Chasing Fleeing Units

[SurvivalistMerc]

I have just noticed another odd behavior in Dominions. Units will sometimes chase retreating units even when non-retreating enemies appear to be closer than the retreating enemies. Even when these non-retreating units are missile units which are shooting at them.

[PvK]

Yep. If they stop chasing them though, maybe the routed units should get a morale check to see if they rally and return to the fight...

PvK

[Kristoffer O]

It is intentional. Historically it was very difficult to make winning army contigents to stop chasing and slaughtering routing enemies. This was especially true with cavalry.

It is more fun and less dangerous to slay those who don't defend themselves.

It might be a bit silly though when slow heavy infantry make a show of chasing routed cavalry of the battle field. 'We got them! You take care of the hydra!'.

[Psitticine]

Telling somebody else to take care of the Hydra is never silly.

[SurvivalistMerc]

I bet it is more fun and less dangerous to slaughter those who don't defend themselves.

But it would be nice if they had some idea of whether they (individually) had any chance of catching the fleeing attackers and, if not, didn't give chase.

It is more dangerous to ignore crossbowmen right next to you in order to chase a militiaman who is faster than you.

There are situations in which I wouldn't mind the routed enemy coming back into the fray. Those crossbows are more dangerous than that one fleeing militia.

Of course, this is complicated and might be a programming nightmare. Maybe as much of one as trying to convince missile units that it's not necessary to shoot when they are likely to kill more friends than foes.

I saw something very weird Last night against abyssia. They had a PoD pretender who came right next to my crossbows. Close enough that they could see the whites of his eyes and know that they were next. Then they fired into the abyssian heavy infantry clear across the battlefield. Maybe this is why PoD is so good...missile units that ought to fire at him don't. I'm not asking to have them fire at a commander clear across the battlefield...that's too much like attack commanders...but if there's a big monster right next to them....

[Whismerhill]

As Kristoffer pointed out,
historicaly
it was difficult to send orders to the troops (much more difficult than now)
and there was often a lack of discipline
you could not say to one soldier : "attack this ennemy rather than the one you're after because it's better for the entire outcome of the battle"

& the soldier will not really have a global overview of the battle so it will chase ennemies, cause of : "blood rush", one ennemy less is still one ennemy less you will not face anymore in the next battle ...
these are typical things in the mind of a rather simple man enrolled in an army to participate into battles they not always understand

feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but that's what illwinter wanted, in my opinion.

[Pocus]

On the other hand refined tactics were sometime used, even by common soldiers, to maximize the gain of their army. Its an error to think that men at arms always act as an undisciplined mob when the opposition rout. An example amongst others, at the battle of Cannae, after the successful double envelopement by the Carthaginians, the Roman began to rout en masse. The Carthaginians soldiers came after the retreaters, and systematically crippled them by slashing at their hamstring muscle or simply their legs (thus crippling men rapidly). It is only after that all (except 3000 men taken as prisonners) the Roman army was routed (48.000 dead in the end), that the Carthaginians performed their sinister job of butchering all the wounded romans. It talks about purposeful tactics which were sometime used.

[PvK]

I'm willing to accept this behaviour as part of the necessary abstraction, also for the reason I mentioned (routed troops who aren't pursued might decide to rejoin the fight).

The friendly fire is the only part I really don't like.

I'd also like to see an end to units moving into poison gas, infernos, etc. for no reason.

PvK

[Pocus]

good points, units which are intelligent enough to pursue easy preys (routed) should perhaps have the brain no to step into the poisonous gazes left by some units.

[Gandalf Parker]

Actually having cheap units attack in order to draw certain units into the clutches of others IS a historical tactic. Instead of thinking of it as a weakness, think of it as a tactic. Slingers with fire-and-flee, werewolves told to attack hvy cavalry, leaving your heavily armed troops (and therefor easily fatigued troops) standing with hold-and-attack.

As to the intelligence factor it might be worth noting that there seems like there might be a difference between units feeling the joy of routing the enemy and eagerly giving chase vs what the leaders do. Isnt it the leaders that tend to have just a touch more intelligence in what they do? A way you might try in order to avoid stupid chases is to set the commander to attack someone, and have the units set to guard commander. That seems to provide alittle more control.

By the way, some of these explanations on stupid behavior take on a new light if you use pageDown to get to unit level then push the view right up to them. From an aerial view of a pretender it looks plainly obvious but from troop level the obviousness looks like hindsite only.

[ January 04, 2004, 14:50: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]