[Saber Cherry]

Full-featured formations would take a lot of work, of course. However, I think that 2 small changes could add a substantial amount of control and flexibility, for minimal development effort, minimal army-screen micromanagement, without breaking the AI.

The changes:

1) A "Tight" versus "Loose" toggle for each group.

Tight: Default. Like Dom I, units are packed as close as size allows; e.g., 5 hobbits, 3 humans, 2 horses, or 1 troll per square.

Loose: Units are packed less tightly. The number per square is max/2, rounded up. Examples include 3 hobbits, 2 humans, 1 horse, or 1 troll per square.

2) "Square" versus "Wide" toggle for each group.

Square: Default. Like Dom I, the group is shaped like a square on the map.

Wide: The group forms a 2x1 rectangle, 2 tall by 1 wide. In other words, the group shows a wider face to the enemy, but is not as deep.

I think that adding both of these would allow players to better utilize - and increase the strategic differences between - heavy/light troops, cavalry/infantry, and ranged/melee units. Furthermore, it would allow easier and more flexible deployment. Currently, you can achieve both of these effects - mostly - by breaking your army into lots of tiny units. In other words, you can make a "loose-ish" formation by placing units in 4 adjacent Groups rather than a single group, and you can make a "wide-ish" formation by placing 2 Groups vertically adjacent. Both of these are tedious, imprecise, disrupt AI targetting algorithms more than the formations would, and require constant rebalancing after each battle to keep the same number of troops in each sub-group. Furthermore, split subGroups rout very easily compared to large Groups.

This does not, of course, give the "Formations or Bust" party what it wants, but I think it would be a quick and easy way to increase battlefield control while reducing micromanagement. Thoughts?

-Cherry