Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

Just to be clear up-front: I love Dom2!! So please don't take my suggestions as gripes. I also suspect that these ideas have crossed the developers minds, so maybe just count these as "votes" for raising the priority on any of these ideas that are deemed to be good.

There are currently only four things that "frustrate" me at times while playing:

1) Load game. This is a minor one since there is an easy work around. I can obviously back-up my .trn and ftherlnd files each turn before hosting but it would be SO nice to have a "revert" feature to undo the Last turn. For me, if the AI does a great move and rolls me back I have no problem with this.

The problem is that there can be 100s of orders to give before hitting host and if I stupidly forget to, say, take my 10 full units of Werewolves/wolves out of sneak during a castle siege and therefore kiss my entire "big stack" goodbye, it is really a pain in the neck.

I just find it tedious to do the back-ups over and over but it is even more tedious to throw a game away due to forgetting a single important and trivial chore.

2) Target switching. This was talked about in another thread. In that thread it was noted that when a faster unit closes on a unit that if firing the firing unit won't switch to the newly close unit but instead keeps trying to attack the unit that was closest at the time the battle started.

I do find that annoying, but even more annoying, and similarly, I really hate when a huge unit of mine breaks a small and fast one early in the battle and then tries to pursue it all the way off the board instead of changing targets.

This should be very easy to fix in that it could just, maybe, pick a random number between 0 and 3 and pursue for that many rounds then switch to the closest target at that point.

3) Starting placement. This is minorly annoying in single player games, but would be TOTALLY annoying in a multi-player game (haven't done one yet).

As is often the case in these sorts of games, being in a corner is a huge advantage compared with being surrounded by enemies. Yes, many features help like aquatic races, wrap-around maps, and the fact that one often starts near an "edge".

STILL, while I haven't played with the map editor enough to know if it is possible, or if this is already implemented on maps, but it would be GREAT to for the map designers to specify where the players can and cannot start.

I'd feel very uncomfortable starting a large MP game if I had started in some of the positions that I've been placed on the Aran map (still playing it since I like smaller maps even after my copy of the game arrived).

I mean, I'd basically resign if I was surrounded by enemies knowing that I was at about a 50% disadvantage to those starting on edges or corners. And, I'd feel terrible about resigning having promised to play.

All I know for sure is that, on that map at least, I can predict how hard the game will be nearly immediately based on my map placement and I'd hope that it would be skill rather than luck that determine game outcomes.

The rest of the many luck factors I have no real problem with. The luck setting helps enough, along with lucky enchantments, that if a player fears unlucky events and such there is at least a recourse that they have to help protect them.

4) Firing at enemy commanders. Yes, it is true, the AI is targetting my commanders with missle fire in very unrealistic ways. I saw another thread regarding the fact that they AI might still be doing this since it was a feature in Dom1 (if I understood the post correctly).

Well, the upshot of this problem is having a huge impact on my game. So many times a large group of AI controlled crossbow troops are given the order to fire at my commanders that, practically speaking, there is no way for me to survive these battles apart from given 10 Air and blessing them or spending all of my resources creating etherial/lucky/armor items for ALL of my commanders.

This drastically reduces the flexibility of the game since I'd love to explore the vast other number of possibilities that Dom2 offers!


That's it! Pretty short list for such a complex game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Thanks for listening and happy gaming!!

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Have you tried moving your commanders to the far back of the field, rather than having them behind the troops at the front line? Works well for me. The only thing that can target my commanders that far back are spells, and the AI tends to prefer hitting troops that are closer.

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">OF COURSE! My commanders are always kissing the back wall.

I had several cases in my Last game where Pythium won battles that I had probably double the number (and power) of troops by moving about 20 Xbows up until they could hit my main commander and raked it over and over.

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

That's good news for me. The computer is inept as far as firing on my commanders http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Maybe you just got unlucky.

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, I also find it annoying when my heavy-hitter spends his time chasing a single routing militia off the back of the field rather than helping the rest of my guys who are getting their butt kicked.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Or just code it so that when an enemy unit is routing, if any are still non-routing, switch to them, otherwise continue pursuit. It's common sense really. For example, you and 5 friends are (god forbid) in a street fight with 6 opponents. Even matchup. You hit one guy in the nose, and he runs away. Would you chase after him, or help your friends deal with the remaining ones? Giving chase to routing opponents while the rest of your army is still engaged in combat is not a reasonable (or logical) combat tactic.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, I believe you can specify either exact provinces or have it choose from several that you designate as starting provinces.

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I thought that was the case for a while Zen. Then I had the following situation occur.

The computer had a unit of ONE crossbow troop. I had 6 commanders on the field. By chance, the one crossbow guy was left unharried in a huge and important battle.

What did that guy do the ENTIRE battle? He shot at my MAIN commander over and over (about 6 time) and finally killed him thereby winning.

No way was that luck. My commander was surrounded by about 20 units and was also summoning skeletons by the bushel.

Also, Kriss or Johan did confirm that he thought this might be the case in another thread (I can dig the quote up if you want).

So, YES, I think you are just getting lucky or maybe it is Pythium specific somehow.

[ January 29, 2004, 03:42: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Then split your forces and be sure the one to the side of the field has orders to target enemy archers. The center force should then engage the enemy infantry, while the side force will go look for those pesky archer types. Archers tend to have low morale so they should rout quickly and your problem will then be over. This tactic should work even better if the archer-hunters have their own leader with a horror helm or other such fear-inducing item or ability.

If you outnumber (and outpower) your foe there's little reason why you should allow the enemy archers to get free shots at your leaders. If you engage the archers, they'll be too busy to shoot things you very much don't want to see killed.

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Then split your forces and be sure the one to the side of the field has orders to target enemy archers. The center force should then engage the enemy infantry, while the side force will go look for those pesky archer types. Archers tend to have low morale so they should rout quickly and your problem will then be over. This tactic should work even better if the archer-hunters have their own leader with a horror helm or other such fear-inducing item or ability.

If you outnumber (and outpower) your foe there's little reason why you should allow the enemy archers to get free shots at your leaders. If you engage the archers, they'll be too busy to shoot things you very much don't want to see killed. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I have to disagree with you here. The range of crossbows makes it VERY easy to just put them behind serveral melee unit close to the front and do MANY hits on my commanders by the 2nd round of combat.

There is no defense against this except getting high air blessings, using magic to lower the power of missile fire, or giving crazy amounts of protection to all commanders. Also, I suppose that IF I had fliers I could tell them to hit the archers and hope they selected the same unit that was targeting my commanders.

However, the MAIN issue is that the computer is CHEATING!

[ January 29, 2004, 03:47: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

If it's cheating, it's allowed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I don't think so though, in all the games that I've played (which is quite a few) I've never had some single crossbowman gun for a commander (though I wish they would).

Though my common practice isn't to put my commanders near enough of a mass of troops to warrant a type 'closest, rearmost, cavalry' etc. They have enough space that if a random arrow flies off and hits them, its their just deserts, but it's very hard to directly target a command position.

Like I said, maybe you were unlucky. The game is filled with variables. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree that the real issue is that the AI cheats since humans cannot target commanders. That said ...

I haven't been having this sort of problem, even in the rare battles when the enemy has crossbow (rather than regular bow) units. Of course, since my preferred nations are Jotun or R'lyeh that may have more than a bit to do with why I haven't seen what you describe. It may be that in the AI's targetting priority scheme it looks for "closest large enemy" in preference to "enemy leader" and almost all my units are "large", so they shoot the guys in the front. Which is more than fine by me as they can take the hits (well, the guys in the back can too, and even more so as they have more HPs than common troops).

What nation were you playing as when you were being victimized by the nefarious snakes? And what sort of leaders were you having killed (their HPs, magic types/levels, etc.)?

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

Well, suffice it to say that anything is possible.

However, it happened to me several times in one session of C'tis vs. Pythium and really annoyed me.

Here is the quote from Kristoffer O in a post regarding this issue (or a very similar one) that he answered in the List Game Bugs Here sticky on 1/10/04:

"It might be that the AI still remembers how to give the order 'fire at enemy commanders'."

If it was some sort of strange luck deal, it was still unrealistic for a single crossbowman to pick out one commander from literally 100+ troops and kill him in 2 shots from the start of the battle. If it is a bug, it is one that made that game very unfun. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ January 29, 2004, 04:06: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

About the starting positions...you can set that in maps, but whereas you view starting in a corner as an advantage, I think it's a disadvantage. Starting near but not touching a corner would probably be optimal, but in one limits nearby provinces too much for my liking. I remember one game where I started in the one spot in the map with only one adjacent land province. Let's just say my capitol's admin didn't help much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

And about the AI firing at commanders...thinking of it I have seen that at least once from the troll archer, who targets my leaders and kills them one by one. Can't think of anyone else doing it, but if we bother the developers they'll probably fix it in the next patch. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ January 29, 2004, 04:46: Message edited by: LordArioch ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Agreed. When I typed that out, I realized that it was a vast oversimplification.

I could only tell what positions are good and bad in the Aran map by playing the first 40 turns about 30 times and still, of course, there were some exceptions.

However, if it true that the map editor allows one to restrict starting placement, this is really no big problem. Ideally, fixed starting positions and all of their parameters should be preset (in my view). The rest of the luck seems harsh, but bearable in Dominions II.

I'll say one thing for sure, no way would I attend an MP game using the Aran map http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ January 29, 2004, 04:54: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How about a morale check, or a check on their commander's leadership, every turn to cease pursuit and find a target that's still fighting?

I'm thinking of the GW tabletop Warhammer Fantasy Battle where, if memory serves, a leadership check was required to cease pursuit. This was representing the fact that on the battlefield it's the natural instinct to chase down a foe you've just caused to rout. It's harder to be rational and see that there's others you should be attacking when you're in the chaos of battle. But a good leader and/or disciplined troop would be able to curb that and let the enemy go if there were still more relevant targets.

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How about a morale check, or a check on their commander's leadership, every turn to cease pursuit and find a target that's still fighting?

... </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nice idea http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I said random 0-3 only because chasing the enemy is only natural for a small distance. The question becomes how long does it take to realize that they are gone for good?

Certainly chasing them until they are off the field is too much in many cases, but immediately switching would also be too fast.

So, sure, linking it with leadership would make a lot of sense. Just be harder to code a more sophisticated system, and if they broke off from 1-3 rounds even, it would make a huge difference to both realism and fun I think.

[ January 29, 2004, 06:56: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Try the orders "Attack none" and "Fire none" for archers. This lets the AI choose your targets for you, and it will switch when your first target routs.

As for the AI targeting enemy commanders, I can't remember seeing it. Sure, I have had commanders die from missile fire, but it seemed more like a stray arrow meant for somebody else went their way. Anyway, I try to have at least two commanders in every battle (even if the second is just a scout or cheap priest), just to be on the safe side.

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

Well, historically keeping your men from pursuing fleeing foes was one of the hardest task and I fear that unless the XXth century no commander ever manage to succeed at that efficiently.

So I will rule out the no pursue order, basically.

Some example of commander having suffered thus move ( expecially from his cavalry ) : Caesar, Scipio, Alexander, Darius, François Ier, Napoleon, Wellington,... and many more ( basically every middleage commander ).

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So 2 horsemen ride up and my unit of 50 breaks them, that unit then pursues the one remaining horseman (on foot no less) the entire length of the battlefield while ignoring the 50 other troops they pass unless they are directly in their path?

Even you must admit that the troops didn't pursue fleeing units forever, right?

So, I have no problem with pursuit, the question is for how long and past how many other close enemies.

For sure, what happens on the screen is absurd at times http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I don't doubt that it would be impossible for the units to do this "efficiently", as you said, and just make a quick change to another target the moment the first one flees, but as it stands, inefficient in Dom2 seems pretty arbitrary based on the distance to the end of the field that a unit happens to be at the time.

Maybe have it be 2-4 rounds...

[ January 29, 2004, 09:43: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Really? It will switch if I say attack none? Wow! Usually I don't give infantry orders at all and I assumed that would let the computer pick.

I'll try out Attack none, but I'd be surprised if that allowed the computer more reason to switch than giving no orders at all...

Sure hope you're right!

As for the missle fire, I am 100% sure that my commander was singled out by a Pythian crossbow unless he chose a totally random unit and happened to pick that commander from about 15 choices. It certainly didn't happen ever time by any means, but I did see it happen at least once.

How can I be so sure? Because while there were other troops around him (mostly skeletons he was summoning) he got hit twice over 3 turns and at times he was the only one near, yet the bolt kept hitting his square. Finally, there were many commanders in that battle but the vast majority of my army was tied into the one commander that got shot. A brilliant move if the archer had known who my commander was, that he was the main commander, and could see over 100+ troops!

I should have saved the file and will in the future when I see it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ January 29, 2004, 09:59: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

I have faced a lot of crossbows and find that my commanders are never targeted until everything else has run away. The fire rearmost command rarely goes to the rearmost, so even when I use it, I rarely get to target the commanders. I do not doubt that you got skewered in that battle, but based on my experience, I think you have had some bad luck. I had a horrible run with the Summoning of creatures with Ryelh and was despairing of the game. Then I tried out some of the new suggestions and kept playing some more and discovered that I really just had bad luck at first. Check out the “Stop the Insanity” thread. As for my suggestion, get a pendant of luck to reduce hits by 50% and see if you can get the commander ethereal, which will help even more. Throw in a cheap shield and armor and life expectancy goes way up.

As for fleeing units being chased, units would keep going after them. One, they are easy targets. Two, they have loot. Three, you are not risking your life to run the fleeing enemy down, but turn to the left and attack that Ulmish Heavy Infantry and you are! As another person has posted, it was a historical reality. On the plus side, if they chase them off the map, the nearest unit to attack afterwards is the enemy commanders, which loops back to the previous topic. If the rest of the battle has been won, these unit get a second chance to kill some of the fleeing troops. I use fear a lot, so sometimes I chase troops away and have to fight them several times. Having them killed while fleeing is great. Sometimes the long chase works in your favor.

Placement in multiplayer is a problem in almost all games of this type, custom designed maps seem to be the best solution. Everyone has exactly the same thing in a geometric design, so there are no surprises or advantages. I have not seen any yet for Dom II, but I am sure the hard core MP people will produce one soon.

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I guess that if my experience and Kriss's comment about it being possible aren't correct regarding my commander being targeted, it is possible that it was luck.

I have no problem losing commanders to anything other than them being targeted by the computer specifically for the obvious reason that I can't do that either.

I'll keep my eyes open and if it happens often again, I'll keep the files. I still wonder why Kriss did mention that it was possible then I saw it 3x in a few hours of play but ONLY vs. Pythium.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree 150% that it sometimes helps when they keep pursuing regardless of the situation. I'm not talking about making the game easier. I'm talking about how absurd it looks for 50 units to be chasing one horse and bypassing 50 other units who will surely kill them eventually if they don't dispatch them.

I don't like that sort of odd behavior as it breaks my suspension of disbelief and that is the most important thing to me in any game.

For those happy with the lack of switching, the game is working as it should for them. I'm putting my vote in for better switching in a few situations to make the men act more logically.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree entirely as long as the options are there in the editor. I'd be the first to pitch in to help do it! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ January 29, 2004, 11:53: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

delete me

[ January 29, 2004, 11:26: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">>Don´t use this with Wish. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

I did come up with an alturnative possiblility for what happened in terms of my commander being targetting now that I'm more familiar with how the AI works.

I think that the Xbows were told to "fire rearmost" and what the AI does is select a random squad in back and concentrates fire on it. Even if several units are in back (and it seems that the commander counts as a squad although it is possible that the commanders have a lower chance of being picked over other "normal" squads).

So, while my commanders were, indeed, singled out in these cases, that doesn't mean that it was purposefully targeting them.

It is probably yet another example of the "sticking" problem in this game in that once the AI picks a target it keeps shooting at or attacking it until is is dead or broken. This usually works fine, but there are cases in about 1 in 5 battles where something obviously odd happens due to this general approach.

That is my current theory in regards to this and my suggestion would be to have it both be a lower probablility of choosing a commander over a squad (again, probably already works that way) then to have a chance of switching off of it since with 100s of men in the way, there is no way they'd be able to "lock on" to a commander in all of the fracas.

[ January 30, 2004, 07:00: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

That's what we were saying about positioning http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And for the most part it will probably keep firing on a squad/commander/large creature until it either dies or routs then switches targets (from my experiance).

There is also a % that units will actually be able to fire at the 'rearmost' and not 'mostly rear'. So while putting your commanders as the rearmost may seem like a good idea, it is in practice not. Unless you want to take the chance that a flier or archer to actually target the rear.

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Right. So this thread is about suggestions. I suggest that the switching be improved in this game such that a single crossbowman can't select a commander and "stick" on him for many turns in the face of there being another 100 targets in the way.

It looks ridiculous and like cheating no matter the case of being unlucky. Again I don't want the game to be any easier, just to make some sense. I should have kept that one battle, it is comical to see the one guy targeting the most important single commander over and over when a mass of 100s is attacking and obsuring his view http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Seems that the switching issue (and the random bugs) is the biggest problems with Dom2. That is my feedback at this point at least http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ January 30, 2004, 07:23: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

Well I can say personally I didn't know the in's and out's of the AI as apparently you do after just 100 hours of play. I actually see new things from it from time to time and I've been playing the game for much more than a 100 hours. The fact that a unit gets 'stuck' on another particular unit doesn't seem all that 'unrealistic' or 'unbalancing' to me at all since I can't reproduce it at will. Especially if it is a commander. I find other things more of an issue that have little or nothing to do with the computer getting stuck rarely on the same target throughout a combat. Especially if it's already been addressed and acknowledged as something they may or may not be able to fix. But of course it is opinion that guides feedback. And my opinion it's hardly considered cheating, since it doesn't use it all the time, to it's obvious advantage or even to 'win the game', but by a semingly random occurance.

[ January 30, 2004, 08:55: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well all depend of what you mean by forever. In numerous case ( antiquities battle mainly ) troups going into pursuit never come back to the battlefield until long after battle end.

We have account of pursuit for several hours to even days.

In fact, this even was a part of battle strategy and at a point Hannibal (IIRC) specifically deploy his small cavalry in front of the heaviest Mauritanian one in the hope they will rout and be pursued, effectively deprieving his opponent of one of his better weapon, leaving footmen fight between them. His tactic work and the ennemy cavalry doesnt show up until next day.

I think that the current AI could use some cleaning but the problem is not nearly as bad or illogical as it can seem.

BTW I am totally against a specific fire at commander, from a gamebalance and historical point of view. It is simply impossible to distinguish the commander from the unit in the battlefield in real life. All you can do is target the rear area and hope for a lucky shot. I am speaking of unit commander and not HQ wich tend to be more identifiable but usually out of harm way.

The current target rear and target archer commands are enough, it is up to you to protect your valuable unit by carefully setting them up... For the lone XBow targetting your commander I think it could be the AI unit commander equipped with magical weapons at they seems to target more specifically their counterpart... wich I fairly understand due to their "magical" power.

I think we need to remember that Dominions worl is more antic ( ancient romans, greek, and so ) than modern age thus the current way the battle work ( give order to unit before hand and pray, having no power to alter battle after it start ) is absolutely right for thsoes times.

[ January 30, 2004, 09:36: Message edited by: IKerensky ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Obviously I do, since all my Posts you see are flames.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well since you claimed the AI was *cheating* (as you put it) I'd assume you are not providing honest feedback on what you know, but your opinion about something you may or may not understand. I don't claim to understand the game in it's entirety, and even in part the Develeopers have said the same themselves. So I find it particularly hard that you suddenly know the secrets to the AI in a 100 hours, unless you are reading the code and can say.

It's hard to come to a discussion claiming "cheating" and "this is what is WRONG" when you in fact don't know if it's wrong, right, bad luck, circumstance, or in fact cheating. And blanket statements like "The AI this" are in fact very misleading.

I'd hope you'll find as you play with the game more and discover more about it, how you think it works, and how you were wrong about any number of things, you'd have more appreciation for that, but not everyone does.

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This isn't quite correct. According to the devs, there's a chance that a unit will pick the most rearmost squad. If this chance fails then the next closest squad is checked, then the next, and so on.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It could also be that his commander was one of the only mounted units, or units with a size greater than 23 on the battlefield, which would make him a candidate for both 'target largest', and 'target cavalry'.

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

Thats what I ment Graeme. There is only a % chance that orders on Fire Rearmost will actually target them. Fire Rearmost is the only one that I know that functions this way, all other orders work right out of the box.

I believe it is a 20% or lower chance, from the tests I've done.

I may have phrased it wrong, but that's what I ment http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Edit: Or it could have been any # of things that may or may not impact the game that we have no idea on. Having only 1 mounted unit on a battlefield is also not a good idea, as well as only 1 large unit (unless you have Air Shield or high prot) simply because of that.

[ January 30, 2004, 20:05: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Having only one large unit can even be a useful tactic, if it's something like a Crusher that is built to take it. Put the Crusher up front on attack closest, watch it get surrounded by enemies that can't get through its PROT, and watch all the enemies on fire large monsters decimate their own troops that are surrounding the Crusher.

Similarly, one flier, if it's an Iron Dragon. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I don't know how the game decides what qualifies as "cavalry" though. Is a Centaur cavalry? A chariot? A War Lobster? An elephant? A wolf rider? (I'm pretty sure elephants qualified in Dom I; I used fire cavalry orders to rout them faster, sometimes before they reached my lines).

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

Anything with the #mounted tag I believe.

Spiders, Black Hunters, Elephants, Cavalry, Any Centaurs (I dunno about Chariots, I've always had people fire on the Elephants first, but I believe that was because they were nearer than the Chariots), any commander with no feet slots, Mammoths, Behemoths, Great Lions (Summer Lions), Fay Boars, Salamanders, and probably a bunch of other things I can't think of off the top of my head.

I've never actually tried to fire on War Lobsters with Fire Cavalry, but I assume they are. I don't know where Shambler Thralls or Minotaurs stand either.

[ January 30, 2004, 21:07: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You might want to read this thread again. I said that IF the unit is using the old command that allows targeting of commanders that it would be something that I couldn't do and therefore cheating.

Besides, my purpose as I clearly stated in my thread starter was to point out a few things that annoyed ME.

How you got to "right" and "wrong" is 100% about you and has nothing to do with me.

Do realize that I can dislike something and still not believe it is wrong. In any case, I do dislike one crossbowman targeting my one commander while being obsured by 100 other units and it seems I'm not alone in this dislike. I have every right to express that and did.

Trying to bully me out of my feeling isn't going to work.

[ January 30, 2004, 22:35: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

Since when has disagreeing with someones opinion been bullying? Or pointing out the flaws in an argument?

IF it is doing it, it is a bug and it has been at the very least acknowledged. But you'll find as you play the game more and the more you read these forums that half of what you consider a 'bug' is intentional or at least unfixable at current. Just like your bug of towers shooting poison slingshot. So stating that a remote possibility of what happened is a bug and therefore cheating is tainted by all the variables of the game and not so cut and dry.

If you feel that me arguing with what you consider 'wrong' is bullying, then so be it. But my opinion is that your argument is less based on fact and more based on ignorance, that we ALL have and takes time to overcome (so you think I'm not saying I don't have times where I don't know what is going on the same as everyone else).

Neither was I flaming you, if I was flaming you I'm sure you would have noticed as well as most of the forum. This forum is lacking much of the common flaming you find elsewhere and I think that is in part because it's rational discussion and not "Flame people often?" comments that prove no point.

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not a very friendly thing to imply. Do you flame people often? Do you enjoy it?

I am here giving honest feedback to what personally bugs me. I don't claim to know anything about the AI, but I sort of have to speculate if something is bugging me and there are 4 people telling me that it isn't.

No good deed goes unpunished it seems...

[ January 30, 2004, 12:45: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: Quick bits of feedback after about 100 hours of play
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well all depend of what you mean by forever. In numerous case ( antiquities battle mainly ) troups going into pursuit never come back to the battlefield until long after battle end.

We have account of pursuit for several hours to even days.

In fact, this even was a part of battle strategy and at a point Hannibal (IIRC) specifically deploy his small cavalry in front of the heaviest Mauritanian one in the hope they will rout and be pursued, effectively deprieving his opponent of one of his better weapon, leaving footmen fight between them. His tactic work and the ennemy cavalry doesnt show up until next day.

I think that the current AI could use some cleaning but the problem is not nearly as bad or illogical as it can seem.

BTW I am totally against a specific fire at commander, from a gamebalance and historical point of view. It is simply impossible to distinguish the commander from the unit in the battlefield in real life. All you can do is target the rear area and hope for a lucky shot. I am speaking of unit commander and not HQ wich tend to be more identifiable but usually out of harm way.

The current target rear and target archer commands are enough, it is up to you to protect your valuable unit by carefully setting them up... For the lone XBow targetting your commander I think it could be the AI unit commander equipped with magical weapons at they seems to target more specifically their counterpart... wich I fairly understand due to their "magical" power.

I think we need to remember that Dominions worl is more antic ( ancient romans, greek, and so ) than modern age thus the current way the battle work ( give order to unit before hand and pray, having no power to alter battle after it start ) is absolutely right for thsoes times. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, I generally agree with all of your points.

In most cases it is fine and "makes sense" to me. However, on occassion it does silly things.

My intent was to expand on another post regarding "switching" intelligently rather than just sticking on one target forever regardless.

Just one aspect of the AI that I don't personally like and wanted to share that fact as most of the game I find to be very fun http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif