Archers in combat

[Chenier]

I've just had a small battle with rogues, we were 3 archers units and it was quite windy. What I saw was that the other guy on my row shot at the rogues, whereas I (also deployed at the front) moved forward to "get better shots". My unit was on defensive settings.

And it made me realize the absurdity of the whole thing.

The first thing that came to mind was "why does my archer unit move forward, while the other guy's doesn't?" If the code calculates unit by unit this type of behavior, it should probably decide it by row instead. All defensive archers at the front should act the same, without any holding their shots and others taking hard shots. Maybe it's just Hollywood, but every representation of medieval I saw (including paintings) where archers were in formations, they always seemed to act together: all shooting, all moving, or all holding. If the units don't follow the same settings, then sure they should act differently, but not if they are told to act the same.

The second thing was: Why does he move forward at all? This is nothing new, I'll concede, but I feel archer behavior should be tweaked, much like some people requested changes to calvalry behaviour. I've often had archers who, otherwise perfectly safe, decided to throw themselves in the heat of melee, resulting in useless losses. I suggest the following behaviour: If the front row of enemies (within a general range of 4) contains melee troops and the archers are on defensive and have no melee troops alongside them or in front of them, then they will not move forward (either taking a poor shot or waiting out). The general row of 4 is because R2 archers set to defensive are more likely to want to stick with their buddies (archers or infantry) to take peashots than to run out in front of everyone to get mowed down without ever getting a shot launched, because their range is essentially null as troops approach each other at a range of 2 per turn.

This, I think, is what everyone would prefer when it comes to their archer unit. When I set mine on defensive, it's because I want it to play safe and avoid it throwing itself in melee where it will become quite a poor combat unit that gets mowed down. If I wanted them to play risky and move fourth for better shots, I'd set them to normal or aggressive.

Thoughts?

[Bedwyr]

This actually echoes a discussion among the devs a couple of weeks back.  The code isn't all finished yet, but when it is and goes live all ranged units will prioritize firing over moving to the point where if they can fire at anything, they'll do that instead of moving forward.

[fodder]

um.. my thought is that yours are crap/more aggressive compared to theirs.. not the stats/settings .. but some sort of unit slant type of thing or RNG decides yours is crap and had to get closer to shoot.

ie.. some thing that emulates the individuality of the units... the bows might have longer range, but they are practically blind, etc

[Shizzle]

Low cohesion/training could make archers move forward without reason. You can't expect a unit with 20% experience to know how far they can go without exposing them to danger?

[Stue (DC)]

if three troops attacked one row troop, it wouldn't be uncommon that your troop was obstructed by two other troops firing at the same target, sort of balancing when one detachment is much larger than the other one (could it be called archers overkill).

however, it is absurd that archers move forward to get better shots having no care that they are actually entering melee, though they know they are not good at it, especially when they were ordered to be defensive.

[Chenier]

This actually echoes a discussion among the devs a couple of weeks back.  The code isn't all finished yet, but when it is and goes live all ranged units will prioritize firing over moving to the point where if they can fire at anything, they'll do that instead of moving forward.

Nice.

[Velax]

This actually echoes a discussion among the devs a couple of weeks back.  The code isn't all finished yet, but when it is and goes live all ranged units will prioritize firing over moving to the point where if they can fire at anything, they'll do that instead of moving forward.

Sounds good to me.

[Foundation]

This actually echoes a discussion among the devs a couple of weeks back.  The code isn't all finished yet, but when it is and goes live all ranged units will prioritize firing over moving to the point where if they can fire at anything, they'll do that instead of moving forward.

It seems Chenier thinks that even when they can't fire at anything due to wind, they should still stay whenever it is "better" for them.

[Chenier]

It seems Chenier thinks that even when they can't fire at anything due to wind, they should still stay whenever it is "better" for them.

If there are two R4 archer units on the front row, on defensive settings and within 4 rows of a monster unit, why would one shoot and the other move forward?

My unit moved forward... Cohesion was above 50% and training above 65%, so while it's not awesome it's still not crap, and doubt the other guy really had better.

If the other guy could fire and indeed did, I don't see why my unit could not.

I believe that archers set to defensive should not towards a close row of melee troops without having any of their own with them. It is indeed more than just "never move if it can actually shoot". Archers set to defensive should "never move if it'll throw them in melee", basically, and prioritize sitting back and waiting over moving forward towards melee troops without infantry cover.

[fodder]

i don't know.. were you attacking or defending? i mean... if you are defending, then dig in should do that.

prioritising so it'll happen less often is good.. but never? not sure about that.

i mean.. i've mentioned a plausible reason why 1 set of 4 ranged does 1 thing whilst another does another. equally it would be brilliant if infantry can just sit around for a few turns until the enemy spends energy coming closer too.

wouldn't it be nice if unit stereotypes of hot blooded, calculating, cowardly, etc, are shown with the unit.

[De-Legro]

If there are two R4 archer units on the front row, on defensive settings and within 4 rows of a monster unit, why would one shoot and the other move forward?

My unit moved forward... Cohesion was above 50% and training above 65%, so while it's not awesome it's still not crap, and doubt the other guy really had better.

If the other guy could fire and indeed did, I don't see why my unit could not.

I believe that archers set to defensive should not towards a close row of melee troops without having any of their own with them. It is indeed more than just "never move if it can actually shoot". Archers set to defensive should "never move if it'll throw them in melee", basically, and prioritize sitting back and waiting over moving forward towards melee troops without infantry cover.

Blood lust or drugs. I am happy with units doing silly things at time, it does sort of represent the kind of mistakes that units do commit on the battlefield. My problem is it seems to be far too common. What was the cohesion and morale of the units? I've often wondered in Cohesion or Leadership plays a part in deciding what kind of crazy antics my unit will get up to.

[Stue (DC)]

It seems Chenier thinks that even when they can't fire at anything due to wind, they should still stay whenever it is "better" for them.

That would make sense if they are defensive.

Being defensive, they simply give up most of movements even if they are unable to fire. On agressive they would move forward always when unable to fire, on normal it would be 50:50 or so.

With such behavior, we could make different battle preparations with sort of predictability, which could be really interesting for commanders.

right now, it is almost impossible to predict behavior of archers, which is not the case with infantry, while for cavalry, i am not sure how their defensive works; i assumed they will not move until someone enters their charge range, but could not confirm it in battles.

[fodder]

defensive cav just moves as normal doesn't it? unless dug in or behind walls.

[De-Legro]

defensive cav just moves as normal doesn't it? unless dug in or behind walls.

Yes, I long ago came to think of the term defensive in a different manner then standing still. To me a defensive stance means that my troops move with caution, ensuring their shield wall is intact (if they have shields) etc. I'm not sure it was ever suppose to mean hold your ground.

[fodder]

holding ground would be digging in.