Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

Yes, Fire Commanders is unrealistic and very unbalanced. But Attack Rear is both realistic and can be defended against. Anyone who thinks it's too hard to defend against Attack Rear either lacks imagination or doesn't "understand the game mechanics".

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

I would also think that "Kill the Mages" would be a fairly big staple of military tactics in a fantasy world, given that most common folk are likely terrified of what they can do if not killed, and the mages tend to make their presence very noticeable, as this is where all the flashy lights come from. As we in the military say, "Tracers work both ways."

It'd also be pretty neat if there was a morale boost for the commander being in front of his men, or engaged in battle.

[ March 16, 2004, 03:42: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What surprises me is the lack of any sort of morale penalty for troops assigned to a leader when that leader dies. The game mechanic is that the troops continue to fight as long as at least one commander remains alive, but there should be morale checks and/or penalties for having your immediate leaders offed. At the very least it represents momentary confusion as command is transferred to someone else.

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">However, too much emphasis on morale and the game gets the quality of Medieval:Total War, where your entire army can get routed, even if its winning, by the death of the commander. Morale in the game is fine.

As far as the battle system goes, it has its bugs but i have grown accustomed to them. If attack rear worked like that at all times, armies would ahve to invest greatly in bodyguards for its mages, archers, and commanders, introducing even more micromanagement, planning, and slowing gameplay down. Now, all that can be fun and Dom2 isnt exactly a fast game, but slowing it down too much can be detrimental.

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There's one thing to be considered: In the heat of a swirling melee, it's entirely possible that the unit is actually unaware of the death until the battle is over, or all leaders are lost: In ancient warfare, orders were commonly given by drums, horns, or flags, with the individual soldier not having clear contact with any given commander, so the switch in command could very well occur transparently, if a commander that "takes over" is standing next to the now-deceased, as was often the case. If your commander happened to be leading by charging into the fray with his men, it was not uncommon for him to be discovered to be KIA only after the battle was over! Many kings and generals died in such a manner, dying in a battle that their army won. If anything, the rout of an army after the leaders are dead should be randomly delayed and scattered intermittently across squads, as they realize their leader is dead, rather than instantaneous.

This actually happens in M:TW: I've had my general killed in action, but the troops, despite the morale hit, or perhaps obliviousness due to being on the other side of the field, are unaware of this and win anyway.

[ March 16, 2004, 06:09: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I like the idea of random delay by squads. It would certainly give the AI more of a fighting chance.

BTW, in Dom I have seen a similar situation to what you saw in M:TW. I had an army led by a single leader "win" a province after the leader was killed because the indies routed off the field faster than my army did. Sometimes it's useful to have slow troops ...

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

Hm, maybe we should add that "Attack Archers" too has it flaws. It seems that every unit with a long range weapon counts as Archers, including infantry with throwing weapons.

So, I just have to put some of them in front of my army to make sure my real archers survive.

This also bothers my mages, especially my pretender. Even though there are no real archers on the field, javelin troops will cause him to cast air shield, using one precious turn he could use to bLast them with something useful.

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

I have also had trouble getting squads to attack the rear of the battlefield at times.

I did observe some interesting things Last night, however, in a new game I started playing the Niefelheim theme of Jotunheim. One battle, I had all of my melee troops, spearmen and axemen, set to attack closest and a squad of woodsmen (sacred and blessed by my prophet) set at the top to attack rear and a squad of my winter wolves set to hold and attack rear.

My squad of woodmen avoided the clash in the middle of the field and went straight to the back. My winter wolves, after waiting a few turns, ran right through the middle of the battlefield and continued on straight to the back, completely ignoring the battle. This surprised me as many times in the past, and as many here have observed, normally an attack rear squad will join in the melee in the middle if they are near.

In my past game playing Arco, I would use my heavy cavalry to attack rear and they seemed to have much more trouble actually getting to the rear and would join in on the flanks in the middle more often than not.

I just looked up a little here and I am wondering if it has something to do with morale. It appears the winter wolves have a 50 morale, and that may explain why they held orders well and attacked the rear alone. Also, my jotun woodsmen (the sacred troops) were blessed giving them 16 morale (13 +3) if I recall correctly, which allowed them the same bravery to attack alone. I suppose this may have some real merit considering it would probably take a high morale to leave the rest of your army and march on alone against a squad in the rear.

Anyway, these are just some random observations I have had this week. They may or may not mean anything http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ok, so call it "Attack Flank".

Quote:

The current method may be excusable, and it's a stretch at that, for ground troops, but it by no means is justified for flying troops. They should be able to go to the very rear no matter where you place them at the start of a battle. For flyers to get "distracted" is hogwash.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Is it? The AI is allowed to use it's assessment of whom specifically attack based on circumstances. I've been using fliers (holding and then) attacking rear extensively, and didn't have any complaints about their choices.

Quote:

... As for defending against a "more effective" rear attack, that's what "guard commander" is for. If someone needs more defense in special situations (assassinations), then they can make Rings of Warning. If their defenders aren't adequate, they need to summon/hire better guard troops. Nerfing features is never a good solution to anything.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, guard commander is to guard a commander. A battle line is supposed to prevent outflanking, as well as engage the enemy line. It'd be silly to have an "Attack Rear" order that could get past the enemy main line any better than the current one can. If the current "Attack Rear" AI is made more effective at sneaking past enemy main line troops, then the main line troop AI should be better at not just engaging, but at intercepting these units.

In the current implementation Groups on the flanks with attack closest orders accomplish reasonable line security, and the behavior of Attack Rear (Attack Flank) helps this by not being too single-minded. The current system works just fine. If you really want to get someone through to the enemy rear, you can have as good a chance as you should be able to by using multiple Groups on attack rear and/or some on attack archers.

PvK