Moral system like Cossacks 2

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by Pales, May 21, 2015.

  1. Nowy

    Nowy Well-Known Member

    C2 was not very complicated game. This game was simple and way better as tactical and strategy game.
    If you learn few simple tactics you can play this game even easier than C1.

    C1 has advantage in several things
    - up to 7 players can play, while in C2 only 2-4
    - more nations 20, while C2 has only 9
    - bigger diverse of units and buildings
    - more ships and naval combats
    - more campaigns, missions, battles
    - more maps with more transparent landscape
    - allow play crazy fast, however insane gameplays

    C2 has more interesting and more realistic features, but still included many bad things known from C1 game.
    Then players chose stay with old known bad things and did not buy these bad things again.

    Nevertheless C 2 moral/fatigue system was excellent feature. This would be good include similar system in C3.
    Developers could add on/off button and everybody will be happy. These players which do not need moral and these which likes play in more realistic way with moral and fatigue features. :)
     
    Furious Peasant likes this.
  2. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    Good points and succinctly put. The issue comes back to what I call the "User Control Model". The User Control Model refers to what model of tactical and strategic control the game is going to implement and require from the user. User control exists potentially anywhere on a long spectrum from many minute actions to just a few company or army actions. For example, no RTS game I know implements a system where you control every action of every soldier or even of every squad. To give an example, you are not required to micro the reloading of muskets. You do not click a button to swab and then another button to bite and load a cartridge and then another button to ram, then another button to aim and then another button to fire. Of course, this would be ridiculous in an RTS. But if someone made a gunpowder FPS (First Person Shooter) game then you probably would have to do all these things.

    The above point illustrates that the level of tactical control you can reasonably be expected to execute really depends on the number of soldiers you are expected to control. In RTS, as we know, the number of soldiers we are expected to control grows from a few to many thousands. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves a key question. Why have RTS games to date implemented a static User Control Model? A static model is when you control 1 or 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 soldiers in the same way except for formation effects. Clearly, formations do allow you to apply a single fire command to the whole formation. But what I would call a Dynamic User Control Model would go further and reduce the number of minute or tiny tactical commands you are expected to execute as your army gets bigger. The engine itself would take over more micro of tactical commands for you and in essence this would be like your formation officers showing their initiative or at least obeying training and standing orders.

    We can take a good example from C2. C2 is very exacting in requiring company by company (about 120 men per company), execution of firing orders by the player. The player micros tactical fire company by company. Now imagine a game that gets quite big. Let us say 6,000 troops per player. This could mean you have 4,800 infantry in 40 companies spread over a large map. Imagine a map bigger than C2 provides. Is it really going to remain feasible to expect the player to micro fire for 40 companies at one or more major battle sites? Companies could be combined into Battalions (say 480 to 960 soldiers depending on the particular nation's order of battle). One could now micro fire for a battalion except (and it's a very big EXCEPT) that a battalion frontage is qualitatively as well as quantitatively different from a company frontage. It makes sense for a company to fire as a coordinated unit. The frontage is small enough that the whole company confronts the same tactical situation. However, a battalion frontage is of a size that the whole battalion does not confront the same tactical situation. In essence, it remains the case that fire decisions must often be made company by company even in a battalion. So creating battalion level formation control, while solving traverse (marching) and disposition command issues for the user (allowing one command for the whole battalion), does not solve the fire command issues.

    Either the user must still micro fire company by company or the game must implement a form of officer initiative and/or a standing orders system for the army. It is my argument that large RTS needs to take the next design step (and maybe some mods like DarthMod of TW have already done so) and implement automated officer behaviour and a user update-able (between games) standing orders system for the army. Local companies will then fire according to local officer intiative (the officer in effect becomes an intelligent agent controlled by the game program) but the officer must act in accordance with army standing orders. In this model, the player can still micro company fire anywhere and everywhere that he has time to do so. That is to say he can over-ride intelligent agent officer behaviour and army standing orders when he wishes and is able to find time to do so. This mimics a general, marshal or other senior officer using the level of command initiative that he is permitted which can involve over-ruling standing orders. This allows skillful players to get a further advantage but it means that a temporarily neglected flank (for example) in a big battle won't let you down by doing something really stupid. Those companies temporarily not overseen by the player will not do anything brilliant but at least they won't do anything really stupid. Really stupid actions can lead to an immediate crumbling of a position which should have held for a while until you could pay attention to it again.
     
    Foeurdr and Loner like this.
  3. Fulcrum

    Fulcrum Active Member

    What you describe turned a massive problem for me in C2. On large battles instead of enjoying the game, you turn into a robot trying to scroll around as fast as possible to make sure his formations fire. I think the smaller formation system makes it more real history like, but there could be an elegant solution - add one more unit to game. A general that could transform several formations into a single large formation made up of separately displayed smaller formations that move and follow orders in unison.
     
  4. Nowy

    Nowy Well-Known Member

    Bigger formations would inflict bigger troubles.
    Take a look in C1 game case. Bigger formations here looks badly, move and manouvre horrible, are less flexible, ineffective, combat poorly, can suffer bigger casualties and losses.

    Smaller formations are better in C1 gameplay style. They do not need too much micro managment.
    They can better cooperate ans support each other. Player can use more formations on few fronts at once.
    They are more effective, however too small formations are too weak in bigger combats.

    C2 formations also are acceptable, however they need more micro management, especially in fire combats.
    I had not troubles even with 40 squads there. However create such big army in the game is very, very rare case.

    Take in mind that there no needs to engage all formations in combats at once. Wise General usually split his army on few grups, he keep some reserves, vanguard, rearguard or flank guard. They do not need to combat at once.

    When C3 game would include moral system as like C2, then simpler formations would be fine.
    I already proposed squad sizes on my wish list. Think they would be usable in planed C3 gampley style.
     
  5. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    A key point worth remembering is that C1 and thus presumably C3 are 17th C and 18th C warfare. Mature Napoleonic games like C2 are really early 19th C warfare. We should not compare C1 and C3 tactics to C2. It is incorrect to do that.

    17th C warfare was different and even most 18th C warfare was different from 19th C Napoleonic warfare. In 17th C and 18th C before Napoleon and especially before Wellington, column attacks were far more common. Cold steel infantry (pikes) used column attacks against other infantry. Even in the French revolutionary wars column attacks by bayonet-equipped musket infantry (fusiliers) were most often favoured although weapon and tactical developments were just starting to render such attacks obsolete.

    "During the early stages of the French Revolutionary Wars, battalions in French armies often attacked in column formation in an attempt to drive through enemy lines by sheer weight of numbers. Against enemy units already weakened by the fire from skirmishers or artillery, this was often successful. Later, during the Napoleonic Wars, French units would approach in column formation and deploy into line when close to the enemy. However, against the British they frequently failed to deploy into line before being engaged.[1] During the Peninsular War, after the Battle of Sabugal (3 April 1811), the Duke of Wellington wrote, "our loss is much less than one would have supposed possible, scarcely 200 men... really these attacks against our lines with columns of men are contemptible." [2] These failings were still evident at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815,[3] prompting Wellington to comment, "They came on in the same old way and we defeated them in the same old way." - Wikipedia.

    Thus a C1 and C3 model should strongly support battalion size formations as well as companies. The battalion column attack should be a real feature of C3 and only after 18th C research AND extra final shot power research (mimicking at last the late 18th C) should line defence start to take the general ascendancy over column attacks.

    I guarantee that most people will have more fun in a column attack game and it will be more historically accurate to boot. Then, if the Napoleonic aficionados survive to the late 18th C they can start playing like C2 and defeating columns with lines. More power to you if can reach that stage. ;)
     
  6. Nowy

    Nowy Well-Known Member

    Ftoomsh what are you taking about?
    Do you think that moral system like C2 was based on Napoleonic tactics and these could not work in C1 game priod?

    Moral system are psychological cases. These are not tactics or strategy differences. Soldiers could get tired, waver, fear, panic and flee in every historical eras. Therefore moral system could work in C3 even in 17th and 18th environment without a doubt.
     
  7. Hansol333

    Hansol333 Active Member

    I believe, that bigger formations should be more powerful than smaller formations.

    1) units have maintenance costs, all require food and some even gold. A large army consumes much food, if the bonus is too small it would be way better to produce units and instantly attack the enemy. If the unit stands there without attacking it is a waste of food. Therefore a large formation consumes more food and should be stronger to balance the economically disadvantage.

    2) it is so annoying if the enemy attacks permanently with only a few units. your units move, you have to replace killed soldier and so on.

    therefore I hope that the largest size formations grant another huge bonus like additional range. that single soldiers are killed without causing any damage (lost soldier or repostion the formation).

    for a musketeer with: 100 life, 10 melee protection, 20 melee damage, 20 gun damage, 900 range
    no formation: no bonus:
    small formation: +2 melee damage, +3 shield, +25 range
    middle formation: +3 melee damage, +4 shield, +50 range, +1 gun damage
    huge formation: +4 melee damage, +5 shield, +100 range, +2 gun damage
     
  8. Foeurdr

    Foeurdr Moderator Staff Member

    Cavalry in U or wedge formation standing ground in Cossacks 1 made really good wall :D
     
  9. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    Actually, I did not mention morale once in my post. My point was entirely independent of the morale issue. My point stands and remains valid for both a morale game model and a non-morale game model. C1 and C3 are essentially pre-Napoleonic era games. It was the evolution of the musket, carbine and rifle (along with artillery improvements) which caused tactics to evolve before and during the Napoleonic era. Even if some of these technical advances occurred somewhat before Napoleon and Wellington, it took a while for the development of tactics to catch up with the development of weapons.

    My point really revolved around weapons evolution which in turns drives the evolution of tactics and strategy. While cold steel predominates, column tactics predominate. Even with the advent of muskets, this remained generally the case until musket power, accuracy and rate of fire (due to technological advances) reached the level where firepower from lines could overwhelm column attacks.

    Napoleon persisted with column attacks (I believe) because he used several other elements.

    (1) He and his army were better at mobility and concentration than most other armies of the era.
    (2) He sought to attack a flank and roll it up or to drive through the centre and defeat each half of the enemy in turn.
    (3) Artillery - He emphasized massed artillery to put a hole in the enemy line and then to exploit that hole with column attacks.
    (4) Skirmishers - The French were usually better at loose formation skirmishing. Good skirmishers could weaken static lines in preparation for column attacks.

    Wellington seems to be one of the first to perfect defensive line tactics. I won't go into it here but one element was the use of the reverse slope (the side of the hill out of sight and out of direct fire of the enemy artillery). As enemy columns came over the crest they were perfect targets for waiting lines.

    In summary, you seem to think that the existence or non-existence of a morale system is the sole determinant of tactics and strategies in the game model. This is not correct. Morale is important but weapon types and weapon relativities are also crucially important. In the 17th, C column tactics for offense prevailed due to cold steel predominance and the relative weakness of muskets. The 17th C and 18th C did see an evolution though. In a game with tech levels and researched technologies, the evolutions are important and lend interest to the game. The game progresses through tactical and strategic phases.

    It's worth looking at this article;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Revolution

    Especially interesting is this section;

    "Linear Tactics

    Shallow formations are ideally suited for defensive deployments, but they are clumsy in offensive missions: the longer the frontage, the more difficult to maintain order and cohesion, or to perform any maneuver, especially wheeling. Gustavus Adolphus understood well that far from being slow and ponderous, the assault columns like those used by Tilly were in fact faster and more flexible, and the Swedish King made use of them when required, like in the battle of Alte Veste (see picture 3).

    Armies did start to use thinner formations, but in a slow evolution, and subjected to tactical considerations.[a] Firearms were not so effective as to determine solely the deployment of troops, other considerations were also observed, like units' experience,[c] assigned mission, terrain, or the need to meet a required frontage with an understrength unit. The debate of line vs column was carried through the 18th Century up to Napoleonic times, with a temporary reverse to deep columns in the later campaigns of the Napoleonic Wars.

    Ironically, depth reduction in cavalry formations was a more permanent change introduced by Gustavus Adolphus. In conjunction with less reliance on pistol fire it had the net effect of favouring shock action over firepower, contrary to the tendency defended by Roberts." - Wikipedia.

    C1 and C3 present an extraordinarily interesting game model and game potential, precisely because they span this era of evolution from column to line tactics. It is the weapons evolution which drives the slow evolution from column to line tactics. A game which models this must model the weapons evolution and implement the formations, including battalions (about 480 men), which support column tactics as well as line tactics. Morale is a further addition to this model. And in fact, a morale model would probably support column tactics. Massed columns initially boost morale (though morale can collapse badly and rapidly if the advancing column is shot up by a disciplined line).
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2015
  10. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member


    From my experience, I don't believe larger formations need these extra bonuses. What is found in practice is that larger formations benefit anyway from concentration of firepower and even from concentration of cold steel shock. At the very most, I might add a small cold steel bonus. Shot bonuses are certainly not required. The increase in effectiveness of massed fire from large formations is a very clear feature in practice in such game models. In addition, if a morale system is added, larger formations could benefit (in most cases) from more stable morale.
     
  11. Ogon

    Ogon Active Member

     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2015
  12. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    Ogon, I think we are in complete agreement. Large formations do work well and the ability to make large formations does improve the game.

    If large formation options exist people do not HAVE to use them. If they like small formations or no formations they are perfectly free to play in that style. Nobody is forcing them to use the larger formations. However, they might find they get defeated more often.;)

    I am all for giving the player as many options as possible. Then the player may adopt whichever style of play he chooses.

    With modern PCs and game engines, I very much doubt that large formations will add in any way to lag. On the other hand, large formations are naturally more unwieldy and harder to move and position on certain sorts of terrain. This is the the price one pays if one makes large formations and this is fair enough. There is a certain reduction in maneuverability. Actually which formation sizes one chooses will depend on the stage of the game, the kind of terrain and the tactical and strategic situation.

    I have made an argument for battalion size formations (about 480 to 720 men) to be made available in C3. Of course there is no requirement to use the largest formation size if one doesn't want to. I also want to see the "form army" command work properly in C3. It did not work correctly in C1 as formations made up into armies often did not retain correct spacing and positioning when moved. It would be very useful to be able to attach supporting and flank formations to cannon batteries and move the whole group forward in a coordinated way.
     
  13. Hansol333

    Hansol333 Active Member

    in C1 formations were almost useless. With all upgrades most musketeers died from gunfire and only a few from melee combat. The Formation bonus should be balanced anyway because +2 steel attack and +3 shield ist pretty useful with 0 melee protection, 12 gun damage and 18 steel damage. However with 21 melee protection, 22 gun damage and 75 steel damage the formation bonus is way less powerful and totally useless against units with 53-99 or >=103 gun damage.

    Bonus attack range is in my opinion still the best way. I hate it soooo much, when I have a formation of units with low attack range (russian 17c shooter or grenaders) and the enemy sends shooter with more range. They will always fire first and if there are lucky (4% change of instantly killing ANY unit a gun weapon) I lose at least one unit. I also can't use stand ground because they would all die. Instead they move to the enemy (during that time the enemy can shoot again) and then kill the enemy. However the next enemy soldier is already on his move and the game repeats. I have to replace killed soldiers and organize them again. They could move far way from the place you want them to guard and are slaughtered when attacked from 2 directions.

    A bonus attack range of 100-200 would assure that the formation always attacks first against single units. Therefore one single soldier would cause no damage at all. Like a morale system. I mean no soldier would attack a formation of 120 units just alone (unless he has a maschine gun). Of course you could still get outranged by enemy formations but spending time to kill 120 enemy soldiers fine, spending time to kill one soldier, no.

    I rearely choosed nations with low attack range shooters like russia. I prefere Bavaria/Denmark/Prussia shooter. Yeah there were totally overpowered and one shooting everything but they had the highest attack range and would attack first, it requires so less micromanegment.
     
  14. Foeurdr

    Foeurdr Moderator Staff Member

    Formations of musketeer (or anything) have the nice advantage to advance on the ennemy better than the destroy everything you find on your path command.
    In my opinion formation of 72 or 120 are better they are neither too small to fight nor are impratical to move on a map like highlands, in plain though 196 men are really good and only countered by artillery fire.
    I wonder if in Cossacks 3 the dragoon will still get extra range, I would prefer everyone with the same range or only a difference between XVIIth and XVIIIth century.

    Sure that was annoying ! Reorganizing your position almost every time you move :confused:
     
  15. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member


    I hope I didn't misunderstand your point. I agree that formations need cold steel bonuses compared to unformed, loose or swarming troops. I meant that large formations do not require more cold steel bonuses than small formations. Shot bonuses however should come from upgrades. That is the way to go. There is no need for formations to get shot bonuses simply by being formations. What you will find is that large formations naturally perform better in fire-fights due to their concentrated weight of fire. But large, dense formations do lose more troops to artillery fire.

    OC Mod corrected the shot disparities between nations. Bavaria, Denmark and Prussia still had good muskets but their superiority over other nations was reduced. They paid for their better shot power by their muskets being more expensive. Nations with slightly weaker muskets often produced them at a slightly faster rate to make up for a small lack of shot power. This is in OC Mod Balanced which had some further changes. OC Mod made skirmishers more important and they had extra range. In OC Mod, the nations with skirmishers became the late 18th C superpowers. Proper use of skirmishers became a very important skill in that game. To help nations without skirmishers, I boosted the power of grenadiers for non-skirmish nations in OC Mod Balanced. Their grenadiers had boosted range but still not the range of skirmishers.

    I am a firm believer that when a nation has an advantage of some kind, it should pay for that advantage in some way too. If it has a particular disadvantage then it should have compensation in some other form. This is the only way to properly balance nations. For example, if Russian peasants work 10% slower, I think they should cost 10% less food and be able to cluster in greater numbers around a construction site.

    When it came to nation balance, part of the philosophy of C1 was that many nations had a sort of "super-unit"; one unit of their own that was unique and especially good. I don't really agree with that balancing philosophy. I think balancing should be a little more subtle. Yes, let nations have special, unique power units but make their overpowered nature a bit more subtle and toned down and make them pay for it in some other way, by greater costs or a slight weakness in some other way. If the special unit is too overpowered and there is only one hard counter for it, it takes the game model too far in the scissors, paper, stone direction.

    Footnote: With each kind of cold steel formation, attention should be given to which kind of bonus makes the most sense for that kind of formation. Swordsmen should get mainly defence bonuses in formation. The presentation of massed and perhaps even interlocked shields accounts for this. Pikemen should perhaps get mainly attack bonuses as multiple serried pikes and formation weight improves their offence. This would be in addition to effects like pikes having defence bonuses versus cavalry.
     
  16. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    Further reply to Hansol333. You said;

    "A bonus attack range of 100-200 would assure that the formation always attacks first against single units. Therefore one single soldier would cause no damage at all. Like a morale system. I mean no soldier would attack a formation of 120 units just alone (unless he has a machine gun). Of course you could still get out-ranged by enemy formations but spending time to kill 120 enemy soldiers fine, spending time to kill one soldier, no."

    On reconsideration, I can see where you are coming from. But I don't think that much extra range for the formation is the way to go. Perhaps a very mild range advantage of 20 or 50 would do it. 100 or 200 is way too much in my opinion. Another, though admittedly more complex game model would be to look at a number of other factors. The possibilities are these and the game model could implement one or more;

    (1) Replace the principle of a hard range limit with the principle of probability for hits at range.
    (2) Permit each company of 120 men to have say 12 designated skirmishers. These men do indeed have the extra 100 range. The game engine would automatically turn 12 company muskets into skirmishers and distribute them along the front line of the company. This would be a bonus for making the formation.
    (This would lead to extra game engine complication of course.)
    (3) Go further and have the game engine allow these company skirmishers to range forward against single targets.
    (Depending on a formation setting such as "Permit skirmishers to range forward").

    Another way to go is to have specialist skirmishers as indeed OC Mod does. These skirmishers are separate unit types from standard muskets or fusiliers. So you have to micro them separately. Often they are best used out of formation in loose order. Skirmish formations are also possible. These have wide spacing between men and are relatively small formations.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2015
  17. Daddio

    Daddio Moderator Staff Member

    Not sure why one would want to use formations in a system that docent have any moral system to be used? Without moral its just for looks.

    I mean that with just a stronger or higher defense or attack number it just becomes a linear number like any other upgrade? At that point it would just become a nuisance to me.

    True formations have strengths as well as weaknesses. An example would be a line formation would be much stronger from the front. weaker from the side, and very weak if attacked from the rear. Square would have limited offensive, and very strong defensive factor. etc. ect.
     
  18. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member


    I don't agree with the first two sentences. "Not sure why one would want to use formations in a system that docent have any moral system to be used? Without moral its just for looks."

    However, my disagreement has multiple aspects to it and does not amount to a rejection of a morale model as such.

    OC Mod has no morale system and yet formations do still confer advantages. The formation bonuses achieve some of this effect. The natural effects of concentration of force also help to achieve these effects. These effects can be implemented in a game model with or without a morale system.

    It is a mistake to think that in the real world the sole effect of making formations is to increase morale. Formations have physical as well as morale effects. Concentration of force (which is what formations achieve) has real physical effects as well as morale effects. It is true in turn that the feeling of belonging to a physically forceful group can feed back into morale but it is a mistake to believe that morale does not have some physical antecedents. (Morale has other antecedents too like training, indoctrination, experience and success). As well as concentration of force, formations achieve coordination of force. Physical concentration and physical coordination are not in and of themselves morale effects. They are real physical effects ahead of any morale effects.

    My argument could be proved with a game model which allowed experimenting with formation concentration (troop spacing). Imagine a game model with no morale system and no formation bonuses. It can still be shown that physical formation effects will exist. Imagine that it allows two kinds of spacing for pikemen in a column formation. We will term these "packed spacing" and "loose spacing". Also imagine that the game models pike hitting range for pikes (which C1 and OC Mod actually do for example). In the packed spacing, the pikes of more ranks will start hitting the loose spaced enemy formation before the loose spaced rear-rank pikes in turn begin hitting. This will translate into a better kill rate achieved by the packed formation against the loose formation. The packed formation will win even with no morale bonus and no formation bonus. The same effect will be achieved by putting a formation of 36 pikemean (packed) against 36 pikemen not in formation (who tend to adopt a wider spacing in C1).

    The mere act of creating a formation does create physical advantages (and physical disadvantages) if the game models the physics properly. All this occurs before a morale model is added. Certainly for better realism a morale model should be added as well.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2015
  19. Daddio

    Daddio Moderator Staff Member

    I agree with all that you have said. And would love to see it represented in the game.

    But my question is why?

    Why would a game without a moral system want to have the added step or aggravation of maintaining a formation when a simple upgrade button could do the same thing?

    The only reason I can think of is just for eye candy?

    Now once moral is added, and directional attacks and maneuver are important, then they become significant.
     
  20. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    I still disagree. A simple upgrade button does not do the same thing as formations even in a non-morale game system. Formations still matter and have real effects in a non-morale game system. All of this is a somewhat subtle debate until one wraps one's mind around it. Or maybe I have not explained it well enough yet. Re-read my post above and then consider this further example.

    Directional attacks and maneuver are still important without morale effects. This is because they have real physical effects too. (Admittedly morale effects would improve accuracy even further.) If the physics engine is completely accurate in the Newtonian physics sense, then directional attacks and maneuvers still have generally realistic effects (except for the breaking of morale not occurring). Imagine a small line or wedge of horse galloping front on into a long infantry line formation. If the horse group is very small and the infantry line long then massed fire alone will be enough to cut the horses down. Now if that same horse group gallops into a flank of the line (and the game engine models deaths from friendly fire) then the horse will do far more damage, killing more units. Most of the infantry can't fire without killing friendlies. All of this can occur without modelling morale. It will occur purely from the effects of the physics engine. But for this to work realistically , friendly fire deaths have to be implemented as part of the game physics.

    I kind of have the feeling that players coming from a game which strongly implements morale effects, can come away thinking that morale effects explain everything that happens on the game model battlefield. This is not the case. Pure physics when realistically modeled also explain quite a bit about what happens on accurately modeled battlefields.

    Hope you don't mind robust debate, Daddio. :)

    In effect, I am saying that physics modeling and morale modeling both count in relation to formations. They both have effects which enhance the value of formations. Individually, they each do work to enhance the value of formations. In conjunction, they will work even better. This is if by "better" we mean more realistically from the point of view of tactics and strategies.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice