"Attack Rearmost"

tinkthank · #1 March 9th, 2004, 11:12 AM

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?

Starfighter08 · #2 March 9th, 2004, 11:47 AM

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.

Chazar · #3 March 9th, 2004, 12:01 PM

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"...

Pocus · #4 March 9th, 2004, 12:45 PM

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.

Wauthan · #5 March 9th, 2004, 01:33 PM

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 ]

PDF · #6 March 10th, 2004, 02:16 AM

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.

Anyway I've never tried to use Assassins in field battle with this order, surely they only manage to get killed this way...

PrinzMegaherz · #7 March 10th, 2004, 01:53 PM

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.

PDF · #8 March 11th, 2004, 02:23 AM

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...

Arryn · #9 March 15th, 2004, 11:48 PM

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.

Norfleet · #10 March 16th, 2004, 02:09 AM

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".