Routing armies and friendly fire

onomastikon · #1 January 31st, 2004, 10:39 AM

Do you think it would be possible (or rather: not too difficult to implement) to either make it an automatic default or a check-box you can click in the "set battle orders" part to not attack routing squadrons and / or routing armies?

I mean, if you see they are routing, it is often not only better but perhaps ethically sensible to not slaughter them.

Well I'll stick to the "better" (functionally).

- If squadrons are routing but the entire army isnt, it would make more sense to concentrate on the enemy that is still there.
- If the entire army is routing and they are Independents, they have no where to flee and hence are no worry anymore. Why attack?
- If the entire army is routing and they are an enemy nation, it might make sense to attack so that no one survives, but could often involve heavy losses through friendly fire. It would be interesting to be able to toggle "attack routing units" here on and off.

What do you think? Desirable and doable (without too much resources for the developers)?

Graeme Dice · #2 January 31st, 2004, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onomastikon:
I mean, if you see they are routing, it is often not only better but perhaps ethically sensible to not slaughter them.

Ethics has little to do with medieval warfare.

Quote:

- If squadrons are routing but the entire army isnt, it would make more sense to concentrate on the enemy that is still there.

As other have said, if given a choice between chasing a guy who's running away so you can kill him and loot his armour and weapons, or going after someone who is still trying to kill you, most people will go for the loot.

PhilD · #3 January 31st, 2004, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:
Originally posted by onomastikon:
I mean, if you see they are routing, it is often not only better but perhaps ethically sensible to not slaughter them.

Ethics has little to do with medieval warfare.

Quote:

- If squadrons are routing but the entire army isnt, it would make more sense to concentrate on the enemy that is still there.

As other have said, if given a choice between chasing a guy who's running away so you can kill him and loot his armour and weapons, or going after someone who is still trying to kill you, most people will go for the loot.

If the units had a "Regular/Elite classification, it might make sense to give the "Elite" (more disciplined) units a better chance of going on with their proper jobs. In the absence of such a classification, morale level could be used instead, though not as a perfect approximation ("fanatic" units should not become more disciplined; take Vanheim Maenads, for example).

But then, implementing this would probably require a complete overhaul of the tactical battle AI; I'm not holding my breath.

PvK · #4 January 31st, 2004, 10:15 PM

I was pretty sure the ranged AI was already programmed to switch to non-routing targets, once their current target routs...

PvK

Norfleet · #5 January 31st, 2004, 10:23 PM

With the exception of archers, I haven't noticed that units tend to persistently chase routing units, to the point of ignoring active threats, even when being attacked by another unit: If they become engaged with another unit, they usually start fighting again and ignore the routing unit.

This may have something to do with my thinking: In Medieval: Total War, for instance, I'd often deliberately keep a unit of fast cavalry in reserve SPECIFICALLY to chase and slaughter routing units, just to slaughter them so I never have to fight them again.

tinkthank · #6 February 2nd, 2004, 10:04 AM

I noticed that I have actually killed some communion slaves when casting overkill spells on large routing but slow-moving independent armies. (Of course I am new to this and used too few slaves, but still....)

It would be nice if the AI recognized "routing" as a factor and decided to de-prioritize those units. I hate killing my own units when I dont have to.