"Attack Rearmost"

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Arryn:
PvK, effectiveness is not a valid reason for not fixing a command that fails to do what it is meant to do if you read that command in plain English. Attack rear almost never actually attacks the rear.

I'm sorry, Arryn, but you are not the ultimate authority on how the game should work. The command works fine, your units will normally attack the rear of your enemy troops if you use them properly, and to make it any more useful would make it unbalancing.

That, alone, is reason enough to fix it. Else rename the damn command to reflect how it actually works. 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.

How are ground troops supposed to be able to tell where the rear of an enemy army is? There's no conceivable way that they could manage that without travelling around the flanks beforehand. There's no information on how high fliers can actually travel, since they get tired after only a short amount of time, and can't fly long distances over water. Fliers already attack the rear of the squad they target, so I see no problem with the command. And yes, balance is _always_ a good reason to limit something.

As for defending against a "more effective" rear attack, that's what "guard commander" is for. If someone needs more defense, then they can make Rings of Warning.

Rings of warning have no effect on guards during battle. I suggest that you learn more about the game mechanics before stating how they should work. If you want to return to Dominion 1's attack commanders and attack mages order system, then I suggest you play Dominions 1. After all, you think it's a good thing for every nation to need a staff of storms to keep their leaders from being wiped out on the first turn by fliers, and their mages from arrows.

[ March 16, 2004, 02:06: Message edited by: Graeme Dice ]

[Arryn]

Graeme, thanks for the flamebait "you are not the ultimate authority on how the game should work". You do not need to be insulting to disagree or make a point. I'll simply respond that neither are you. Take your own advice.

"How are ground troops supposed to be able to tell where the rear of an enemy army is?" was already answered by Norfleet. I suggest you read his post.

"Rings of warning have no effect on guards during battle. I suggest that you learn more about the game mechanics before stating how they should work." Yet more insults. Thank you. Last refuge of those who are ill-prepared to defend their views or have their own axes to grind. I try not to confuse any liking or disliking of someone with what they have to say. If I did, then I'd always ignore you. Rings do have an effect. They allow more guards against assassinations, which is a special sort of battle, the type that would otherwise not allow you to have more than 5 defenders. In a regular battle, you can of course have more than 5 defenders. I understand the mechanics just fine. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of *context*, or are simply looking for excuses to nitpick and insult me. Your motives are questionable, at best.

EDIT: "After all, you think it's a good thing for every nation to need a staff of storms to keep their leaders from being wiped out on the first turn by fliers, and their mages from arrows." was never said by me. Now you're going so far as to put someone else's words in my mouth.

[ March 16, 2004, 02:17: Message edited by: Arryn ]

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Graeme, thanks for the flamebait "you are not the ultimate authority on how the game should work". You do not need to be insulting to disagree or make a point. I'll simply respond that neither are you. Take your own advice.

I'm not the one who posted a poll where you insulted the devs by telling them that you know what the game needs more than they do. I'm quite fed up with your attitude and constant harping about the battle AI. It mostly indicates your lack of understanding about game mechanics.

"How are ground troops supposed to be able to tell where the rear of an enemy army is?" was already answered by Norfleet. I suggest you read his post.

His post says absolutely nothing about how an infantry unit is supposed to tell where the rear of an enemy army is. Why don't you answer the question?

"Rings of warning have no effect on guards during battle. I suggest that you learn more about the game mechanics before stating how they should work." Yet more insults. Thank you. Last refuge of those who are ill-prepared to defend their views or have their own axes to grind. I try not to confuse any liking or disliking of someone with what they have to say. If I did, then I'd always ignore you.

Rings of warning _do not_ have an effect in a general battle situation, and your statement that they would help defense is going to do nothing more than confuse people into thinking that they might. I feel quite justified in insulting you, especially after your recent tirade towards Argitoth, and your almost constant whinging about battle AI.

Rings do have an effect. They allow more guards against assassinations, which is a special sort of battle, the type that would otherwise not allow you to have more than 5 defenders.

Please explain to me how that is at all relevant to the issue at hand, which is "attack rearmost", not "assasinations".

In a regular battle, you can of course have more than 5 defenders. I understand the mechanics just fine. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of *context*, or are simply looking for excuses to nitpick and insult me. Your motives are questionable, at best.

Please explain to me how I was supposed to know that you were talking about assasinations, especially when the entire thread is about general melee. As for your complaints about my motives, I suggest you go back and check out your Last poll.

[Norfleet]

I use attack rearmost with wing troops, whether cavalry or infantry: I like a strong center block with one or more wings to close around my opponent as my center pins him down in combat like pincers. Cavalry can be a good choice for one of the wings, as they can ride down the enemy as they try to flee and slaughter them. No mercy!

The fact remains, however, that the Attack Rear command is horribly misnamed, as its name does not, in any way, match its observed function. It doesn't even attack the rear of the first squad, it simply attacks their flank! If it at least attacked the REAR of the squad, to cut them off from retreating, that alone would make it a sufficient match for its claimed functionality.

[ March 16, 2004, 02:59: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
His post says absolutely nothing about how an infantry unit is supposed to tell where the rear of an enemy army is. Why don't you answer the question?

That's easy: You go forwards until you can't see anyone. It's not like it is with archers, who are rooted to the spot and fire in the general direction of the enemy (and it shows). Assuming that visibility is not horribly impaired, it is not all that difficult to realize that there is nobody in front of you, and that you are now behind your enemies and can turn around and attack somebody. It's possible you might miss a squad if they're exceptionally well hidden and/or small, but at least you'll be attacking somebody in the back!

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

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by PvK:
The current system keeps it from being too easy to successfully walk around the enemy lines. If Attack Rearmost were made more effective, then the AI should also be given more effective ability to intercept flankers. Which would be a wash. Attack rear already works about as well as it should, IMO.

It's not all that hard to intercept flankers: A rear guard on attack cavalry will attempt to intercept the most likely unit class attempting to this: cavalry. A squad on "guard commander" will hold its ground and protect your commander pack against pesky fliers and anything that breaks through. If anything, they should have kept "attack commanders" from Dominions 1. Fire Commanders was probably too good, considering that an archer in the back of the field probably wouldn't be able to clearly make them out, but certainly it should exist for units that can move in for better ID.

[Arryn]

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".