"Attack Rearmost"

[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".

[Norfleet]

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 ]

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
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.

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.

[major^3]

Originally posted by Arryn:
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... [/QB]

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.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Arryn:
What surprises me is the lack of any sort of morale penalty for troops assigned to a leader when that leader dies.

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 ]

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
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.

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 ...