new orders planned?

[Zapmeister]

Yes. By all means have the scattering behaviour for routing units. But units that deliberately retreat by any mechanism would and should stick together.

[Coffeedragon]

Originally posted by st.patrik:
'fire and flee' is broken.

Broken is usually understood to mean heavily over-powered. Fire and Flee is not broken, just pretty well useless.

[ February 11, 2004, 01:12: Message edited by: Coffeedragon ]

[st.patrik]

Originally posted by Coffeedragon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by st.patrik:
'fire and flee' is broken.

Broken is usually understood to mean heavily over-powered. Fire and Flee is not broken, just pretty well useless.

---

I guess I meant broken more in the typical language sense and less in the computer-game-slang sense.

[johan osterman]

Originally posted by st.patrik:
I don't mean to be rude, but I think that this is a bit ridiculous. I mean, on the one hand you avoid the very rare occurence of all troops being ordered to refrain from melee, and on the other you make missile troops on 'guard commander' totally worthless. It seems really obvious which of these is the most important. Plus which it has been pointed out that there is an allowance for a battle ending which would be in stalemate otherwise.

Though I gather that the obvious conclusion in your mind is that it is more important for bodyguards to fire than it is to avoid staredwons, it should be clear that illwinter does not share this belief, obviously making it non obvious which one of the two is more important.

'Hold and Attack' orders allowing firing of missile weapons is (on the other hand) good news.

The thing that really gets me though is the 'fire and flee' command. As it is skirmishing is impossible, because your army of skirmishers will scatter to any adjacent provinces, inevitably meaning some are without commanders and cannot be regrouped. With all respect to Illwinter for an awesome game I must say that 'fire and flee' is broken. The change in 'Hold and Attack' doesn't help you skirmish, because the whole point is never to come to melee. Please please Illwinter make skirmishing possible - if you do it will change my style of play, and consequently the nations I play, considerably.

This is a different issue, and it hasn't been implemented for the usual reasons.

[Pocus]

Originally posted by Daynarr:
KO : {There is a new function in hold and attack}

This change is directed toward cavalry units. They will weaken enemy army that approaches and then charge into them. Makes those cavalry with bows actually useful. Why would you give your normal archers "Hold and Attack" order anyway?

indeed, if (as it is now) archers on hold&attacks dont use their bow after the initial hold, then it is still useless for them.

So to summarize we have a new hold&attack implementation, where dual missile/melee units will be able to fire, then charge to melee.

What is still missing is a hold+/fire

hold+ : same behavior than in the new hold/attack, that is hold if nothing in range, or fire missile weapons.
fire : same behavior as of now, that is, if nothing is in range move, otherwise fire.

Then archers would at Last be able to behave *somehow* historically. As of now we have our archers Groups which move to get in range of the enemy, with the usual problem of having them stomped by advancing enemy infantry.

-------------------------------------

allowing BG to fire their missile weapons:
I think its a non issue too, and I concur that its more annoying to not have this problem fixed, that to have in rare occurences 2 armies iddle, with the attacker retreating when the max number of round is elapsed. In fact where is the problem? That we will have to watch a replay where nothing happen during 30 rounds, once every one hundred battles??? Is it a so horrible prospect that IW prefer to stand adamant (& alone) in his belief?

[Pocus]

to add some water to the mill (a french expression...) about why I (we...) think that 2 armies with only archers on BG will be a very rare occurence...

We know that if an army has only BG, then as soon as one loss is incured, the whole army rout. So in essence, no player will ever dare to do that, except if he dont knows about the rule... => BG with missile firing ability is even less a problem that we all think of.

I really urge IW to reconsider their position. It dont makes sense to refuse fixing this big loophole for a reason so weak, argument wise.

[Kristoffer O]

Originally posted by Pocus:
I really urge IW to reconsider their position. It dont makes sense to refuse fixing this big loophole for a reason so weak, argument wise.

OK

(that was not a promise, just an OK on your thoughts)