Units -defensive/berseker-

[Poliorketes]

There is some reason that explains why the units on -defensive- behave like berserker and charge ahead the moment they aren't tied to a wall? 

It would be a minor change (I think) but it would change a lot (for better I think) the battles.

thoughts?

[Anaris]

Maybe if you explain just what, exactly, you're talking about it would help?

[Poliorketes]

Maybe if you explain just what, exactly, you're talking about it would help?

Ops! sorry! Half of the message has been missing! 

I was talking about the tendency of all units, even the designed as defensive, to move forward.

I think it would be better if the units on -defensive mode- would stand in the deploy positions.
It would do more varied and realistic battles. Little skirmish without a winner between two armies in defensive. An army assaulting another. Even pseudo-sieges, as you could attack a city with ranged fire without have to assault the walls.

Well, this was it! 

[Anaris]

The basic meaning of the defensive setting is not going to change. It is not, and has never been, intended to mean that the troops will never move forward to engage.

However, there has been talk about adding a Marshal formation that would keep the army locked in place no matter what...even if it meant losing every man to archer fire without dealing any significant damage.

[Tom]

The basic meaning of the defensive setting is not going to change. It is not, and has never been, intended to mean that the troops will never move forward to engage.

However, there has been talk about adding a Marshal formation that would keep the army locked in place no matter what...even if it meant losing every man to archer fire without dealing any significant damage.

One reason for #1 and issue of #2 here is that we need to figure what to do if both armies are set up like that. We can't just have them stand there and go "you move first! - no, you!" all day. :-)

[Gustav Kuriga]

One reason for #1 and issue of #2 here is that we need to figure what to do if both armies are set up like that. We can't just have them stand there and go "you move first! - no, you!" all day. :-)

I would just make it a defensive only formation.

[vonGenf]

One reason for #1 and issue of #2 here is that we need to figure what to do if both armies are set up like that. We can't just have them stand there and go "you move first! - no, you!" all day. :-)

Why not? This is similar to having all units on evasive - no one gets hurt and no one wins, but a few arrows are exchanged - which might just soften one side enough to be taken on the next turn.

[Poliorketes]

Immo a unit with defensive orders, must defend, not attack!

This not mean they will NEVER advance. if infantry against bowmen alone could advance. Or inf/cav after some time under arrow fire, could loss it and charge, or with an enormous numeric superiority, etc... The difference is between -they could advance- and -they must advance-.

The thing about two armies, both defensive, shooting some arrow's volleys and ending a battle without any real combat... well, I don't see any problem! The battles have a maximum duration, I think... so the battle would end in a tie and all happy!

[Eirikr]

Immo a unit with defensive orders, must defend, not attack!

But the best defense is a good offense! 

[vonGenf]

But the best defense is a good offense! 

But the game should leave room for failure! 

[Eirikr]

But the game should leave room for failure! 

This combined with your sig was perfect.