The party map movement attack coordination needs to be applied also to multiple armies

Currently viewing this thread:

There is a well coordinated technique, of individual parties choosing to engage enemy parties, when they have ally parties near. This is working well. And I am happy with it.

Though switch this to Army parties. Say I am in an army of 1000A. And I have another kingdom army right next to me, and it is 400A. The enemy is 800B.

400A army, will not engage and go off with an instruction to siege a far away place. In this case, the coding method, given to to non-armies, should also apply to Armies for this multiple attack engagement.

Also I am recognising armies ignore opportunities like this, and go marching away on hard-set focused missions, where the possibility was to destroy another army, ignored, even in some solitary situations, as well as unified army situations.

The 400A army, should operate like a 40 party group, (presume hypothetical they are not armies but smaller parties on the same scale) and with the higher speed, do the likewise manoeuvre, and engage the 800B army. This is not happening. This instruction should become the main instruction, just as the individual party would do the same.

What then happens, is the 400A army, will only engage, if in the radius of battle, and the 1000A army has first engaged, they will not chase the 800B army, with your army also in the nearby, exactly how a smaller party would engage the army, knowing the larger group is in range. The armies need to collaborate with other armies, when they are near each other, in the same way as smaller party groups. This is not happening.

Instead the smaller army, will leave the area, and let you fight 1000 vs 800, if you happen to catch them. I can see no issue, with the same function of the smaller party groups, being applied to armies here, and it should over-ride a siege order, or any other order, and use its speed to chase, <as while> the larger army is in range.

Another example of play when siege attacking or defending. This, should also be extended to assisting in sieges, or defending sieges. I will watch as a secondary army, walks directly close by to a siege I am defending of 900 vs 800, and the 300 army could have helped, yet keeps going to their order far away. The code for armies working together in many ways are not there. The base for this code should already be in the game, for parties will work this way individually.

What is lacking, is "I will help another army code", in all cases. This does not mean, other armies should always seek out to other armies. This is a proximity flag.
So there are two examples here:
- Smaller army will not chase and help a nearby army, like parties help nearby parties [they will continue on their main order]
- Army will be very close, or even walk past a defendable siege, where another army is engaging, or is ready to engage, and not flag, to help in this battle.

The other things to improve, that extend from this topic:
On the solitary level of AI army:
- {less so but still existent} Other scenarios where one army alone can gain opportunity to destroy another army and also moves away on a hard coded mission
 
Last edited:

Spinozart1

Sergeant
What is lacking, is "I will help another army code", in all cases. This does not mean, other armies should always seek out to other armies. This is a proximity flag.
So there are two examples here:
- Smaller army will not chase and help a nearby army, like parties help nearby parties [they will continue on their main order]
- Army will be very close, or even walk past a defendable siege, where another army is engaging, or is ready to engage, and not flag, to help in this battle.

The other things to improve, that extend from this topic:
On the solitary level of AI army:
- {less so but still existent} Other scenarios where one army alone can gain opportunity to destroy another army and also moves away on a hard coded mission
I have indeed noticed this kind of weird behaviour where armies would simply ignore each other, and lose a good opportunity to destroy an important ennemy threath.
Maybe @mexxico could give some more details about what is prioritized in the army code and if it is possible to improve it?
I remember similar topic started a while ago but it ended in some kind of trolling thread...
 
Top Bottom