![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() The purpose of the anvil is to essentially block the enemy. The Commander places some of his forces as the anvil. Within this technique, a Commander uses two forces as the name reflects. "Medieval Total War II" was great, as well, but some notable units/formations were suitably "gamey" enough to push it outside of "realism. Hammer and Anvil The old hammer and anvil technique certainly gained in popularity during the Vietnam War. Sure, it still was gamey as any game should be, but what happened on the screen was a great illusion just the same. I really liked "Empire: Total War" for a sort of "realism value" in terms of "real life" tactics. Even so, some aren't really outstanding sims - But, they're good "games." :) The older, in my experience at least, Total War games are much better for depicting Formation Fighting tactics than Warband can be. Relative strengths in terms of stats and equipment are very much "unbalanced" if one wanted to make the game a "real-life" simulation of tactical combat. If it was more complex, more could be done in terms of player influence outside of "killin' stuffs." It doesn't have a lot of impact in battles, but it's there, somewhere. There is a very loose "morale" mechanic in vanilla, I think. "Stirrups" aren't a "killer app" for mounted units and Canon haven't rendered all previously constructed static defenses basically obsolete. We're not seeing something like Bronze Age armament meeting Steel. In what's represented in Warband, we don't have a lot of "Uber Weapon" development. Training, equipment, tactics, leadership, etc. it's sort of an effort of "National will." On average, human beings in an Army aren't stronger, smarter, faster or more capable individually than another human. Keep in mind - In reality, in a war that lasts more than a couple of days, human vs human fighting involves what is basically the same basic "unit" with some slight variability in gear and general philosophy regarding tactics. So, a wall of pikes is still only going to come down to "unit vs unit" fighting and horses are still going to love to charge into a forest of sharp, pointy, things. But, take note - There is no actual "formation" mechanics that support combat-related variables. They're "mechanical" in nature as in the game supports certain sorts of actions. So, what tactical choices you can use are generally based on "Formation Fighting" tactics with some allowance for exceptionally capable units. There is no battlefield capture of a Commander, prompting retreat/surrender, either. The player can expect the AI to do "this" when the player "does that." There won't be any "desperate manuevers" or "courageous and hard-fought tactics" undertaken by the AI. In general, most "basic concepts" work in terms of overall "tactics."īut, the AI commander is a "known" factor. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |