still at loss in understanding this...

[Pocus]

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pocus:
mmh, and so do you think that its normal that half of the group (the unengaged part) sit iddly in the rear of the formation (with 3 javelins still unused), and watch their comrades die in melee, without using their javelin?

Maybe not "normal" (as in real life), but if their comrades are meleing unit F while the whole squad was ordered to fire at S, and S is out of range, it's certainly understandable - from a programmatic POV.

---

they had hold and attack closest. In this case F, unless closest is determined initially and not recomputed, but I dont even want to take into account this stupid possibility.

Friendly fire fear is certainly not a possibility, as the algorithm presiding it will still order a whole host of crossbowmen to fire on a single enemy unit just close to your men. PDF gave a good example, and I have also one from a Last turn. 25 Hoburgs Xbow men (mine) firing against a single enemy (a light inf), which happen to be adjacent to 6 abysian infantries... Dont tell me that the friendly fire algo is smart here.

[Arralen]

Originally posted by Pocus:
mmh, and so do you think that its normal that half of the group (the unengaged part) sit iddly in the rear of the formation (with 3 javelins still unused), and watch their comrades die in melee, without using their javelin? ... They are in range yes, they have javelins. They dont use it. They wait, and wait and wait. If the enemy finally rout, the whole formation resume the pursuit, and can fire (somehow). Otherwise they just fill the ranks of the killed. Dont make sense.

Sureprisingly, it does:
As soon as the whole squad is engaged in melee, they won't switch back to the "fire" order again, unless the enemy routes or is whiped out (is there any other way to become unengaged?)

I think I have seen 1/2 squads firing from the 2nd line from time to time in DOM1, but I'm not shure. I can't recall seeing this in DOM2, though. So if it was "in", the devs may have removed the possiblity.

A.

[PhilD]

Originally posted by Pocus:
they had hold and attack closest. In this case F, unless closest is determined initially and not recomputed, but I dont even want to take into account this stupid possibility.

You mean you don't believe the "closest" is determined at the start of the fight? It's pretty clear to me that it is for pure "Attack closest" orders, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were the case for "Hold and attack".

The orders system has very little flexibility; I'm perpetually amazed that some people manage to get a measure of control in their battles. I typically don't, unless I'm using long-range missile troops positioned at the end of the battlefield...

[PvK]

Originally posted by PhilD:

... Obviously, it's hard for the AI to decide when something it worth the risk of friendly fire.

I'd understand the request for "don't fire at a routing enemy if there are friendly units within X squares", but in what you're describing, Raterik had technically not routed the enemy yet, so his standing orders of "fire at the bastards until they rout" were still good. From what I've heard of the Ulmish military code, disobeying orders can get you in no end of trouble, but there's no provisions for accidental friendly fire - they were playing smart...

Funny!

However, the request is not only that archers shouldn't fire at routing enemies when there are friendlies nearby, it's simply that no ranged unit should risk friendly fire (except perhaps in cases of extremely low risk) even against non-routing enemies. Simply put, ranged units should avoid firing at targets that risk hitting their own men. Err on the side of caution!

PvK

[ January 25, 2004, 20:48: Message edited by: PvK ]

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Pocus:
Friendly fire fear is certainly not a possibility, as the algorithm presiding it will still order a whole host of crossbowmen to fire on a single enemy unit just close to your men.

If you refuse to accept what the dev's have said on the topic, then you aren't going to get much of an answer now, are you. AI avoiding friendly fire.

[apoger]

Anytime you mix shooters and non-shooters, the shooters won't shoot. You must split them up.

[Raging Idiot]

By splitting them up do you mean separate commanders or separate squads?

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Raging Idiot:
By splitting them up do you mean separate commanders or separate squads?

separate squads