the chronicler William of Tyre, the dense formations became an explanation for how a group of crusaders in Palestine in 1170 managed to repel an attack from a numerically superior force . According to chronicler, the crusaders became filled with terror at the sight of the opponents' superior forces, but instead of fleeing chose to draw tight formations that they had practiced. The crusaders were an elite order, not highland rabble, but it shows that the military thinking at the time was far more developed than 1 v 1 duels in loose formation.

The medieval commanders would have access to roman manuals or descriptions. For example there are about 150 copies of De Re Militari, by Vegetius (late 4th century) from the period of 1000-1500 AD, which is an unusually high number for a book made before the printing press.

The Norwegian levy freemen (leidang) had for years been able to perform a number of different battle formations depending on need (battle line, wedge, shiltron, diamond, fork). I'm not commenting on their moral and willingness to hold formation, but the theory to stand in battle formation wasn't revolutionary at least to my knowledge. (Saxo, Snorre)

I agree with you that slight nuances between units is a good thing depending on quality, but if you're trained to fight as part of a group, then you should know where to stand and where not to stand. I would probably drop my weapons at the sight of a charging knight and run in the opposite general direction of the enemy, but that's another story. lol

~Wille

[Påsan]

What leads you to believe levies fought in loose, spread out, and inconsistent formations? and that mounted warriors didn't fight in formation?

When it comes to trained medieval warriors of the time I'm actually reading a thesis on medieval warfare in Scandinavia around 1300s right now and I came across the topic of strategy and tactics. The thesis brings up papal letters, Templar regulations, historical accounts from crusaders fighting in the Levant and descriptions of William of Tyre as reasons to believe that the medieval man's ability to think tactically and strategically was well developed. The reasons why the crusades are drawn in is because of the amount of literary sources are quite extensive compared to the fighting in the west.


( Verbruggen, J. F., The art of warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages: from the eighth century to 1340, Amsterdam 1977., p.33)

In a depiction of the chronicler William of Tyre, the dense formations became an explanation for how a group of crusaders in Palestine in 1170 managed to repel an attack from a numerically superior force . According to chronicler, the crusaders became filled with terror at the sight of the opponents' superior forces, but instead of fleeing chose to draw tight formations that they had practiced. The crusaders were an elite order, not highland rabble, but it shows that the military thinking at the time was far more developed than 1 v 1 duels in loose formation.

I read the Tactics and Strategy part, his main point was that medieval warfare was based around sieges and that commanders generally avoided land battles at all cost. But if they had to fight them, they were not indiscriminate affairs aka Hollywood but featured practiced formations and tactics.

The medieval commanders would have access to roman manuals or descriptions. For example there are about 150 copies of De Re Militari, by Vegetius (late 4th century) from the period of 1000-1500 AD, which is an unusually high number for a book made before the printing press.

The Norwegian levy freemen (leidang) had for years been able to perform a number of different battle formations depending on need (battle line, wedge, shiltron, diamond, fork). I'm not commenting on their moral and willingness to hold formation, but the theory to stand in battle formation wasn't revolutionary at least to my knowledge. (Saxo, Snorre)

I agree with you that slight nuances between units is a good thing depending on quality, but if you're trained to fight as part of a group, then you should know where to stand and where not to stand. I would probably drop my weapons at the sight of a charging knight and run in the opposite general direction of the enemy, but that's another story. lol

~Wille

Good point, even in the midst of the dark ages, the infantry armies were perfectly able to understand tactics that would lever an advantage. The shield wall being the classical example. Something movie makers have finally begun to realize.

Take the example of the Battle of Jaffa

When Saladin received reports that more of the Franks were coming down from Caesarea, he decided to launch a counterattack on Jaffa to recapture it before these additional reinforcements could arrive. On the early morning of August 4, Muslim troops massed around the walled town, concealing themselves in the fields and intending to attack at dawn the next day. Just before sunrise, however, a Genoese soldier out for a stroll discerned the hidden enemy; the neighing of horses and glinting of armour only served to confirm his suspicions.^[8] The sentries promptly raised the alarm, and Richard quickly assembled his knights, infantry and crossbowmen for battle. He ordered his infantry, including unmounted knights, to form a defensive hedge of spears by kneeling and driving their shields and the shafts of their spears or lances into the ground, with the spearheads pointing towards their opponents. The crossbowmen stood behind the protective wall of spearmen, working in pairs, one shooting whilst the other loaded. In front of the infantry sharp tent pegs were hammered into the ground to help deter horsemen. Richard kept his handful of mounted knights as a reserve in the rear.^[8][9][10]

The lightly armoured Turkish, Egyptian and Bedouin cavalry repeatedly charged. However, when it was evident that the Crusaders were not going to break ranks, they veered away from the spears without coming to blows. Each Ayyubid attack lost heavily to the barrage of missiles from the many crossbows. The armour of the Christians proved better able to withstand the arrows of the Saracens than the armour of the Saracens could withstand crossbow bolts. Also, being entirely cavalry, the many horses of Saladin's force were particularly vulnerable to missile fire. After a few hours' onslaught, both sides began to tire. Having suffered considerably from the barrage of crossbow bolts without having been able to dent the Crusaders' defences, Saladin's cavalrymen were in a demoralised state and their mounts were exhausted. They were put to flight by a charge of the knights, only 10 to 15 of whom were mounted, and spearmen led by the king himself.^{[11][12][13][14]}

This sounds very much like a Total War way of dealing with a battle to me rather than the mindless skirmish that is often perpetrated in media and popular culture. I know its a wiki, but the source material cited in "crusades through arab eyes" tells basically the same story and as the reason I thought of it.

[dapancakeanator]

Thank you all for your input.

But I think you guys are missing the main aspect of my argument. In Attila the battles lines are PERFECTLY drawn up. I'm not saying that a group of highly skilled warriors can't line up correctly. Then again, there are no standing armies, no regulations, and the armies consist of a rabble surrounding there lord (in a sense.)

Either way, CA needs to look into this.

[Olligarchy]

This was actually a feature in earlier Total War games. Been playing Medieval 2 again, and peasant units like archers, levies and the like tend to fall into a jumbled mess when forced to reform their battlelines, and the biggest challenge with cavalry is actually working out the angles and giving them a chance to reform so their charges aren't just knights smashing into a formation one by one anemically, but rather as an iron fist.

I believe the current perfect lines is a result of the Warscape engine just not really being suitable for melee combat due to its Empire-Napoleonic origins... it was visible in Shogun 2, and became even more apparent in Rome II and Attila due to the formation oriented fighting style of the period.

[maloskero]

This was actually a feature in earlier Total War games. Been playing Medieval 2 again, and peasant units like archers, levies and the like tend to fall into a jumbled mess when forced to reform their battlelines, and the biggest challenge with cavalry is actually working out the angles and giving them a chance to reform so their charges aren't just knights smashing into a formation one by one anemically, but rather as an iron fist.

I believe the current perfect lines is a result of the Warscape engine just not really being suitable for melee combat due to its Empire-Napoleonic origins... it was visible in Shogun 2, and became even more apparent in Rome II and Attila due to the formation oriented fighting style of the period.

It wasn't a "feature". The thing is that in Med II the units, when standing still, would start their iddle animations and when you issued an movement order each soldier would start walking when their animation ended. That was what created that organic and more realistic feeling of army movement. In modern games, once you issue an order, they start walking right away at the same time because now the iddle animations are "cut" when they receive the order. If you watch closely, you will see that this happens with all units in Med II, peasents, sergeants, feudal knights. In other words, it wasn't a feature to show how messy levies formations were, it was just an animation thing. The only soldiers that really move together in Med II are pikemen and halberdiers in spear wall formation. Altough the first engine was more realistic in this regard, it also made the units extremely clunky as they took half a minute just to get one or two soldiers to line up back to the formation

[Olligarchy]

It wasn't a "feature". The thing is that in Med II the units, when standing still, would start their iddle animations and when you issued an movement order each soldier would start walking when their animation ended. That was what created that organic and more realistic feeling of army movement. In modern games, once you issue an order, they start walking right away at the same time because now the iddle animations are "cut" when they receive the order. If you watch closely, you will see that this happens with all units in Med II, peasents, sergeants, feudal knights. In other words, it wasn't a feature to show how messy levies formations were, it was just an animation thing. The only soldiers that really move together in Med II are pikemen and halberdiers in spear wall formation. Altough the first engine was more realistic in this regard, it also made the units extremely clunky as they took half a minute just to get one or two soldiers to line up back to the formation

You call it a graphical animation, I call it a much superior feature to the one presented with Warscape. No matter how it was done, it's still far more realistic and believable than the mess we have these days.

[IAssassinII]

You call it a graphical animation, I call it a much superior feature to the one presented with Warscape. No matter how it was done, it's still far more realistic and believable than the mess we have these days.

I agree, the formations need not be complete incoherent blobs of men, but as dapancakeanator already mentioned, the formations in Rome II and Attila are ABSOLUTELY perfect. I never understood why and honestly it just makes the game feel mechanical rather than organic, which is why I too prefer Medieval II's take on formations and physics.

[Causeless]

I agree, the formations need not be complete incoherent blobs of men, but as dapancakeanator already mentioned, the formations in Rome II and Attila are ABSOLUTELY perfect. I never understood why and honestly it just makes the game feel mechanical rather than organic, which is why I too prefer Medieval II's take on formations and physics.

In Attila, unit collision etc actually works pretty well. I was recently playing a battle of Ancient Empires with our battle designer where my Sacred Band managed to push back the enemy triarii slowly throughout time, which is something I never saw happen in vanilla Attila.

About perfect formations - that can be changed too, I believe. There are unit spacing and acceleration parameters to change how precisely each soldier stays in their formation.

[damien007]

I know this is probably impossible for the devs... but I would like to hear other peoples opinions on this matter.

Actually making formation more loose and inconsistent is pretty easy and a lot of mods already do that. But most people prefer the tighter formation because it feels better even if it is less realistic.

It's also cringe worthy to see units of [insert cav, spears, or archers...] having the exact same uniforms and armaments

Well most of in-game units have model variations within the same unit so the don't look like clones, adding more variation is a lot of work though. Not sure it's possible to have units with a mix of armaments.