"Attack Rearmost"
 

Has anyone besides myself felt that giving the order "attack rear" (or: hold and attack: rear) often (but not always) results in the commander (or troops, but mainly I am thinking of the commander after having lost a SC or two) not holding and attacking the enemy at the back (usually, at least vs the AI: casters and commanders, which is what I want him to attack) but rather the back of the first squadron of enemy attackers. Is this intentional? What is especially bizarre IMHO: After losing an assassin or two to a simple skeleton-summoning mage and his bodyguards, I explicitly told my assassin to "attack rear", but even when the way is open to the mage (I put the assassin on the side), he will always beeline for the skeletons, who are in front of the mage, instead of going for the rear. Is this also intentional?

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

I only use "attack rearmost enemy" with cavalry type troops. And usually one wing attacks the side/back of the first row of enemies and the other wing tries to attack archers commanders.

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

Yes, I noticed that myself and thought that this may be so intentionally, since battles would quickly become boring if every one homes in on the commanders only...

Nevertheless, I've made good experiences with the "attack archers" command, at least against the AI. But I got the feeling that mages are also regarded as "archers"...

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

its a feature, not a bug, albeit a too heavily weighted one : depending of the relative masses of the enemy front line, and his rear, you can fail to target the rearmost enemy.

Usually, it fails all the time with grounded forces, as the enemy front act as a magnet for your flanking force. I tried and tested many time that, and I think it should be tweaked a bit.

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

Attack Rearmost could perhaps be called Attack Flank instead. It's still a good order to issue to your the units on your own flanks. If given the order to attack closest they tend to create a big slugfest in the middle of the battlefield were the units the back of the force block any retreats from the units in front of them. It makes for massive casualities.

With attack rearmost the units will spread out and with a little luck they will surround the enemy in the classic horseshoe formation. If put on hold and attack rearmost a very fast group of units can run right past the melee and indeed reach the rearmost enemies, but you would need to clear their path of any enemies. Attack Rearmost seems to work as expected only if the units can actually see the rearmost enemies, otherwise they attack whatever units they encounter first on their way to the back of the battlefield.

Attack Archers seems to work pretty well if one wants to reach the commanders. Many players and the AI tend to put archers either around or very near their mages in order to use them as bodyguards or maximise the benefits of spells.

[ March 09, 2004, 11:35: Message edited by: Wauthan ]

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

I concur to the fact that the order works as "Attack Flanks" unless the enemy has a so smallish front force that the unit don't reach it before it dies. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif
Anyway I've never tried to use Assassins in field battle with this order, surely they only manage to get killed this way...

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

I think the AI "forgets" the command when your units come to close to an enemy unit.

In my Last Ulm game, I had one of the heroes riding together with 10 knights. I placed them on the upper part of the battlefield and gave both the attack rearmost command. What actually happened is, one of the knights came near an enemy unit, and all knights in his squad turned around and attacked. My hero however continued his journey to the back of the battlefield and slaughtered the enemy mages.

Note: Trampling units with attack rearmost will most often trample trough the enemy lines towards the rear, so they seem unaffected by this problem.

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

Well, to me it seems the order are interpreted as such :
* Unit normally advances straight ahead for some turns
* Then *if* there are enemy units at less than range X, the closest target gets attacked
* In the end maybe "X" increases with time, or a turn limit is given, and the unit eventually attack the closest enemy unit.

It's pretty hard to use effectively indeed... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

I just had a flying commander, placed on the right flank and well back from the "front" line, given orders to hold/hold/attack rear do a "attack rear of the closest formation", despite having an absolutely clear path to the enemy's true rear (and various commanders there), nevermind the flying ability allowing him to reach those commanders in the same turn. IMO, the logic of this order is simply broken.

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

Attack rearmost just doesn't work very well for its stated purpose. Invariably I find it more effective, if I want to try to go after commanders and other people of importance, to order "Attack Archers". At least this is guaranteed to get your units in the back!

Attack "Rear" really only works for a squad placed on the wings: They'll do a very good job enveloping the opponent's center block. They will NOT, however, actually attack rearmost forces. It would work MUCH better if "Attack rear" was instead of working on odds and other such nonsense, "move straight forwards to the back of the battlefield, then turn around and attack whatever is closest".

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Indeed. And that shouldn't be too difficult to code, probably even less complicated than the "logic" which is being used now. As I said in my post, the current implementation is horribly flawed.

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

I don't think I want Attack Rearmost to be any more single-minded. It's already effective enough, it seems to me. The uncertainty of what such units will do strikes me as a good feature. Sometimes, if timed right, and the enemy has an open flank, it will work exactly as hoped. But, I don't think it should be easy to go right to the enemy rear. There is so much abstraction and lack of control in the combat already, that making Attack Rearmost extra-effective would, it seems to me, make it too easy to bypass troops which should be responding to such a move. 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.

Friendly fire, on the other hand... should be avoided.

PvK

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

PrinzMegahertz mentioned a helpful technique, which is sending multiple squads on Attack Rearmost. The first one or two may get distracted, but later ones may manage to get around (or not). I think I have a 60% or so success rate unbalancing the enemy, if not in catching the enemy mages and commanders alone (which would stink if it were too easy to do anyway, IMO).

Whole units of fliers work even better than ground-based flankers. Yes, sometimes some of them don't arrive at the farthest rearmost units, but again, the unpredictability is, I think, a good thing. Especially against AI and Independents, this could easily become way too good, and it's already quite good. Making the Attack Rearmost more effective would create a dire need for more effective defensive AI, creating a lot of work for Illwinter to solve a problem that isn't currently there. Seems to be it'd be better to live with the abstraction and uncertainty.

PvK

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

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. 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. They should be able to go to the very rear no matter where you place them at the start of a battle. For flyers to get "distracted" is hogwash. Dom doesn't model opportunity fire, so that excuse shouldn't be applied to justify a combat command that doesn't work as expected. Ask anyone who's not an "experienced" Dom player what the words "attack rear" means and no one will say "attack the flank of the nearest squad".

As for defending against a "more effective" rear attack, that's what "guard commander" is for. If someone needs more defense in special situations (assassinations), then they can make Rings of Warning. If their defenders aren't adequate, they need to summon/hire better guard troops. Nerfing features is never a good solution to anything.

[ March 16, 2004, 02:32: Message edited by: Arryn ]

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

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

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

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

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

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 ]

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

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

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

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Please explain to me how that is at all relevant to the issue at hand, which is "attack rearmost", not "assasinations".

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

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 ]

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

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

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

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

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".

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 ]

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

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

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

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

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

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

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

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

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

Hm, maybe we should add that "Attack Archers" too has it flaws. It seems that every unit with a long range weapon counts as Archers, including infantry with throwing weapons.

So, I just have to put some of them in front of my army to make sure my real archers survive.

This also bothers my mages, especially my pretender. Even though there are no real archers on the field, javelin troops will cause him to cast air shield, using one precious turn he could use to bLast them with something useful.

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

I have also had trouble getting squads to attack the rear of the battlefield at times.

I did observe some interesting things Last night, however, in a new game I started playing the Niefelheim theme of Jotunheim. One battle, I had all of my melee troops, spearmen and axemen, set to attack closest and a squad of woodsmen (sacred and blessed by my prophet) set at the top to attack rear and a squad of my winter wolves set to hold and attack rear.

My squad of woodmen avoided the clash in the middle of the field and went straight to the back. My winter wolves, after waiting a few turns, ran right through the middle of the battlefield and continued on straight to the back, completely ignoring the battle. This surprised me as many times in the past, and as many here have observed, normally an attack rear squad will join in the melee in the middle if they are near.

In my past game playing Arco, I would use my heavy cavalry to attack rear and they seemed to have much more trouble actually getting to the rear and would join in on the flanks in the middle more often than not.

I just looked up a little here and I am wondering if it has something to do with morale. It appears the winter wolves have a 50 morale, and that may explain why they held orders well and attacked the rear alone. Also, my jotun woodsmen (the sacred troops) were blessed giving them 16 morale (13 +3) if I recall correctly, which allowed them the same bravery to attack alone. I suppose this may have some real merit considering it would probably take a high morale to leave the rest of your army and march on alone against a squad in the rear.

Anyway, these are just some random observations I have had this week. They may or may not mean anything http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

Re: "Attack Rearmost"
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ok, so call it "Attack Flank".

Quote:

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. They should be able to go to the very rear no matter where you place them at the start of a battle. For flyers to get "distracted" is hogwash.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Is it? The AI is allowed to use it's assessment of whom specifically attack based on circumstances. I've been using fliers (holding and then) attacking rear extensively, and didn't have any complaints about their choices.

Quote:

... As for defending against a "more effective" rear attack, that's what "guard commander" is for. If someone needs more defense in special situations (assassinations), then they can make Rings of Warning. If their defenders aren't adequate, they need to summon/hire better guard troops. Nerfing features is never a good solution to anything.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, guard commander is to guard a commander. A battle line is supposed to prevent outflanking, as well as engage the enemy line. It'd be silly to have an "Attack Rear" order that could get past the enemy main line any better than the current one can. If the current "Attack Rear" AI is made more effective at sneaking past enemy main line troops, then the main line troop AI should be better at not just engaging, but at intercepting these units.

In the current implementation Groups on the flanks with attack closest orders accomplish reasonable line security, and the behavior of Attack Rear (Attack Flank) helps this by not being too single-minded. The current system works just fine. If you really want to get someone through to the enemy rear, you can have as good a chance as you should be able to by using multiple Groups on attack rear and/or some on attack archers.

PvK