Formation system need a rework: infantry just can't fight properly

Currently viewing this thread:

Reiksmarshal

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Animation is part of the problem, but I would infantry mass by far is the main problem with infantry.
 

Nordmann

Sergeant Knight
WBM&BWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Gladius is not great for thrusting? It's a thrusting sword with ability to cut as well. Yes it's not as narrow headed as later longswords for example but that's because at that time the enemies of the romans were less armored than your average soldier in 1300's. One stab from gladius can deal grievous wounds because of how broad the blade is. That's exactly the point of it.
I must admit that reading these posts about loose order Roman formations, fighting as individuals to show off their bravery and martial prowess, with their swords being poor thrusting weapons, has me wondering what history books these posters have been reading that I haven't! :unsure:
 

kekkuli5

Regular
Best answers
0
I must admit that reading these posts about loose order Roman formations, fighting as individuals to show off their bravery and martial prowess, with their swords being poor thrusting weapons, has me wondering what history books these posters have been reading that I haven't! :unsure:
Or if he's simply trolling.
 

Tuco

Sergeant
WB
Best answers
0
This issue is a pretty big problem, one that might be difficult to fix.

One thing that does work well is swinging spears like the glaive or menavlion. A block of menavlion wielding troops will spam overhand strikes and absolutely chew through anything in range.
 

FightingFirst

Recruit
Best answers
0
I must admit that reading these posts about loose order Roman formations, fighting as individuals to show off their bravery and martial prowess, with their swords being poor thrusting weapons, has me wondering what history books these posters have been reading that I haven't! :unsure:
It was not me that mentioned the thrusting part or martial prowess but I did mention the loose formation and provided a source.
 

Stratigo

Sergeant
Best answers
0
Gladius is not great for thrusting? It's a thrusting sword with ability to cut as well. Yes it's not as narrow headed as later longswords for example but that's because at that time the enemies of the romans were less armored than your average soldier in 1300's. One stab from gladius can deal grievous wounds because of how broad the blade is. That's exactly the point of it.
I don't know what to tell you, but the gladius is not primarily a thrusting weapon. Thrusting blades are inevitably narrower and longer. No one who has held a gladius would tell you it's a thrusting weapon. The Spatha is a much superior thrusting blade. But the gladius design IS quite good at cuts and chops without sacrificing the ability to thrust.

Again, literally the only reason people think the gladius is a thrusting weapon is, again, Vegetius.
 

Stratigo

Sergeant
Best answers
0
I must admit that reading these posts about loose order Roman formations, fighting as individuals to show off their bravery and martial prowess, with their swords being poor thrusting weapons, has me wondering what history books these posters have been reading that I haven't! :unsure:
What's the last Roman history you've read? I must admit I have been rather lax and lazy this past year since I've gotten my Masters, but I did read through "Visual Evidence for Roman Infantry Tactics" A week ago. Here, have a full citation:

Taylor, Michael J. “VISUAL EVIDENCE FOR ROMAN INFANTRY TACTICS.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 59/60 (2014): 103–20. www.jstor.org/stable/44981974.

Feel free to read it yourself. I didn't find myself fully convinced to be honest, but it was an interesting read. It's a bit heady though, involving the examination of artistic reliefs, epigraphs, and other such works of art, which is a bit in the weeds if you aren't already sort of well educated on the base subject. It assumes familiarity with textual analysis.
 

Pejot

Knight at Arms
WBVC
Best answers
0
Game physics would be ok if there was any cooperation between units on the battlefield. Right now every soldier is and individual. AI in this situation makes every unit fight like it's the only unit on the battlefield. Formations are useless if there is now cooperation between units in formation. Shieldwall right now is just a mass of troops cramped together that can't even hit anything properly cause the block eachother. Unit's in shieldwall should act like single being with first line covering (and stabbing with short weapons if there's occasion) and second line stabbing with spears from behind. Right now they are not always forming more than one line and each one of them acts individually trying to hit the target.

If we want to implement formations there need to be something making your troops consider if they are in formation or send out to fight individually.
 

SmattlePattle

Sergeant
Best answers
0
Game physics would be ok if there was any cooperation between units on the battlefield. Right now every soldier is and individual. AI in this situation makes every unit fight like it's the only unit on the battlefield. Formations are useless if there is now cooperation between units in formation. Shieldwall right now is just a mass of troops cramped together that can't even hit anything properly cause the block eachother. Unit's in shieldwall should act like single being with first line covering (and stabbing with short weapons if there's occasion) and second line stabbing with spears from behind. Right now they are not always forming more than one line and each one of them acts individually trying to hit the target.

If we want to implement formations there need to be something making your troops consider if they are in formation or send out to fight individually.
I feel like they got this down fairly well in viking conquests. I'm surprised we have to seemingly reinvent the wheel for Bannerlord.
 

kekkuli5

Regular
Best answers
0
I don't know what to tell you, but the gladius is not primarily a thrusting weapon. Thrusting blades are inevitably narrower and longer. No one who has held a gladius would tell you it's a thrusting weapon. The Spatha is a much superior thrusting blade. But the gladius design IS quite good at cuts and chops without sacrificing the ability to thrust.

Again, literally the only reason people think the gladius is a thrusting weapon is, again, Vegetius.
Primarily or not, it was designed to work in small spaces, and thrusts only make sense when you're using a big shield like scutum. Triangular shaped head that's very good for stabbing also suggests the same. To say otherwise is to question the nature of roman warfare all in all, heavy infantry in tight formations, with shields that covered most of their bodies. There's WAY more material to proof this than there is against it. In fact this is one reason spears were usually used in shield formations as well, so you didn't have to slash and the unit could operate as whole. Principle of gladius is very much the same and it could possibly have had an advantage over spear if the battle got very tight or was fought in otherwise limited space.

But more than that it was situational, like Livius says when the romans and macedonians fought, people got dismembered. I'm guessing that was when the macedonian phalanx actually broke and the killing began in earnest.
 

Nordmann

Sergeant Knight
WBM&BWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
What's the last Roman history you've read? I must admit I have been rather lax and lazy this past year since I've gotten my Masters, but I did read through "Visual Evidence for Roman Infantry Tactics" A week ago. Here, have a full citation:

Taylor, Michael J. “VISUAL EVIDENCE FOR ROMAN INFANTRY TACTICS.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 59/60 (2014): 103–20. www.jstor.org/stable/44981974.

Feel free to read it yourself. I didn't find myself fully convinced to be honest, but it was an interesting read. It's a bit heady though, involving the examination of artistic reliefs, epigraphs, and other such works of art, which is a bit in the weeds if you aren't already sort of well educated on the base subject. It assumes familiarity with textual analysis.
Thanks, I'll definitely give it a read.
 

Ciderglove

Recruit
Best answers
0
What's the last Roman history you've read? I must admit I have been rather lax and lazy this past year since I've gotten my Masters, but I did read through "Visual Evidence for Roman Infantry Tactics" A week ago. Here, have a full citation:

Taylor, Michael J. “VISUAL EVIDENCE FOR ROMAN INFANTRY TACTICS.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 59/60 (2014): 103–20. www.jstor.org/stable/44981974.

Feel free to read it yourself. I didn't find myself fully convinced to be honest, but it was an interesting read. It's a bit heady though, involving the examination of artistic reliefs, epigraphs, and other such works of art, which is a bit in the weeds if you aren't already sort of well educated on the base subject. It assumes familiarity with textual analysis.
I'm afraid I'm unable to let go the thing about Greek hoplites not fighting in formation. If it really is true, as you say, then you need to explain it properly, given the sheer mass of evidence to the contrary.

You say that there is no evidence that any non-Spartan cities engaged in any kind of hoplite drill. That is an enormous claim. Are we to understand that, in the dangerous and violent ancient world, some states put no effort whatsoever into military training? It seems far more likely that, through things like the gymnasia of Athens and the Campus Martius of Rome, Hellenic city states had organised civic military training.

You say that the Spartans marched to music in formation, which other armies didn't. But that is slightly disingenous; it makes it sound as if marching in formation was part of what made the Spartans distinct, when in fact it was that they marched silently to music.

It is certain that, by the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC, non-Spartans were fighting in phalanxes. This is certain because the Theban tactic of drawing their hoplites up in much deeper formations than normal would not make sense unless fighting in formation was not already the norm.

It also seems highly doubtful that the non-Spartan soldiers at Thermopylae in 480 BC did not fight in phalanx formation. If they had fought in loose order, the battle would have been over far more quickly than it was.

So when exactly, in your understanding of all this, did non-Spartan cities decide to stop throwing hundreds of lives away fighting suicidally without formations? Come to think of it, when exactly did the Spartans decide to do it?

Is it possible that, when you say that no Greeks other than the Spartans fought in a phalanx, what you actually mean is that the Spartans were much better at it than everyone else? I do find this all very confusing; the enormity of the claims you make is in striking contrast to how casually and brusquely you make them.
 

Alpaca Cavalry

Recruit
Best answers
0
I really want TaleWorlds to look back at the formation systems in Viking Conquest. The shield walls were perfect, shields in front, staggered half a man as to allow swords/axes to attack from two lines deep, and spears reaching up to 3 men deep. In a skein, the heaviest infantry up front, tapering to the lightest at the ends of the wedge. We could also use a better way of creating line formations, for example creating a staggered skirmish line can be extremely difficult on flat terrain.
I want to second this. Bannerlord has a lot to learn from one of its predecessors, and VC is absolutely something they should look at for its formation battles.

Viking conquest spear wall formations were actually really scary to approach from the front, as there would be at least 3-4 spears reaching out to stab you at any given moment, which is how it should really be.
 

blightedscrib

Recruit
Best answers
0
Yes, Formations and Infantry do need a lot of work.

The AI in general, since Beta 1.1, can't defend itself properly. It becomes basically a match of who gets the first hit for the stunlock win, because the AI just keep trying to wind up a swing.

Spears also are almost useless. Almost. They are better at stopping a cavalry rush now that AI can track a bit better, but it's still weak.
 

blightedscrib

Recruit
Best answers
0
Creating a problem yourself, then selling a fix for it? You've just invented capitalism.
That's like saying the Irish Potato famine invented communism bro. Yes, Profiteering is an aspect of Capitalism, just like starvation is an aspect of Communism. But they're aspects, not genisis.
 

serj

Sergeant
WBWF&SVC
Best answers
0
I feel like they got this down fairly well in viking conquests. I'm surprised we have to seemingly reinvent the wheel for Bannerlord.
This is what frustrates me most about this game. Sure, devs need to invent new things to not stagnate and sometimes this can result in crashes/bad optimization etc. but why would you devolve something that works really well?
 

Pejot

Knight at Arms
WBVC
Best answers
0
This is what frustrates me most about this game. Sure, devs need to invent new things to not stagnate and sometimes this can result in crashes/bad optimization etc. but why would you devolve something that works really well?
Viking Conquest wasn't developed by TW only. It was coop of TW and authors of Brytenwalda.

Another thing is Bannerlord is on totally different engine. Even if You see some mechanics that are similar to previous M&B they were still developed from scratch. This means that using solutions from previous titles is not as ease as it seems. It's not only about copying the solution but more about porting it and adjusting to new engine which sometimes is harder then creating new solution.
 

Calardaras

Recruit
Best answers
0
It is sad that your hard training tier 5 elite infantry overwhelmed by tier 1 recruite sea.
Shieldwall is too dense to attack. In other formation AI always try flank a single unit then expose their back to enemies
 

Hugo_Stiglitz

Veteran
Best answers
0
New to Bannerlord. I played MnB Viking Conquest some.

I haven't got to really test on custom battles yet in Bannerlord but in order for shield wall to effectively work in Viking Conquest I think I had to order the shield wall, have it be at least 3 ranks(rows for you civilians:wink:) deep, and then give a "hold" command or something like that similar where my troops dont all immediately blob up the second the enemy hits their front rank. If I recall correctly if I didnt give that "hold" command or whatever it was they'd all blob up on one enemy if i recall correctly.

Is there a similar "hold position" type command in Bannerlord? Where your troops stay put in formation even when enemies are in their lines?