Thanks for the detailed reply, Zen. This is great stuff! I particularly appreciated your layout of the formula for successfully reaching the rear (even if you don't know "X").
Quote:
Zen said:
Quote:
Is successfully reaching the rear something that is dependent on relative sizes of attacking force and a front line force? Or is there a completely random element? Or might it have something to do with the positioning of the C'tis commanders that prevented my Devils from reaching the rear?
|
From the above screenshots, my guess is you had your Devils all in one squad, had them to attack rearmost and they happened to get caught up in a flanking Tomb Wyrm squad that was second or third to the most rear.
|
That is correct. Based on your formulation, I wonder if you have sufficient troops if there's not a point where you're better off having 2 squads attacking rear rather than 1. Likely 25 Devils is too few to split due to morale problems, but if I had 50, might it be better to have 2 squads of 25 going for the rear?
Quote:
...
This is why Javelins are particularly useful because of the spread of a squad and the limited usefulness based on the game's design of a 'forward line'.
|
I don't understand the usefulness of javelins. Are you saying that a javelin squad is more likely to engage an enemy attempting to flank, than a say, light infantry squad with same number of troops? And if so, is this because they tend to physically spread out on the field, or because of their firing javelins?
Quote:
Quote:
Is anyone out there (in MP play) taking advantage of flanking attacks, either with cavalry/knight type units, or other types of fast units? Is there a key to making this type of unit cost effective?
|
There isn't really a way to make the knight/cavalry cost effective, because of their extrordinary resource cost. Unless you require the Lance, or the Strategic movement, you are better off going to a more efficent infantry variety. This is why Tien Ch'i mounted units (a significant part of their armies) has so many problems based on this fundamental weakness in the game engines simulation of combat.
|
It would be very nice to see cavalry/knights/serpent cataphracts/etc. come into play more often, and I'd certainly be a fan of any improvements in the engine that permit that. Within my limited experience, it really does seem to be more of an issue with the combat engine implementation than with the stats of these units.
I've been wondering if it might be helpful to simply widen the field of combat. In particular, if there were 5-10 squares on either side that existed in combat, but that could not be pre-deployed on, then I think that might make things more interesting. I think it might be good to widen the field by an additional 5 squares that could be predeployed on, as well. From what I've seen, some of the larger battles can really fill up the battle screen pretty quickly.