Fire when guard commander

[Zurai]

Originally posted by Yossar:
But then you could end up with two armies holding indefinitely at opposite ends of the battle screen. Which I guess wouldn't be so bad since auto-rout eventually kicks in.

Exactly. There's already a method for handling combats which take too long/are stalemated. No need to take away perfectly viable gameplay mechanics such as having Daoine Sidhe guarding your commander and throwing their javelins when something comes in range.

[Chazar]

Yeah, I do not see the problem either: I think its the Defender's right to sit and wait for the enemy to attack! And if the enemy does not attack, because he only got his guarding missile troops, then the defender should win after some, say 22, turns...

So discouraging cowardly attackers does not sound bad to me!

[Yossar]

Originally posted by Chazar:
Yeah, I do not see the problem either: I think its the Defender's right to sit and wait for the enemy to attack! And if the enemy does not attack, because he only got his guarding missile troops, then the defender should win after some, say 22, turns...

I believe attacker's troops rout at 50 turns, defenders at 60, and everyone left (immobiles, berzerkers, paralyzed troops) dies at 70. Could be a bit off.

[tinkthank]

If that is the case (which sounds very reasonable to me small defender bonus), then there is absolutely nothing wrong with having guarding commanders be able to shoot or throw stuff, even if the commanders just hang out in the back. The replays of two armies doing exactly the same thing with all of their commanders will be very boring, but who cares.

(On a side note: Ever watch a Star Child try to assassinate a non-summoning mage? It is much of the same thing. Both units sort of hang back and throw stuff at each other, usually ineffectually, until they fall unconscious, wake up, rinse, repeat. Boring, long. Sometimes one dies, sometimes the other routs.)

Back to the main point: I believe that people would use their "firing" guards in a creative way. I would FINALLY see a raison d'etre to those mounted bowmen in Tien Chi: Set my Noble on hold hold hold hold hold attack rear (as I frequently do), but this time with some mounted bowmen (which I otherwise NEVER get), who could fire a wee bit or otherwise do some guarding, then charge with him -- exactly as their description reads!

My plea: Nothing to lose, lots to gain. Variability is what makes this game great, let's cultivate the full potential of all the aspects of this excellent game!

[Chazar]

In the "new orders planned?"-thread, which extensively discussed these matters as already pointed out by st.patrick, IW promised to think about it again...

I wonder whether they are still thinking or whether they have already concluded on these matters...

(If not, maybe we should initiate a poll? I know that tweaking commands certainly raises dozens of balancing issues, but this one is just so annoying.)

[Pocus]

beside that, it would be dumb to have only units as bodyguards, as your first loss will make you rout.

=> so you will have units on attack or hold&attack, thus engaging the enemy.

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by Pocus:
beside that, it would be dumb to have only units as bodyguards, as your first loss will make you rout.

If memory serves, bodyguards aren't counted as troops re: routing. Thus, naught but bodyguards should be the same as a solitary commander...

[Chazar]

I already misposted my suggestion in a wrong thread, but it really belongs here: In short, what about missile troops simply switching to hold when all possible targets are severely outnumbered by friendly units? (AI decides similar to the mechanism on gem usage.)

I presume that this would be half the way towards "fire and hold", as it reduces death by friendly fire and prevents archers from marching up to meele, yet I would prevent the stalemate. And maybe it does not affect balancing that much as the AI controls the behaviour. Friendly fire is so annoying!

[Wauthan]

I would gladly settle for a "fire two turns hold three turns then fire again" command. Or "Fire and Hold" for short.

The minor problem that I want to overcome is archers shooting into my own ranks. Fire and Flee does solve this but is annoying since the units will scatter to the four winds if they can. I want the archers to remain in the same province as the other units, regardless of battle outcome. A three turn break would be enough. If the enemy is still slugging it out with the infantery by then, friendly fire be damned, I really do need all the damage I can inflict.

I understand why Illwinter want to make a difference between commander and unit tactical training but I would be really happy if I could give any regiment the same range of Hold, Fire and Attack orders as a commander. Since a commander can only be given specific instructions for the first five rounds this would solve the problem with units glaring at eachother across the battlefield. After five turns the AI takes over and they attack eacother.

[tinkthank]

Originally posted by Wauthan:
Since a commander can only be given specific instructions for the first five rounds this would solve the problem with units glaring at eachother across the battlefield. After five turns the AI takes over and they attack eacother.

Your suggestions are also good.
I still dont see the problem with units glaring at each other across the battlefield. This was discussed in the previous Posts and deemed fairly unproblematical, if boring. Even if no mages are on the field, if no one ever takes the initiative (but why would anyone want to attack and not take the initiative), the defender will win. What is the problem?

Units now on "Hold and Attack" will fire if they can. Why not for Guard Commander too? I cant imagine that this would be particularly difficult to change.