Disable Formation Attack with B! A Total War Warhammer 3 Tutorial on Cathay's special ability for melee units. How To Support The Channel: / enticity Tournament Discord: / discord Support My Multiplayer Ladder: / enticity
It was really annoying to send my Jade Warriors into the enemy's flank, and see them use only three dudes to fight while the rest maintained their useless formation.
@@Loj84 because Cathay is a defensive faction and it helps hold the line. You should always have it turned on unless you're flanking, fighting archers, or fighting single entities. With infantry only that last one is gonna happen frequently and depending on the situation you may or may not want it for that. So 90% of the time you want it on
I think I know why this doesn't work in this game when it's so advantageous and powerful in others like Medieval 2. This ability is essentially the spearwall ability that pikes and halberds have in the older, historical titles. But in this game, they don't actually form a proper spear wall, they are simply trying to maintain line ranks and nothing more. The reason spear walls were so powerful in other Total Wars is because the unit has a multi-tiered brace. The front line crouches and braces against the ground, the second line has spears held at midevel, the third held up high. This means that multiple entities from multiple lines can attack at once, so that even if a unit in the formation does die and the game tries to account for it and have them reform, so many are attacking at one time that having a few not doing so to move up is a non-issue. That's why pikes and halberds in a braced spearwall formation were so powerful and hard to break through unless you could flank them. So if the halberds and spears formed a proper spear wall in this game with this ability, it would probably work just fine. But because of the dumbing down and making units so frail to speed up battles, it would probably be immensely overpowered, hence why it doesn't work like that but, also, hence why the ability is a detriment.
Because spearmen in warhammer don't actually have extra reach, unlike pikemen in other titles. So essentially, it is like giving the spearwall formation to a group of swordsmen, no matter the unit.
@@verdantagent This is probably the real reason why it sucks. No reach weapons, and no real charge reflection like in 3K or Rome 2 means the optimal strategy is always to maximize number of entities engaged for max damage. It feels like dumbing down the combat to just throwing a bunch of stats at each other...
@@LazyIcarus Yes, that has been Warhammer since the first game. People have been okay with that, so that's what we've gotten for all three and what CA has tried to do in more recent historical and Saga titles.
In shogun 2, it made your formation more dense. This led to other formations being outnumbered at the individual level. I don't know if tiered spears were a thing, but they did have tiered muskets for rapid fire.
I suspect that this has something to do with units being able to pass right through your lines, which is something i've only really noticed on cathay. Likely because the guys in the deeper ranks aren't attacking or blocking the units that run through them because the ones at the front are the ones programmed to fight. You would think it would make them better at holding but if my hypothesis is true then it wouldn't. Also i think that and the way the cathay lines are set up makes it a disaster to try and pull units past each other, like crossbows back behind your lines, because the infantry just refuse to budge and then run back to their spot in the formation if/when they are pushed out of the way. Its why moving your troops around as cathay feels like smashing two bricks together, instead of water flowing through the gaps.
This really explains a lot. Cathay is my only play so far and it's been so frustrating to set up lines only to see them plowed through. I've just been double and triple stacking as it seems like the only way to get them to block cavalry, single units, or large units.
I tested it a while back, formation attack off is better at stopping units from plowing through you but only just. They can go through 2 lines of infantry instead of 2.5 - 3. Some units like mammoths and seeker chariots are completely impossible to stop no matter what you do though.
@@ispear6337 well i would hope so, my issue stemmed from playing say the final battle and playing in a box that the Ai just insisted on walking straight through my troops and diving into my crossbows. It seemed to be a real issue with hounds, maybe because they're small enough to just walk right through the lines of the formation.
@@climax050 WH3 infantry in general seem to get knocked aside much more easily by larger units than they did in 2. It might be that the mass values need to be adjusted or the bracing effect which is supposed in increase the mass of stationary units isn't working properly behind the scenes.
When I first saw the option I though "Oh boy it is Yariwall from TW:Shogun 2 all over again. Time to watch Jade Halberds wreck things that are twice the cost". Turns out it is the opposite.
No it makes them worse since instead of jumping on cav to block them they just stay in formation so fewer models are blocking the cav from getting out cause the stance doesn't stop then from getting knocked down by cav it just makes them worse at reacting to it
@@darkomihajlovski3135 that actually requires test confirmation. In theory - yes, but warhammer is a blockbox in terms of how exactly those calculations work.
Blocking cavalry - ok, but what about soaking up charge damage? Unit in formation suppose to last longer, in theory, since health is distributed per model, so cav theoretically should overkill first line, while keeping rest of the models at more or less full health
Funny enough formation lock would be fantastic on Kislev, with most of their units being hybrid it would let more models in a unit stay back and shoot while the front line attacks. On Cathay the units in the back just stand and do nothing.
Agreed. I haven't played warhammer 3 but from older titles setting ranged or hybrid units to hold formation was great as it ensured those not directly engaged would continue to fire rather than pull their knife and die.
From my experience most units don't check to see if they should shoot on an individual basis, so if even 2-3 models of a 120 strong group get engaged in Melee the entire group stops shooting. -.-
I just got your video recommended and remembered playing against you when we were both still in the Noobhammer community. Glad to see that you‘re a top player with a flourishing youtube channel now. Keep it up!
Would this be useful when using infantry to roadblock cavalry/monsters with splash attacks? It seems like less blobbing would be useful if your infantry is only there to stall things that aren't enemy infantry. Might also help prevent the pileup that happens when you try to finish off a lord/hero and nobody can attack once they start running away.
How could CA have forgotten what made "formation lock" actually good back in Rome 1? The Roman's 1) prioritized attack over formation holding, meaning they stepped forward to attack then fell back, which while meaning longer times between attacks and potentially fewer attackers. Which goes to 2) better leadership and armor on the "formation lock" side of things. I mean the Romans were generally better in everything buuuut 3) the phalanx formation troops received decent bonuses to head on combat Looks like any one of these three and bam issue solved
@@codyraugh6599 Two things: 1) CA isn't an entity. It is comprised of individuals whose knowledge is limited to the games they designed and tales they heard from senior staff. At this point Rome 1 was such a long time ago that probably only a handful of employees, if that, knows how that game worked. 2) With the complete engine overhaul from Empire onward, the way combat works is fundamentally different from older entries.
@@khankhomrad8855 yet they copy pasted from a older entry. And all you did was point out the stupidity of the move and how they couldn't spend even a couple of minutes to observe how previous entires acted. Otherwise they would have known of the phalanx's corner lock issue, but also would have learned the benefits of the phalanx. Because the reach of the attacks having four ranks in the Macedonian phalanx able to attack well before anyone else could was massive, but even the basic phalanx for the mechanics it was easy to copy the spirit of why that formation was useful. "They aren't a single bla bla bla" no they aren't, but if they can spend time looking at and rating mods, they can spend a few mintutes to watch a couple YT clips of the formation they were copy pasting into their game. Or you know any one of the individuals with their individual time could have spent the time to check and let everyone know that hey, phalanx seems to have some odd combat bonuses, we might want to add ANY stat bonuses to this formation.
As someone who's played Cathay and wondered why the formation lock seems to be worse than just letting them fight normally, I was about to be INCREDIBLY surprised by that test before you revealed the switcheroo.
Similarly Kislev's mixed units that focus on melee come without the melee attack command locked on. They'll never get their charge bonus unless you change it or force click melee because they'll walk up then stop and then usually they don't even get a full volley shot off before they get engaged.
What I really find interesting is the steam post Creative Assembly put out about why it's taking them so long to fix things. They even made a diagram explaining it to us "non-developers". Essentially, they said that it's hard to fix because all of their code is interconnected and changing any one thing changes a million other things and it's like picking a single string out of a box of strings without touching any of the other strings. Now I'm no professional developer, but I did graduate university with a degree in Computer Science, and I'm pretty sure what they actually just said is that their entire codebase is a big gigantic mess and they have no idea what they're doing.
Uni assignments are very different from actual product development. Object, module, and even data dependencies are impossible to avoid in real product development.
It's a tad bit silly that letting your units blob up makes them better at holding the line. I notice that enemies tend to run right through cathayan melee infantry very easily and don't remember that being an issue for high elven spearmen and phoenix guard.
Not even Knocked over, just walked through. And the AI seems to be a lot more player like whether it actually engages with your unit. So if the AI doesn't want to take that fight, they just keep walking. Which is quite annoying if you're used to using single entities as front line units for ranged units especially if you're using Heroes, most Lords, and other small single entities.
@@shiwanabe That drives me insane. If AI big single entity unit want's to slap your mage in backline, it will do it, period. It will march through multiple fighting infantry units unaffected and proceed to slap mage till it's dead or routed, despite waves of reinforcements sent to help. But if I want do the same, I have to use forbidden 1000 Clicks Technique... and even such wrist devastating move can fail, because enemy mages run 10 meters away, while T1 half HP infantry draws full attention of my hero.
Which is incredibly annoying if you've ever played the 1st Rome. Because they copy pasted the phalanx formation but removed all the benefits that made phalanx actually useful. Like they didn't even bother using the Roman Unit AI which would have suited this far better, nah they had to copy paste the Phalanx but remove the reach bonuses and shield defensive buffs.
100% just a few hours of playing WH3 and you can already tell they focused purely on gimmicks that would help sell more copies, Rather than fix up the games foundations and make significant changes to the back end, futureproofing it for a few years of DLC. "But look guys, you can build towers now" Smh
@@Nadz203 sadly I can fix the whole thing and make the formation desireable with 1 simple patch. 1st 5% armor buff while in it. 2nd major leadership buff, maybe 50% from this formation, like launch day dwarves leadership. For those who don't know or remember, on launch day slayers were pointless to take because it was the difference of a unit fleeing when only 4 guys were left W/O lord nearby, vs unit staying and dying to the last man, but the rest of the Dwarves were just cheaper than the slayers.
this has been apparent in almost every total war I can think of. this ain't exclusive to warhammer, or even the newer ones. Napoleon and Empire ahd a plethora of useless stances that generally made the unit worse 10 times out of 10. Even juggernauts like med 2 aren't free from this. schiltron is useless unless you've intentionally gotten spearmen encircled, lance formation just kills your cav off faster, and unless you do a very specific chain of commands at the precise times, pikes just straight up don't work in the base game. So take off your blindfold and stop pretending wh3 introduces the issue of useless stances.
Actually what interrests me is the passive of Cathay infantry, when they hold still they actually get a good buff in their Defensive stats. So im kinda think thats the Main reason to hold the Units still. What makes it even more interresting that the passive buff dont do Well consider the fact that only 10 man Fight at max at the First place. So it seems Like it has its purpose but doesnt Work as intended. Thats Something to fix for Sure
It makes sense it's a defensive formation made to keep your rectangle shape where it is, to maintain the screen to the archers behind, not intended for attacking and will lose in an offensive situation compared to open formation
1) This should be the default for any unit except maybe some barbarian-type units like orcs. 2) This should be a benefit. 3) How did we come to a place where formations make your units perform worse in a real-time tactics game?
Cause it's both a complex simulation with multiple moving pieces and at the same time a gross simplification of real life. You're never gonna have every facet of it match what would happen in real life. I mean what is your suggestion to make it work? Isn't holding a formation inherently going to result in units that could be engaging in combat not doing so? Given the limitation of the simulation how do you make that not a detriment? I suppose the simplest solution would just be to give an arbitrary stat buff to units in formation but that's obviously not the ideal way it would work. Obviously the real question is why did they make this a mechanic, a default mechanic, that just clearly doesn't work. But it's both clear and understandable why this doesn't work.
@@noneofyourbusiness3288 Of course, instead of engaging your two brain cells to think about why this might happen, and what complications might make it this way and the billion other issues that have to be solved to create what has been created you just call the devs lazy. Bell end.
@@boozebeard9501 why does he or any other fan have to engage their two braincells to think of this much nuance for a shitty business practice of CA's? The formation is faulty because it loses both in holding and attacking situations so it is obviously bugged/half-assed. Why do you attack your fellow fan, just to lick CA's heels?
@@kurrymurry Cause I actually work in the games industry so both know what I'm talking about and know how hard the people work. You might see it as dunking on CA, the faceless corporation, but to me you are just talking shit about hard working people, on topics you don't know anything about.
Interesting I want to do some tests on this. I was surprised they even held for less time. I found out late in the game that high elves spearmen when not put in spread/spaghetti lines would hold significantly longer. I wonder if formation lock would be useful if not using spread/spaghetti lines and instead using a deeper formation.
The ability is intended to be used so that single entities don't cause an entire formation to cluster around them creating gaps in your infantry line that allows units to penetrate into your archers. It was something I hated that would happen in WH1 and 2. A line wouldn't maintain itself and would clump up around units creating gaps.
well this might fix the problem with Pikemen from the Southern Realms mod you had in Warhammer II I guess, where giving them an actual Pike wall ruined their ability to respond to single entities.
I guess Formation lock was supposed to be the equivalent of the Yari Wall in Shogun 2 but they nerved it into the ground because the Yari Wall was an absurdly strong mechanic which made the higher tier unit nearly obsolete
Oh I was about to start a cathay campaign, and love using T and chevron formations for guns. Good to know about, but it is weird to think we're adding mechanics that cause less melee units to attack, when that's exactly what limits their damage so. ESPECIALLY since models in the back of a unit seem so much more willing to continue ranged attacks in WH3 than in WH2.
One Cathay player to another, if you want guns, ally with Kislev or the Empire. Their handgunners are honestly better than the crane gunners or iron hail gunners IMO.
@@thethirdsicily4802 The cranes are OK but I find they generally underperform and they struggle once the enemy close the distance because of their slower fire rate, and they can't fight in melee worth a damn. Iron Hail gunners just don't have the range. Honestly, I think Streltsi and regular handgunners have better general performance and flexibility
The new total war games are a miserable dumpster fire, and CA management and gullible fandom is to blame. I didnt buy wh3. All im saying is, the guy wants spear walls, shield walls, well mods are the only way ure getting those.
I feel like formation lockings real use is ensuring you're able to take mass from a charge while bracing or counter charging. I've seen cav obliterated because soldiers don't blob after initial contact with the first horse and distribute the rest of the attacking mass evenly amongst the ranks. I'd like to see situations like that tested, since the are other comments with opposing anecdotes.
Units don't share mass every model has its own amount they interact individualy if the back row of a unit isn't touched they don't contribute to the row actually taking the charge there also a glitch where units with charge reflect still get the damage from the charging unit so its more optimal to counter charge large units take the charge like they should
Anybody reading up on this now: formation attack actually works better now. CA tweaked it to give some melee defense which seems to now make the difference in a fight.
Cathay is actually a defensive faction similar to Dwarves (using turtle-tactics), and most of their units are intended to brace/hold so that the enemy can't reach your Jade Crossbowmen or gunners/artillary by pushing through your formations. However, as it currently stands the bracing/charge-reflection is broken at launch and doesn't work fully as intended. Because if the mechanic was working as it should, it's supposed to be that Cathay units (which are mostly spears/anti-large) can maintain their bracing/charge-defense on individual models not engaged in combat. Meaning that even if you charge them with infantry, the models in the back row are actually still buffed against a charge. Meaning that the old tactic of using cheap infantry to break up a braced spear-unit and then just charging your cavalry straight through (negating the charge-defense of those units) shouldn't work on Cathay. So ideally if everything was working as intended. Cathay should be able to basically hold a chokepoint with spear units and then melt you down with missles/artillary, and trying to overwhelm them with cavalry/infantry rushing would be useless. Making them the hardest counter to factions like Lizardmen, Chaos, Norsca, and Beastmen. Forcing you to largely rely on either having better ranged units in terms of range (High Elves/Wood Elves/Skaven) or using a lot of monstrous entities.
One situation i have found where it actually helps (a lot) is against cavalry. without formation a lot of cavalry can just run right through the Battalion. But with it on, only one or two entities gets knocked out of the way and then the horsemen are stuck in the middle of the formation being attacked from all sides.
I don't think 1v1s is really a good test to this feature. From my perspective it's not there to make the unit last longer so much as it is to keep your unit in formation. It stops your units balling up around an enemy and opening potential holes in the line.or being rear charged as easily. You have a line that stays facing forwards and stays deployed out in the line you wanted which makes them far better for pinning down units for rear charges and rear fire. It also stops as much friendly fire landing on your own troops as they aren't 'entangled' with the enemy. You use it to enable your others forces to do their job easier, not to win 1V1s or to hold out for longer without support. I really think a 1v1 test against itself really doesn't test what the formation is actually for.
I've been thinking about this for a while and kept turning it off, but I wasn't sure if I was doing the right thing - thanks for confirming! Hope you keep up the great work your doing with your channel!
Well i'd say if you had a cheap meat shield that you wanted to hold the enemy at bay like how you showed, and let your ranged units do damage for longer it would pay off. a long line that gets burned down like a slow fuse and not as many units of yours blobbed so your archers can wreck em faster.
@@muscularclassrepresentativ5663 I misunderstood the original comment. I would still like to see further testing as it relates to missile units and formation holding. Perhaps Enticity did test different arrangements and missile types but only showed the relevant differences he found.
@@kadenb7258 The only time it's going to make a difference is giving gunpowder units lines of fire. And even then I don't think it's a good idea because the AI is very good at squeezing through gaps in your lines in 3, so if you just deploy a bunch of narrow columns it will walk right past them.
I could be way off here, but wouldn't formation lock be solely useful for ranged units so that they can stand and shoot without having to waste time repositioning at moving targets or flows of battle?
Wooow, I think this explains the issue people were seeing of multiple models dicking around instead of trying to get in the mix! It probably helps against cav charges or something so maybe turn it back on for your spearmen but obviously everyone else should have it off.
The number of times I forgot to turn this off for all my units and stared in confusion as my missile units ignored orders is way too fucking high. Can't imagine what it's like for newer players.
Very good to protect bowman, but be careful and don't let gap between your melee unit, because if an enemy rush your melee unit, the space between 2 of your unit will allow some enemy soldier and disturb your bowman
I think most of the units who have this get a (defensive) buff for not moving, and I assume this is to help them keep that bonus. It does not seem like the 10% damage resistance is worth it, though.
yeah I had also noticed something going on with cathay infantry, thanks for clearing it out. I usually unlocked it when sending my infantry in aggressively but good to know even when holding the line it's actually worse
Formation Attack would work if large monsters couldn't just barrel through 20 lines of pikes like a wall of spaghetti noodles. I think this is my biggest gripe with TWW3, infantry units made specifically to handle large enemies can't handle them because spear walls aren't a thing. A monster barreling towards a bracing 4 lines deep of halberds in formation should get impaled, stopped in its track and quickly surrounded and stuck there until some other unit can get them out.
Formations were useful in previous titles under certain situations where melee defence and shield needed to face a specific direction at all times and also prevent enemy units from going in between your unit. But with Warhammer, there's aoe damage and heavy mass and flanking everywhere and these formations just end up taking a lot of time trying to get back to their original position.
...nah, they were never really useful. tetsudo was really for show, lance formation never worked, schilltron did nothing, fire and advance in empire/napoleon made them legit worse. I will give you phalanx and square formation though. but not med 2 pike wall, as in base it straight up doesn't work without pulling of a specific command chain at precise times.
@@poyloos4834 Agree to disagree on the parts we disagree on. Phalanx / Roman disciplined formation was the heart Rome 1 defence. Schiltron / Pike formation + Guard mode was useful to defend chokepoints without routing in M2TW and especially with Stainless Steel. Hollow square or even firing by rank formation were super useful in Empire and Napoleon. Rome 2 testudo was useful for soaking up archer fire in the vanguard while shield wall and spear wall again was useful to defend chokepoints without routing. And in TW3K, most formations are undeniably useful if even only because of the hardcoded buffs for some of them.
so basically guard mode in Rome 1 total war. i rarely used it...mostly to prevent my missiles from chasing units that got out of their range, but sometimes to keep my spearmen in a tight formation vs cav. for inf its usually bad as your unit doesnt try to encircle the enemy.
I don't know why they didn't just add shield walls, testudos, pike walls etc into the game. This just seems like a bad way to implement an already (better) existing mechanic. I can see it being useful as a stopping force, but as i just saw they route and lose troops faster so even as a "lose damage but gain stopping power" thing it is useless. Large infantry and cav just walk right through any units formation or not (looking at you ogres), but that's a whole different discussion. CA just needs to implement shield walls, V formations, loose formations, different/swappable arrow types (not just for wood elves and elf artillery) etc back into Warhammer, i'm not sure why it wasn't brought in as a vanilla feature in the first game, it was my biggest hate about this whole series along with removing minor town battles (at least 3 reintroduced them). While i'm on this tangent they need to bring back all sorts of other mechanics, things from medieval and rome 1, and shogun such as but not limited to; siege, religion and vassalisation of other races etc, AND BRING BACK THE AMAZING SPEACHES GENERALS GAVE BACK IN THE DAY, not absolutely nothing or some little half assed insult. Don't get me wrong i enjoy the games (currently enjoying 2 more than 3 [300 hours - 60 hours]) but they TW games are getting dumber and dumber and watered down until all you have to do is point and click all your units into a moshpit and win before replenishing you whole army in one turn to do it again.
Damn bro finally someone reasonable who dosen't fall into the camp of OMG Warhammer 3 is the best game ever and does nothing wrong and all total war games other than medieval 2 are garbage.
@@outrageddeer2101 Anyone who legitimately thinks that is braindead lmao, my issue with it is that the game has factors and inspriation from all cultures and periods in time, and there are TW games that reflect those things and implement amazing gameplay and mechanics. However TWWH has been lacking them, and despite WH2 and 3 adding some in, it's still not even close to being as good as some other titles purely and simply because of the absolute lack of mechanics those games had that this one does not for some unknown reason.
This goes back to the original Rome total war with Pike Formations. Pikes get shredded if you try to keep formation when they get attacked from a flank
You've posted that, if I recall correctly, in TW:W2 ranges units can range attack while defending in melee if you click to range attack that unit; is it a thing in warhammer 3? Does this thing do anything interesting to it? Can't really test it since I'm consumed by elden ring at the moment
Only cathay has this And its probably some kind of experimental feature But yes, all of the time i was stunned at how my troops refused to envelop the enemy Making my antilarge units lose against large units because they were only fighting 1v1s
If you switch off formation lock once the units are engaged will they continue to fight normally? I find formation lock useful for sending a line of units into battle with one click. Without formation lock the entire line will try to attack whichever enemy unit you click on. With formation lock they will advance and each unit will attack the enemy directly in front of them.
Oh that may actually be a good reason for it, because far as I know yeah, once that is turned off thye should return to normal fighting, at least that seems to be the case here.
the main reason I see use for it is against the AI when a SEM charges your line, the units don't unbrace and attack it, this means when the waves of infantry clash with your line it remains intact so there isn't gaps, after that in many cases then it's best to turn it off yeah
Well, you apply a formation strategy in a context it was not designed for and then wonder why it doesn't work. Its like when you put units in loose formation and wonder why they don't survive a cavalry charge, or apply a stand ground command and then get confused when the enemy snipes you from a distance. This is a valuable addition that you just failed to make proper use of. I had multiple situations in TWW where I was annoyed that a unit I assigned to hold a tight spot or guard a missile formation would break its formation and hence leave a hole in the barricade or leave flanks of my missile infantry exposed. This command would have helped in those situations. In general I don't expect my units to always win or tie a 1n1 vs itself, but to fulfill a tactical role. Its actually a sad trend with many strategy games that they get dumbed down for people like you who don't apply their intelligence to find usecases for useful features.
I only noticed this terrible feature the moment my archers got engaged by the enemy frontline, because my melee troops refused to block them. Needless to say it stayed deactivated since then. I always wonder why no one of CAs QA guys ever do simple tests, like in your video.
Well firstly, you have no way of knowing whether CA know about this already and just didn't have time to fix it and further more for every bug or problem you see and think "how did they miss that", just remember the thousands of bugs and glitches you don't see cause they already found and fixed them...
@@boozebeard9501 Fair enough. I get that you can't find every little mistake and bug immediately. However CA is a fairly large studio, and working on this game since Warhammer II in 2017 in probably various team sizes. Plus the game is nothing new or groundbreaking in comparison to it's predecessor. In fact the "formation attack" feature is one of the really few changes to the actual battle mechanics. There is just no logical and practical reason to put a new battle feature in the game (and have it active as a preset), that worsens you experience in game. Not to speak of the general trend to put out unfinished games in the industry in general.
how does it work in chokepoints? normally holding position is about preventing enemies from forcing thiere way past a disadvantageous position which is pretty common in sieges. on by default is a pain but having it as an option is a net benefit and one i hope the dwarves will get in immortal empires
What about ranged units? do they have formation attack as well? I suppose it would be helpfull, considering that units now can shoot while in melee, so most of the models would still be able to fire, instead of mooving into melee
The only reason I'd use it, is if I want my unit to last as long as possible... Because fewer units fight. So fewer units take damage... if you form as a column
It actually makes them worse at holding since the models are more separated it takes more time for them to reform so 2 enemies can beat on 1 of yours making them die faster its not some huge difference but it makes them slightly worse for no reason
Applied your logic incorrectly here, the units that don't attack are leaving their friends that *do* attack out to dry, so you drop models faster since more of your units find themselves in 1v3 or 1v4 situations, even if you have infantry units of the same size it's like every fight your soldiers are making themselves feel outnumbered.
I just realised this was a thing, I thought it was a bug when a bunch of my celestial guard were in the thick of the battle but still standing there like they are bracing for something… they really need to work on whatever this formation is… maybe give units in the formation a melee defence buff or something
I thought the idea of formation lock was to help keep multiple units in better formation, to help keep your harmony bonuses active, sort of like a tuned version of locked groups that would function without being disrupted by terrain, but if this is all it does, no improved resistance to pull through from chariots/cavalry or massive units, then yeah, it's kinda junk.
It actually makes them worse at stoping large units cause they try to stay in formation instead of jumping on them so fewer model's are there to block the large units
The way they've implemented formation locks is half-baked as fuck, how hard is it to have 2 or 3 QA guys that play a few rounds every time they implement a new mechanic like this to see if it functions properly. Sometimes it really does feel like they just add shit to the game and implement it with literally ZERO play experience to see if it even works, just shit in the bowl and ship it to live where we all bitch that the obviously broken stuff is obviously broken.
And here was me thinking Cathay just sucked. My jade warriors could barely handle basic savage orcs and turns out this junk button has been active the whole time.
Is formation lock good for holding streets in seiges or something still trying to figure out why it's there. Or is it meant to help keep harmony active?
The rule of thump is: - On offense: Turn OFF Formation Lock - On defense: Leave it ON, because your units will keep formation, thus leaving fewer gaps for enemy's fast attacks (Dogs, Cavs) to sneak through and compromise your ranged units.
I'm currently using a comb formation with kossar units. Or I guess a repeated U formation where my linel ooks like UUUUUUU The bottom of the U can fire more and if the enemy blobs up in the U I just blast them with some magic.
Yeah told this problem the momet they showcased it. And it was a passive at ifrst so you couldnt turn it off. Enemy surrounds you so easily you lose hard.
