UNITS. you should be able to command troops in more depth than just their type

[olliewilliams01]

I am sorry if this has already been said, i did use the search bar to look for a similar post, but i couldnt find anything.
Anyways the command in M&B lacks depth. There is no realistic strategy to it (no offense, love the game). So what i am thinking is that you keep the mini-map command system but just be able to manually classify troops into platoons, which then you could command the same way with the numbers. Just have seven or eight units you can command and then command them the same way you do now.

How would you control which men were in which platoon? in the party screen, you could put boarders around groups of troop types and you move the troops in and out of the unit boxes the same way you move them around now. When the battle starts, you should get the first man in unit one, the first man in unit two, the first man in unit three all the way up to the last unit and then it goes back to put in the second man from unit one, and this cycle continues until the max number of troops on the battlefield is filled. I think it would ad some real strategy to the game. Also it would be great if you could name the platoons (crossbowmen archers pikemen, or alpha  bravo charlie, whatever) so you could keep track of which number was which type of soldier. So what do yall think?

 

[Archonsod]

What difference would it make over commanding them by type?

 

[olliewilliams01]

you would have more flexability. Instead of  having three units that are just melee, ranged, and cavalry, you could have seven or eight different units. I mean then you could flank, you could set up ambushes, you could make gauntlets, you know it would just add tactical deapth

 

[Archonsod]

Can't think of any time you'd want to divide into smaller units. It'd be suicide if the enemy had cavalry.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

The only way that it would be beneficial is if you had a large enough number of men for them to form multiple squares yet still be able to withstand a cavalry charge.

 

[olliewilliams01]

so you think the best advantage against cavalry is standing in a line that is at most two men thick?
Havn't yall played any other strategy games? wouldnt it be great to actually have tactics in this?

 

[DamienZharkoff]

I have to agree with ollie williams on the weather here.

Either let us arrange our troops better, or look to the modders formations for an idea of how to align a friggin army instead of in the "Trample me plz" formation :p

 

[HSharp]

Would be nice to be able to split up units so they can be suited to better roles. You can have your infantry with shields to lead a charge while those crazy 2 handed can flank attack, you can get your khergit horse archers to harass one side of the enemy while swadian heavy cavalry crushes the other side.

You can do that crap whatever Lezalit says whenever you send him to Vaegir lands.

 

[olliewilliams01]

Would be nice to be able to split up units so they can be suited to better roles. You can have your infantry with shields to lead a charge while those crazy 2 handed can flank attack, you can get your khergit horse archers to harass one side of the enemy while swadian heavy cavalry crushes the other side.

You can do that crap whatever Lezalit says whenever you send him to Vaegir lands.

yeah see THIS is what im talking about

 

[Archonsod]

Yup, having five men charge another five guys from a different direction is going to be a battle changing event There's simply not enough troops to make it worthwhile. Start splitting your infantry up and they'll be overwhelmed by cavalry as soon as they get charged.

so you think the best advantage against cavalry is standing in a line that is at most two men thick?

Have you tried using "stand closer"?

 

[Swadius 2.0]

There's a "stand ground" option too, not sure of what it actually does.

 

[DamienZharkoff]

stand closer only makes my guys two men thick.. but its still one man thick because they space themselves in a zig zag pattern

 

[captain_deez]

Yup, having five men charge another five guys from a different direction is going to be a battle changing event There's simply not enough troops to make it worthwhile. Start splitting your infantry up and they'll be overwhelmed by cavalry as soon as they get charged.

What if you're not facing an overwhelming cavalry charge? Not every battle is down to cavalry. Or better yet, maybe I'm using my melee cavalry to disorder your lines while I keep my group of cavalry archers back to fire. I can always clump the groups together when needed, so your horses are kabobs either way.

 

[Draya]

/Subtle poke

http://mountandblade.wikia.com/wiki/Combat

Congratulations, now you've been published... kinda. please note editing out of superfluous discussion within the wiki. Nice idea btw.

Oh and as for usefulness of tactics in small groups- please refer to the movie Gladiator, 1st fight in the coliseum.

/wins argument

 

[Draya]

"You can help me. Whatever comes out of these gates, we have a better chance of survival if we [SPREAD OUT RANDOMLY AND RUN HEADFIRST INTO WALLS]. Do you understand?

 

[DamienZharkoff]

If it all comes down to cavalry, why would I even bother having infantry then? This would also allow me to make a small personal following group of horse archers, have my knights attack head on, and have my lancers come up from the sides.

 

[Archonsod]

Oh and as for usefulness of tactics in small groups- please refer to the movie Gladiator, 1st fight in the coliseum.

/wins argument

Yes, that would be famous historian Ridley Scott's insightful documentary of ancient Rome. So true to history it went the other way through

 

[HSharp]

Are you not entertained?

Anyway your arguments of it leaves infantry units vulnerable to cavalry are lacking, infantry are always vulnerable to cavalry in native, also the splitting units up can be cavalry as well.

 

[DamienZharkoff]

imagine, having your spearmen upfront, swordsmen with shields behind the spearmen, two hander users behind the shield men, your horse archers up front scattering the enemy, you and your swadian knights charging in from the sides, and your crossbow men way back while your archers are behind infantry. THAT would be a truly fun battle.. but sadly all you get is a crappy "Lump everyone together" command

 

[olliewilliams01]

/Subtle poke

http://mountandblade.wikia.com/wiki/Combat

Congratulations, now you've been published... kinda. please note editing out of superfluous discussion within the wiki. Nice idea btw.

Oh and as for usefulness of tactics in small groups- please refer to the movie Gladiator, 1st fight in the coliseum.

/wins argument

YAY. this might be the most influential thing ive ever done. i mean i influenced somebody to make a wiki. holy crap.

and yeah when its 5 on 5 it dosnt matter, but they keep upping the number of troops with each version (plus theres always the  battle size changer smart one), and when it gets to be 100 on 100 tactics can really help

imagine, having your spearmen upfront, swordsmen with shields behind the spearmen, two hander users behind the shield men, your horse archers up front scattering the enemy, you and your swadian knights charging in from the sides, and your crossbow men way back while your archers are behind infantry. THAT would be a truly fun battle.. but sadly all you get is a crappy "Lump everyone together" command

once again THATS EXACTLY WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT. how awesome would that be? like you could also have a rock solid phalanx of spearmen in the middle while some crazy two handers crush the left flank and the cavalry charge into the right