new orders planned?
 

I was wondering if the next patch will add some new tweak to orders, or even new orders?

- the fire and flee, with troops which stay in the province if you win the combat (nice thing to get some usage of light units and skirmishers)

- the bodyguard command with the no-missile-weapon-used bug fixed.

Thank you for your time,
Pocus.

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No and no.

The second issue is not a bug. If bodyguards would be allowed to fire weapons it could result in two whole armies of missile troops just staring at each other across the field each sequestered in their respective corner and just waiting for the other side to close into range, which neither side would do since both were all on guard commander. Perhaps it would have been historically correct in some instances, but it has been decided against.

Re: new orders planned?
 

the loophole you describe already exists IMO :
this is not different from 2 spellcasters which have orders to cast spells, and are each in a corner of the battlefield. Because troops bodyguards a leader, which is either a melee leader (at maximum, he will move after the 5 rounds of forced you gave to him), or a spell caster, and we are back to the first example.

But my point was to find a fix for missiles units who are advancing (and have their butts handed on a plate) against the enemy, because they have no targets in range. If you were to add an order which is 'fire, or hold if nothing in range', then this would alleviate the problem described.

Thank you for taking the time to give a reasoning for the negative answer, anyway.

For the first point, its a bit sad to hear that you wont add it. It was discussed before the release of dom2, and I remember either Daynarr of Psitticine saying it was to be implemented rather soon.

[ February 10, 2004, 14:33: Message edited by: Pocus ]

Re: new orders planned?
 

I'd hopes too that the "Fire and Flee" order would be changed or some kind of "Skirmish" order added, and previous threads replies were rather positive.

I'm disappointed ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
As for bodyguards, I don't see the big problem it would be to have bodyguards exchange missiles - as archers ordered to fire already do -, but well, no big point.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: new orders planned?
 

There is a new function in hold and attack. Missile units will fire during hold and then attack.

Re: new orders planned?
 

But still no such thing as attack & hold? For when the ammo runs out.

Re: new orders planned?
 

> the loophole you describe already exists IMO :
this is not different from 2 spellcasters which have orders to cast spells, and are each in a corner of the battlefield. Because troops bodyguards a leader, which is either a melee leader (at maximum, he will move after the 5 rounds of forced you gave to him), or a spell caster, and we are back to the first example.

A less common occurence. If this option was availabe people would perhaps use it causing booring and silly battle replays. Mages are rarely alone, they are to vulnerable, and thus there is less of a problem regarding mages.

> But my point was to find a fix for missiles units who are advancing (and have their butts handed on a plate) against the enemy, because they have no targets in range. If you were to add an order which is 'fire, or hold if nothing in range', then this would alleviate the problem described.

Alleviate? Wouldn't they stand idly if there was no one in range?

Is the problem that archers advance to their own death when their infantry friends hold their positions according to their orders?

> Thank you for taking the time to give a reasoning for the negative answer, anyway.

> For the first point, its a bit sad to hear that you wont add it. It was discussed before the release of dom2, and I remember either Daynarr of Psitticine saying it was to be implemented rather soon.

Other stuff, mostly improved modding, has gotten the upper hand. Now you will be able to disable your old time enemy Magic Duel http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Why would you want to attack and hold?

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I mistyped it. I meant "fire and hold". Sorry.

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Then the armies would never clash, provided there was only archers in the battle. Retreat would be better than hold.

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which would be fine, if you then "fix" the game so that units which retreat remain in the same province if the rest of your army wins the battle. An alternative is that if a command like "fire & hold" is ordered, the game checks to see if there are only archers present, and if so, then forces a retreat. Whichever way is easier to implement. The intent is that your archers

- do not charge into melee after running out of ammo and,
- do not retreat into another province if you win the battle.

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yay! That's a big improvement, especially for Tien Chi heavy cavalry! If the hold time was variable - or perhaps just offering two possibilities, "Hold 2 turns and attack" and "Hold 5 turns and attack", TC heavy cavs would be worth building.

If "Fire and Flee" could be modified to allow firing until the enemy is 1 turn away - or even until a unit engages in melee - archers and javelin units could be used for skirmishes and raids...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This would be great! Though actually, "Fire or Hold" would be best. If an enemy is in range, they fire until out of ammo; if no enemy is in range or once ammo runs out, they STAY IN POSITION, LIKE TRAINED ARCHERS IN AN ARMY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO!!!

If stalemate-avoidance is really crucial (I don't think it is), an exception could be hard-coded so that in any battle, if no units move or fire on either side for 10 turns (eg 2 Groups of archers waiting for the other group to move), all orders get deleted.

PLEASE!!! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

-Cherry

[ February 10, 2004, 18:13: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">you mean in the incoming patch? That would be rather handy yes. But will they cease to fire when the 2 rounds are elapsed, to charge berserkly against the enemy? Because as of now a group of archer in hold&attack will do nothing, then attack without firing.

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Fire or Hold would be best. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

This could also be given to non-missile units where the meaning would be "hold infinitely" (or at least "hold for 10 turns, and only then attack").

I don´t think there is any historic justification for not being able to give defensive orders.

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">you mean in the incoming patch? That would be rather handy yes. But will they cease to fire when the 2 rounds are elapsed, to charge berserkly against the enemy? Because as of now a group of archer in hold&attack will do nothing, then attack without firing. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Fire for some number of rounds and then charge the enemy is the *desired* behavior for Tien Chi cavalry, Daoine Sidhe, many other javelin armed infantry etc. (Although in the case of the javelineers, it would be nice if they used all their ammo first. I think the current "fire" order achieves this.)

However, I don't see why a "fire or hold" order (or firing by bodyguards) would be problematic. Dom II already enforces a time limit that resolves stalemated battles. At worst, you could have two regiments of archers that fire at each other, and if neither has routed by the time ammo is exhausted, they both stare across the battlefield at each other until the time limit arrives and the attacker retreats.

While this could certainly be unfortunate for the attacker, it's his own fault for not bringing a contingent of melee troops (or having them routed early) - or using the normal Fire order for his archers, which would let him give a target priority and have them attack when their ammo runs out. The battle will still end with a definite resolution.

Currently units such as Vanir, Daoine Sidhe, Red Guard, Centaur Warriors etc. are considerably reduced in effectiveness as bodyguards because they won't use all their weapons. To say nothing of the poor Things of Many Eyes which have no use if they can't even guard summoners...

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">you mean in the incoming patch? That would be rather handy yes. But will they cease to fire when the 2 rounds are elapsed, to charge berserkly against the enemy? Because as of now a group of archer in hold&attack will do nothing, then attack without firing. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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?

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As it stands now, they act as static meat shields. Not very useful, but I suppose it's better than nothing at all.

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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.

'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.

Re: new orders planned?
 

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

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Broken is usually understood to mean heavily over-powered. Fire and Flee is not broken, just pretty well useless. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

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

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Broken is usually understood to mean heavily over-powered. Fire and Flee is not broken, just pretty well useless. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I guess I meant broken more in the typical language sense and less in the computer-game-slang sense. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is a different issue, and it hasn't been implemented for the usual reasons.

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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?

Re: new orders planned?
 

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.

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">OK

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

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">We have found that people are not forgiving when they do stuff that they should not and the UI doesn't stop them. Own fault is apparently not an option.

A recent example: If you set your orders to retreat and try to assassinate someone you will retreat and die. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif This seems to annoy people.

Waiting for 50 turns of slow battle replays because you didn't expect the enemy to do the same 'stupid' battle setup as you, would be considered annoying.

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I really don't see what the big deal is with such a face-off. You quickly realize as you watch the replay that it's a stalemate, and you press Q to quit. How hard is that? It's only annoying to people stupid enough to actually sit through 50 turns of unchanging action. Hardly something that the rest of us, with better things to do with our time, worry about.

Sorry about the rant, but the arguments I'm hearing are getting rather silly, IMO.

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I really don't see what the big deal is with such a face-off. You quickly realize as you watch the replay that it's a stalemate, and you press Q to quit. How hard is that? It's only annoying to people stupid enough to actually sit through 50 turns of unchanging action. Hardly something that the rest of us, with better things to do with our time, worry about.

Sorry about the rant, but the arguments I'm hearing are getting rather silly, IMO. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Or just stop the battle if nothing happens for say 4 turns (no fire, no melee, no spells).
And note that currently we have to wait for dissolving leaderless magic creatures and end of poison effects, not counting routs where chasers can't outrun the routed army... And so ? Not a big deal neither, press Q ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: new orders planned?
 

I guess one of the points not mentioned yet is that "fire and hold" orders would be great for reducing friendly fire issues when your crossbowmen massacre units that pursue routers. If they would stop firing after two volleys, that would not happen any more. Also, after two volleys armies are pretty much engaged in melee already, and you usually don't want them to keep on firing into the fray (if you do, then you could just order them to "fire"). And yet, they would remain on the battlefield and serve as a Last-ditch defense of commanders if melee units fail to rout the enemy. Therefore, although the new Version of "hold and attack" will help combo units, such as Tien Chi cavalry, it saddens me that the problem of friendly fire still remains. This has been mentioned quite frequently as one of the things that can ruin the enjoyment of the game, and I hope that in future we'll have more options in order to avoid it.

edit: Btw, if orders could be geared towards number of volleys instead number of turns for missile units, that would be great. Otherwise, even with fixed "fire and flee", crossbows would only fire one volley and then retreat.

[ February 11, 2004, 20:46: Message edited by: HJ ]

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Those are over quickly. You want to see a stalemate? Watch a battle where both sides have only paralyzed units! I got to watch a fun battle which involved an unconcious Sphinx facing off against a paralyzed Vampire Lord.

[ February 11, 2004, 22:03: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">May I ask why you didn't just press Q as soon as you noticed that everyone was stiff?

Re: new orders planned?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Because my nose was itching, so I figured that was a golden opportunity to stop and pick my nose while I pondered what to do next anyway. Plus I was curious as to what the heck killed him, if everyone had stopped moving.

[ February 11, 2004, 22:15: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Re: new orders planned?
 

That IW can consider revising these orders is fine for me, even if they are not on the top of the priority list.

Thanks for the debate.