New battle commands??

[SnoeiSchaaR]

I wondered if it would be possible to add some new commands which you can order to your troops?

"Aim for the horses" would be a good order to give to your archers
"Spears up/down" sounds interresting for infantery when enemy cavalery comes storming towards them

If someone has other commands he would like in M&b plz post them here..

tnx

 

[Alec{zacool}]

They aim for the horses anyway if the rider's holding a shield.

 

[Khadmus]

They aim for the horses anyway if the rider's holding a shield.

If...



Hold Fire is a popular one.

 

[Rongar]

1. Hold that position.

How to point "that position"?
hard -- with arrow/javelin.
easy -- with crosshair.


2. No reatreat if I fall.

3. Don't stack on the ladder

 

[SnoeiSchaaR]

Hold Fire is a popular one.

Yeah idd cause mostly they have no arrows left when the second wave arrives 

 

[Darian]

1. Hold that position.

How to point "that position"?

You can already do this with the command interface (hit backspace during battle). Note that this feature is not available in non-combat situations or during sieges. While it would be possible for M&B to have a crosshair-based system (in the manner of Tom Clancy games) the command interface serves this purpose quite well.

 

[insomniac]

i would like a "hold your position" command

If you are far away from your soldiers and you want to play defensive, it would be a good idea. That would mean hold your current position, don't charge.

 

[Khadmus]

2. No reatreat if I fall.

This would be awesome. Save me a good deal of morale, too.

 

[italiano]

"Spears up/down" sounds interresting for infantery when enemy cavalery comes storming towards them

Should be automatic. My new commands would be:

1) Advance. Not 10 paces, but until I tell them to stop or they engage the enemy. Otherwise I have to press "advance 10 paces" two dozen times.

2) A separate "form ranks" command. Currently we have the option of pressing "closer" 3 times to get 2 ranks. 2 ranks is nowhere near enough and what if I don't want tight ranks? Tight/Loose should be a separate command, and the form ranks command should go to at least 5 ranks. We don't need something vastly more elaborate than what we currently have, but it needs to be a little deeper.

3) Of course hold fire. Formations aren't packed enough for long range firing to be very effective. I would prefer that they are, but unless they do become more packed missile troops need to have the hold fire order.

 

[F50]

agreed zaro

 

[SoanoS]

Infantry, Cabalry: "Prepare Shields"
To defend my brave men against archers.

Their bravery is admirable, but foolish, as they just march towards the ranks of enemy crossbowmen with their shield lowered...
Not many of them survive to fight another day. But the thought that they are feasting in Valhalla right now.
One day I will join them, but I am not in a particular hurry. 

Infantry: "Protect archers!"
To make Infantry gather around the archers and protecting them from enemy infantry. 

Archers: "Hold Fire!" and "Open Fire!"
Would be great, as now they empty their quivers while the enemies are still a league and a half away, missing everyone. 

One last command I would also love to have is "Do not run off after that one horseman you stupid idiots!". 

 

[Rongar]

You can already do this with the command interface (hit backspace during battle).

It was very useful hint. Thanks.

 

[SoanoS]

Also, I think hint #9 should be shown more often

 

[Gustav StreSeman]

Ug ug

I agree with many of the commands.
Especially [Hold your fire]. It could also be used for other units then archers (less meaning, but).
But I would have made the "Infantry defend archers" in an other way.

I would combine commands by using something like:
[Infantry hear me], [Defend], [Archers hear me]. meaning:
      infantry          defend      the archers
Then we could also get an attack command and use it like:
[Cavalry hear me], [Attack], [Archers hear me]. meaning:
      cavalry          attack          the archers

If we shall get enough space for all these commands we will have to get a new system. We could use the Battlefield 1942 method.
First you choose a group:
1                2                3                4                        5                        6            7                    8
Everyone    Infantry      Archers        Cavalry              All, but last used  You        Hide commands
When you have chosen a group you get these options:
Wait          Attack        Defend      Mount/Dismount  Stay closer          Spread    Hold your fire    Make formation
If you choose "Follow", "Attack" or "Defend" you get to choose between these:
Everyone    Infantry        Archers        Cavalry              Me (unless if attack)
If you choose make formation you get these options:
Line          Block            Circle          Triangle
If you choose "You" you get the same options, but also a "And" command on number 9

I haven't placed in follow me because I think it is enough with Defend (and then "Me")
This will may lead to a littlebit more clicking, but it should work. I personally really like this idea! 
It would also be nice to be able to make groups (for example, Group 1: 6 Vaegir Infantry, 4 Vaegir Archers, 2 Vaegir Marksman). These groups will require the "F" keys.

PS: To order your men to take up there shields should not be necessary.

 

[Rongar]

I think that commands tightly connected with troops selection.

It would be nice to have more picky troops selection too.

Something like

1 everyone
2 infantry,  shift+2 infantry with shields. Ctrl+2 infantry with polearms.
3 archers, shift+3 archers that still capable to shoot (have arrows/bolts/axes etc)
4 cavalry, shift+4 mounted archers, Ctrl+4 heavy cavalry
5 other,  shift+5 other in the type. (i.e. if previous command was mounted archers, shift+5 will select all other cavalry)

I don't know if it is possible to make such shortcuts in the game. Thus, they was just for an example.

 

[Gustav StreSeman]

Ug ug

That's no bad idea, but those buttons are probably handy in other cases. I don't know if they are used in standard controls. But I use the shift for zooming.
An other option is to make the grid bigger. After you have chosen a class, for example infantry, you choose what kind of infantry.
The negative thing with this is that it will be much to learn/get into the fingers.
But I am not sure it is quite necessary. Or what do you think? Do we need to separate the classes more? If so we could use the group ability I suggested earlyer.
If it is space for it and it is handy I preffer your idea.

 

[SoanoS]

I think we should also pay attention to the interface not to become too confusing.

No offense to anyone here, but having to remember which key combination does what in the heat of the battle
can get so overwhelmingly complicated that most will just use the good old number and F-keys.
It is a nice idea, though.

Havng too many commands can be more of a hinderance than an advantage.

 

[Lyx]

It seems to me that a reoccuring proposal in "new orders"-threads is "fix an AI flaw by adding a new order". I dont think that this is a sensible approach - if the AI has flaws (and it does), then fix the flaws instead of making the command-interface unnecessarily complex.

Think about it like this: orders are expensive, because they add complexity. There can only be so many orders until the game becomes too complex. Wouldn't you rather prefer to use this available space for really useful orders, rather then use it up for AI-workarounds? Or to put it differently: If the AI problems get fixed (shooting too early, not protecting from arrows, etc.), then you can add more really useful orders.

Non-AI-flaw stuff which i miss:

The ability to define very simple formations. I do not mean stuff as complex as usually proposed. I just want to for example say "archers and infantry in front, cavalry behind", then give them movement orders with them overally keeping that order - then at some point i want to give infantry the order to break out and charge. Perhaps what would be needed is just two kinds of movement commands, which would replace the "follow me"-command:

- follow X: Tells a trooptype to follow someone else, but stay slightly behind them. Should behave just like the current "follow me" command, except that you can define "whom" to follow, and the troop keeping a slight distance.

- assist X: similiar to "follow X", but the troop will not keep any distance and will more aggressively protect the ones whom they assist.

This requires just one more command than the current ones - yet it not only allowes the mentioned trooporders (archers behind infantry), but also additional interesting possibilities ("Infantry assist archers. Cavalry assist me. Archers charge.").

- Lyx

 

[SoanoS]

Lyx's proposal sounds like a sensible idea to me.

But that "ready shields!" would still come in handy...

But to be honest, by enhancing the troop AI we could make some of these functions kind of innate.
I would personally love to see an infantry unit try to assist nearby archers or cavalry.
Or block arrows with his shield rather than his head.

 

[Lyx]

Well, some AI issues currently really are making organised battles difficult - for example, they seem to have a line of sight. But this line of sight appears to be like a tunnelview - they sometimes dont care if they are butchered from behind when mounted and not in charge mode - pain? i dont know that, i just know my orders and whats in front of me, lol. Fixing the AI IMO is a requirement for more interesting battle-commands to be efficient.