Command Staff Settings

[Indirik]

I don't see why that would be the case. Your R4 archers would still be in the front. But your "front" would be 4 ranks away from your enemy's "front", not 2 ranks. So your enemy would have to charge for four rounds through your R4 archer fire to get to you. You could still put your cav on Rearguard, making them have to charge for three or so rounds to get to the enemy.

Ideally, add in a battlefield behavior control, to separate battlefield behavior from the currently overloaded encounter settings control. Then, if you have a heavy archer contingent, and not much infantry, you could do:

Archers: Middle/Hold, they don't ever move forward, no matter what
Infantry: Front/Hold, they wait for the enemy to come to them, allowing the archers as much time as possible to chew up the other side
Cav: Rear/LongWait, they sit in back for 4 or so rounds, then charge, and hopefully hit soon after the infantry lines meet

But if you have overwhelming infantry advantage, you do this:

Archers: Front/normal, shoot if you have a target, if not then move forward until you do have a target
Infantry: Front/charge, start as close to the enemy as possible, and advance into melee as quickly as possible
Cav: Back/ShortWait, give the infantry 2 rounds to move forward, then charge after them, hoping to hit at the same time, or maybe the round before?

Anyway... Just some random thoughts that have been floating around.

[vonGenf]

Archers: Middle/Hold, they don't ever move forward, no matter what
Infantry: Front/Hold, they wait for the enemy to come to them, allowing the archers as much time as possible to chew up the other side

And then you could actually use walls as walls instead of leaving them if the enemy starts far enough to the back!

[vanKaya]

The idea of hold/ short wait/ long wait is brilliant.

Would that replace defensive/ aggressive etc or would those be reworked and act in addition to those settinngs?

[songqu88@gmail.com]

We could split the encounter settings (something I think would make sense and should probably have been done in the first place)

So the Murderous/Aggressive/Normal/Defensive/Evasive only counts towards encounter settings, meaning do you attack them in the first place. So M means you attack everyone you meet in a region, after some other Attacker Defender stuff is handled. A means you attack up to Peace. Normal means you attack up to...Neutral? Defensive means you attack only up to War. Evasive means you try your best to run away but if spotted must battle no matter what the diplomacy. Rough idea, smooth it out later but the point is that these settings would only determine whether your unit ENTERS the battle, not how it acts in battle.

Then we have stuff like Hold/Wait/Long Wait/Charge that determines the unit's behavior once inside the battle. This would be the stuff like waiting around or immediately rushing.

I think this is a staple of just about every RTS that exists, so nothing major here. Having two sets of settings is not difficult for people to grasp the concept of. The Encounter Settings deals with whether you go into battle. The Behavior Settings determines how the unit will behave after it enters the battle. Fairly simple to understand.

Now, to prevent someone from holding position while being Murderous, maybe some combinations can be locked. That's nothing new, we do it with class combos already.

[Indirik]

We could split the encounter settings (something I think would make sense and should probably have been done in the first place)

Yes, that would be the idea. Split out the controls between Encounter Settings (which determine when you engage in battle) and Battle Settings (how you act when you are in a battle).

Now, to prevent someone from holding position while being Murderous, maybe some combinations can be locked. That's nothing new, we do it with class combos already.

Yes, some controls like that would have to be worked out. Aggressive encounter settings should probably not be allowed to be combined with battle settings that prevent your forces from actively engaging the enemy. But then there would need o be some additional controls that prevent exploits, like a single sacrificial unit on Aggressive/Charge, with the rest of the army on Defensive/Hold in order to trigger a battle, but not actively engage.

Anyway, not something that will happen soon. Just tossing around ideas.

[Vaylon Kenadell]

I have a question regarding inalienable rights and army balance. Our realm has two armies, one for raiding and the other for home defense, but they're sort of imbalanced: the raiding one has a lot of archers, and the home one has a lot of defense.

As the marshal of the home army, I want to send a letter to the realm that basically says, "Fellow warriors, the raiding army has need of infantry; nobles in the home army who wish to participate in the raids are welcomed to ask permission to join. Likewise, the home army has need of archers, so nobles in the raiding army wishing for (slight) repose are welcomed to join the home army."

Does this violate their inalienable rights?

[Indirik]

First, a question like this probably belongs in the General Discussion, or Helpline forums.

Second, an unofficial answer: You do not have an inalienable right to be a member of a certain army. You can assign anyone you want to any army. However.... If you make it a habit of assigning anyone who recruits archers to an army that is permanently stationed in the capital, and told to "Sit down and shut up", then you may run into some problems. (i.e. you are persecuting people based on their exercising the right to lead a particular unit type.)

[Vaylon Kenadell]

First, a question like this probably belongs in the General Discussion, or Helpline forums.

But... this is the helpline forum. I'd rather ask in a semi-related topic (army management) than make a new thread.

Second, an unofficial answer: You do not have an inalienable right to be a member of a certain army. You can assign anyone you want to any army. However.... If you make it a habit of assigning anyone who recruits archers to an army that is permanently stationed in the capital, and told to "Sit down and shut up", then you may run into some problems. (i.e. you are persecuting people based on their exercising the right to lead a particular unit type.)

Yes... The people I play with and myself are just a bit paranoid about even mentioning archer/infantry distinctions in army orders.

[Indirik]

But... this is the helpline forum. I'd rather ask in a semi-related topic (army management) than make a new thread.

Well, I suppose I meant in it's own thread. Starting new threads is no problem. It's better to start a new thread for unrelated questions, or peripherally related questions. Your question is really an IR question, not an army command thing. It's not really a big deal, but it would help people find answers in the future, since they'll probably look in threads with related topics.

Yes... The people I play with and myself are just a bit paranoid about even mentioning archer/infantry distinctions in army orders.

I can understand that. But the key thing to remember is that you can't tell or ask nobles to recruit specific types. But you can provide orders based on the types of units they command. You can say things like:

• "All archers should be in the Flaming Bows army, and all infantry in the Shield Wall army."
• "We are launching a cavalry-only raid into Evilstani. Cavalry leaders who want to join us, please contact your liege to be assigned to the Iron Hooves army. Lords, please remove any non-cavalry leaders from the Iron Hooves."
• "All infantry commanders will get extra gold for the coming refit, but archer commanders will have to make do with their own incomes."
• "I'll give any archer commander who drops his unit as militia in Keplerstan an extra 400 gold to recruit infantry."

Just keep away from any statement or action that tells/requests/suggests someone to recruit a specific type, or punishes someone for recruiting whatever type they want.

Oh, and if someone asks for recommendations on what type to recruit, feel free to answer them. I generally say something like: "You can never go wrong by recruiting infantry."

[vanKaya]

Could you say something like:

Our army has a lot of archers, more infantry will be needed in coming battles. Anyone who would recruit infantry will be doing a great service to the army.

Sorry if the question seems nit picky or too specific but I think it would genuinely help me( and hopefully others) understand the rule better.

[Chenier]

Yea, this is a thread hijack.

[Vaylon Kenadell]

Sorry about the threadjack. Thanks for the advice, Indirik.