|
|
|
 |

March 16th, 2004, 04:56 AM
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,425
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: "Attack Rearmost"
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 ]
|

March 16th, 2004, 05:02 AM
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,425
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: "Attack Rearmost"
Quote:
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 ]
|

March 16th, 2004, 05:08 AM
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,425
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: "Attack Rearmost"
Quote:
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.
|

March 16th, 2004, 05:23 AM
|
 |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: twilight zone
Posts: 2,247
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: "Attack Rearmost"
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".
|

March 16th, 2004, 05:40 AM
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,425
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: "Attack Rearmost"
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 ]
|

March 16th, 2004, 06:00 AM
|
 |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: twilight zone
Posts: 2,247
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: "Attack Rearmost"
Quote:
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.
|

March 16th, 2004, 08:04 AM
|
Private
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 25
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: "Attack Rearmost"
Quote:
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.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|