new orders planned?

[Arryn]

But still no such thing as attack & hold? For when the ammo runs out.

[Kristoffer O]

> the loophole you describe already exists IMO :
this is not different from 2 spellcasters which have orders to cast spells, and are each in a corner of the battlefield. Because troops bodyguards a leader, which is either a melee leader (at maximum, he will move after the 5 rounds of forced you gave to him), or a spell caster, and we are back to the first example.

A less common occurence. If this option was availabe people would perhaps use it causing booring and silly battle replays. Mages are rarely alone, they are to vulnerable, and thus there is less of a problem regarding mages.

> But my point was to find a fix for missiles units who are advancing (and have their butts handed on a plate) against the enemy, because they have no targets in range. If you were to add an order which is 'fire, or hold if nothing in range', then this would alleviate the problem described.

Alleviate? Wouldn't they stand idly if there was no one in range?

Is the problem that archers advance to their own death when their infantry friends hold their positions according to their orders?

> Thank you for taking the time to give a reasoning for the negative answer, anyway.

> For the first point, its a bit sad to hear that you wont add it. It was discussed before the release of dom2, and I remember either Daynarr of Psitticine saying it was to be implemented rather soon.

Other stuff, mostly improved modding, has gotten the upper hand. Now you will be able to disable your old time enemy Magic Duel

[Kristoffer O]

Originally posted by Arryn:
But still no such thing as attack & hold? For when the ammo runs out.

Why would you want to attack and hold?

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Why would you want to attack and hold?

I mistyped it. I meant "fire and hold". Sorry.

[Kristoffer O]

Originally posted by Arryn:
I mistyped it. I meant "fire and hold". Sorry.

Then the armies would never clash, provided there was only archers in the battle. Retreat would be better than hold.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Then the armies would never clash, provided there was only archers in the battle. Retreat would be better than hold.

Which would be fine, if you then "fix" the game so that units which retreat remain in the same province if the rest of your army wins the battle. An alternative is that if a command like "fire & hold" is ordered, the game checks to see if there are only archers present, and if so, then forces a retreat. Whichever way is easier to implement. The intent is that your archers

- do not charge into melee after running out of ammo and,
- do not retreat into another province if you win the battle.

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
There is a new function in hold and attack. Missile units will fire during hold and then attack.

Yay! That's a big improvement, especially for Tien Chi heavy cavalry! If the hold time was variable - or perhaps just offering two possibilities, "Hold 2 turns and attack" and "Hold 5 turns and attack", TC heavy cavs would be worth building.

If "Fire and Flee" could be modified to allow firing until the enemy is 1 turn away - or even until a unit engages in melee - archers and javelin units could be used for skirmishes and raids...

Originally posted by Arryn:
I meant "fire and hold". Sorry.

This would be great! Though actually, "Fire or Hold" would be best. If an enemy is in range, they fire until out of ammo; if no enemy is in range or once ammo runs out, they STAY IN POSITION, LIKE TRAINED ARCHERS IN AN ARMY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO!!!

If stalemate-avoidance is really crucial (I don't think it is), an exception could be hard-coded so that in any battle, if no units move or fire on either side for 10 turns (eg 2 Groups of archers waiting for the other group to move), all orders get deleted.

PLEASE!!! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!

-Cherry

[ February 10, 2004, 18:13: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]