Friendly Fire needs urgent attention.

[Didz]

I'm surprised that at this the third evolution of the TW game engine we appear to have lost the routines that controlled missile targetting and limited friendly fire casualties.

In STW and MTW FF losses occurred, even amongst the firing unit where archers would sometimes shoot a guy in the front rank in the back. But they were limited to sensible proportions based on stray arrows and poor deployment.

The only way to inflict serious FF casualties on your own troops was to deliberately order a missile unit to target an enemy unit in a melee. If left to 'Fire at Will' a missile unit automatically avoided firing at an enemy unit engaged in close combat with its own troops and also avoided wasting ammunition firing at enemy troops who were running away.

WHY, HAVE WE LOST THAT LOGIC IN RTW?

I have watched archer units fire repeated volleys of arrows into the exposed backs of their own infantry deployed to screen them from attackers.

I have also seen missile units continue to fire on a routing enemy unit even though they are being charged by enemy cavalry.

I fail to see why the lesson's learned in STW and MTW were not applied in this game too.

[Mr Frost]

Yup , we noticed . One for a patch that I think .

[Ellesthyan]

Indeed! That's what is bugging me all the time. You can't just leave them on fire at will anymore since they won't switch targets, so I've got to use the pause button all the time to avoid the deadly friendly fire.

[Didz]

Had a weird situation in my last battle this morning.

It was a simple action to get rid of some rebels. A small detachment was sent, 1xGeneral, 3xTown Watch, 2xArchers and the local gladiator school turned out for some free practice.

As always the archers were deployed in the front row to limit FF problems and the army closed on the rebels consisting of a unit of:

1xMissile Cavalry
1xMercenary Javelins
1xMilitia Hoplites
1xPeasants

Understandably my main concern was with the rebel missile troops. However, the first attack was by the enemy Hoplites who made a half-hearted attempt to advance took a few volleys of arrows and then withdrew back on their main body.

I would have been happy for my archers to continue firing on them but instead they switched targets and began dropping the peasants.

Now, the peasants were the least of my worries and so I told them to stop wasting arrows on them and concentrate their fire on the rebel missile cavalry (which also happened to be their leader).

They ignored me and continued to fire on the peasants.

So, I told them to stop firing, removed FAW, and specifically targetted them at the cavalry. They resumed firing on the peasants.

I tried ordering both units seperately, but they ignored me.

I then tried ungrouping them as I've noticed grouped units sometimes develop a will of their own.

This time when I ordered them to fire at the cavalry they refused to fire at all despite have a green range arrow. Repeated attempts to get them to open fire on the enemy cavalry just got ignored and the archers stood there and sulked until I finally gave up put FAW back on and allowed them to finish off the peasants.

In this instance it was little more than a waste of arrows but in a serious action this behaviour could have lost me the battle. As it was it mean't that my general and the Town Watch had to fight the enemies most dangerous troops H2H.

Personally, I think decimation is in order.

Where are those developers?

[Ziu]

Yea FF is a real problem.
One of my prized Cretian archer units got a tad mixed in with a slinger unit and before I knew it, 80 had gone to 23. All rocks in the back of the head at point blank!

[SwordsMaster]

At least the rputing units thing has to be fixed.... I hate when in bridge battles the enemy runs away thru my side of the bridge and the archers kill my OWN soldiers protecting the bridge entrance...........

[zhuge]

@Didz:
I'm not sure if this is related but I had an archer unit which refused to move and shoot as well some time ago and somehow got stuck near a town building.
Nothing I did made any difference until I turned off skirmish mode (putting them in stand and fight mode). Then I was able to move and shoot as usual.
I didn't notice any enemy particularly close to have provoked this odd behavior while they were in skirmish mode but turning skirmish off appears to have worked all the same.

I've lost units to Friendly Fire as well... I think most of us have to some extent. I also use pause to take them off Fire at Will but sometimes with a lot of other things happening, I forget/or remember too late. Putting them on skirmish sometimes results in them retreating behind your lines even though no enemy troop is directly targeting them, but just passing close by.
All in all, it would be appreciated if there was an option to turn on: Do not fire if there is a strong likelihood of hitting friendly units (I believe individual unit commanders can certainly make that judgement in RL).
Not sure how easy/hard it is to do though. In heavily bugged games, forum members sometimes came up with a list of the most essential things to fix and accompanying reasons (if necessary) so that the devs had a better idea on what to prioritize.

[The_Emperor]

FF isn't much of a problem its just a quesion of organisation really.

But I never liked the Fire at will mode in Medieval. My men tended to shoot at the closest thing rather than what I wanted to be killed... Therefore in RTW I regularly disable and re-enable fire at will mode based on the situation.

[Didz]

All in all, it would be appreciated if there was an option to turn on: Do not fire if there is a strong likelihood of hitting friendly units (I believe individual unit commanders can certainly make that judgement in RL).
Not sure how easy/hard it is to do though. In heavily bugged games, forum members sometimes came up with a list of the most essential things to fix and accompanying reasons (if necessary) so that the devs had a better idea on what to prioritize.

Thats really my point.

This problem was solved, in both STW and MTW and so there really is no excuse for it re-appearing in the third evolution of the game engine. Its a bit like man suddenly forgetting how to 'make fire' and all the scientists standing around scratching their heads as the entire human race dies from frost bite.

[Obake]

Well well well............

I guess one old timer showing up deserves another!

Good to see you again Didz old friend!

There certainly are issues with not only friendly fire, but how the AI is choosing its targets. There's no reason why a unit should fire at anything other than what we as the general tell it to when FAW is disabled. You aren't the only one that's run into this issue by a long shot.

No doubt it's an issue that will be looked into for the patch. In the meantime there's no easy workaround that I've managed to find. I'll have to try Zhuge's suggestion of also disabling skirmish mode and see if that'll work!

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I think this adds some realism, because the main reason generals were good in those days was organisation, courage, leadership and sneakyness. This just forces you to be more organised. I have not had problems with unresponsive units and have been playing since it was released but if that is a common problem it should be fixed.

[Didz]

I think this adds some realism.

Curious to know how shooting your own friends in the back constitutes realism in any sense of the word. In fact if one was going for realism it would be more appropriate to prevent missile troops firing at any target which is masked from view by intervening troops or terrain. Thus archers should not be able to fire from the second line of a formation unless they are deployed on higher ground.

[Shadow]

I seriously hope that they will fix this problem with the next patch.

I have TWO whole units of Mercenary Hoplites almost being completely destroy by my two units of Cretans archer & slinger thus endangering themselves to a cavalry charge.

[Fridge]

Thus archers should not be able to fire from the second line of a formation unless they are deployed on higher ground.

Except archers didn't fire line-of-sight... They would fire their arrows into the air in a high arc, and so theoretically you could have them a hundred ranks deep (maybe not many) and the ones at the back could fire with no risk of hitting the man in front. All you'd need would be someone to tell you how far away the enemy unit was and you'd adjust the trajectory accordingly...

[Watchman]

Oh, they seem to do that all right in Rome and at least I've yet to lose a single missile trooper to his own units' projectiles, albeit there have been FF casualties every now and then when I've forgot to micro the damn archers before the melee.

There seems to be a very high possibility of FF into the backs of an unit standing before the archer/javelineers if you occupy high ground and the enemy advances uphill - it looks like the archers start using relatively flat trajectory once the enemies get close, and they may well start hitting their pals in the back of the helmet if they stand too near... I'm not sure about this one, but I've seen some incidents that looked like it and nowadays I try to make sure there's some extra space between the firing line and the melee wall when I'm on high ground.

[anti_strunt]

The current FF situation is just stupid beyond belief... Archers happily shooting their comrades standing two feet in front of them? Realistic? Nope, just idiotic.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Hey guys some leaders were infamous for sending peasants into a melee and then bombarding both units indiscriminately with missiles, that REALLY happened. What you need to learn is war is hell and victory and survival of your country is paramount, all moral issues can be settled afterwards if the enemy threat is able to truly rival your nation in strength, skill, economy, manpower and technology. The old kings and lords cared little for the frontline average joe, they cared more about victory and glory. Besides if anyone complained after the victory they could be tried for treason and killed.

[Red Harvest]

Uesugi Kenshin,

It doesn't add realism, quite the opposite.

The reasoning you just provided actually supports the original complaint! Afterall, in your example it was the army COMMANDER ordering them to fire into their own meleeing troops. Repeat, it is not fire-at-will you just described. Unit commanders would be following a normal fire at will protocol. MTW did provide for the situation you describe, it was far more realistic.

Nobody is claiming there shouldn't be friendly fire. However, it should have some logic. If units voluntarily massacred their own this way, they would likely be hacked to death by their own troops. Certainly the officers would be executed on the spot. And one of the biggest problems is that they don't even STOP when ordered to.

And I can't recall any commanders that asked their own missile units to shoot at them and their bodyguard as they chased routers.

MTW didn't let your men shoot when arranged 16 ranks deep either...

[Bhruic]

This just forces you to be more organised.

You could easily and accurately change that statement to: "This just forces you to use the pause button more often". Personally, I greatly dislike using the pause button at all. I've gotten used to the fact that I have to in RTW, if I want to have any hope of giving my troops relevant orders, but I still don't appreciate having to do it. Any system that increases the amount that I have to use the pause button is a poor one, imo. I don't want to have to micromanage my archers to make sure they aren't firing at my own troops.

Bh

[Didz]

Except archers didn't fire line-of-sight... They would fire their arrows into the air in a high arc, and so theoretically you could have them a hundred ranks deep (maybe not many) and the ones at the back could fire with no risk of hitting the man in front. All you'd need would be someone to tell you how far away the enemy unit was and you'd adjust the trajectory accordingly...

Line of sight has nothing to do with trajectory.

Sure archers fired in a high arc at longer ranges but they still needed to see their target which they cannot do if they are standing behind a solid line of infantry or cavalry.

Historically, indirect fire did not become a practical proposition until the early 19th Century and even then it was limited to sieges and static bombardment due to the lack of adequate battlefield communications for fire control.

Now if all the Archer Auxilia were issued with 'bluetooth' ear peices then a centurion with a mobile phone might be able to direct their fire from in front of the first line cohorts. Mind you he'd need a hands free kit because he'd be busy with sword and shield once the barbarians closed. Still not sure he'd still be able to call down fire support when he's wading through gauls but I'm sure he'd be quite vocal if the bastard archers started shooting his men in the back like they do in my game.

[Kraxis]

Uesugi Kenshin, I'm pretty certain you have missed the point somewhere. You can't be serious about the whole 'adds realism'. Picture this:

The battle is about to begin, you are an archer, you let loose a few arrows when ordered to. The enemy closes the distance and suddenly you notice your friends start dropping around you. 'Damn, the enemy has their own archers' you think. But hey, you don't see any arrows. What happens next is that you focus so much on nailing that nastylooking Dacian who is jumping around in front of his unit that you entirely forget that there is another acher in front of you, you simply look right through the man. You let the arrow go... Right into the neck of the archer in front of you. You are surprised, even shocked but you reload and just as you let the arrow go you feel something very sharp and pointy pierce your back and chest. The last thing you see before you black out is an arrow that has gone almost through your body.

Realism? No...

In MTW the archers had an inbuilt inhibitor so that they wouldn't fire if something was blocking their arrow's trajectory (within a certain distance of course). That way we didn't see the stupid 'self-unit' FFs from STW and the archers didn't fire blindly into a tree standing right in front of him. Now that inhibitor is gone...

[Fridge]

Line of sight has nothing to do with trajectory.

Sure archers fired in a high arc at longer ranges but they still needed to see their their target which they cannot do if they are standing behind a solid line of infantry or cavalry.

Yeah, but (no but)... do they really need to see the enemy? I mean, they're not actually shooting at targets are they? The bowmen wouldn't pick out a particular enemy soldier, but just fire in the direction of the enemy unit. The skill was in having your arrow describe an arc which ended in a small area at the correct distance. So logically, there is absolutely no need for the archer to see his target - it would be just as effective to have some leader pointing in a direction and calling out '200 yards', '100 yards' etc.

Now I'm not saying this is how things worked, just pointing out that there is no need for everyone in the unit to be able to see the target, but if the front rank can, the rest of the archers - and we're talking about trained archers who no doubt get a bit of practise in - could just match their aim. [/QUOTE]

Historically, indirect fire did not become a practical proposition until the early 19th Century and even then it was limited to sieges and static bombardment due to the lack of adequate battlefield communications for fire control.

Depends what you mean by indirect fire. The English longbowmen at Agincourt etc didn't fire a horizontal trajectory straight at the front rank of the French, they fired their arrows high up into the air, which then rained down indiscrimately on the mass of French troops.

Is that indirect fire? No idea, but I think it's conceiveable that you could have stuck a large formation of infantry in front of those archers without worrying about friendly fire, apart from the odd mis-fire. The bows in R:TW won't have nearly the same range as the English longbows, but I think the principle stands. A unit of archers could fire over a unit of infantry without turning them into pin cushions. After all, you can stick your onagers behind your lines, and they can shoot over the top , and they're going to have a much harder time seeing what they're aiming at.

I wouldn't be surprised - though this is purely speculation - if the better archers could be told where the enemy unit was, and then could adjust their range according to how fast they knew the enemy unit was likely to advance, and keep a stream of fire on them without ever having to see them. But again, that's speculation.[/QUOTE]

Now if all the Archer Auxilia were issed with 'bluetooth' ear peices then a centurion with a mobile phone might be able to direct their fire from in front of the first line cohorts. Mind you he'd need a hands free kit because he'd be busy with sword and shield once the barbarians closed. Not sure if he'd still be able to call down fire support when he's wading through gauls but I'm sure he'd be quite vocal if the bastard archers started shotting his men in the back like they do in my game.

Oh, come on, you'd just need a bloke at the front with a bonfire, sending smoke signals. Maybe someone on stilts with flags. Or just a very loud voice.
No, I totally take your point that in the heat of battle, the sort of communication that you'd need to direct fire would be impossible, but if we're talking about the period of the battle before the lines close, I think its reasonable to imagine your archers hidden behind a phalanx and able to send hails of arrows over them and into the advancing enemy, without having direct line of sight. After that, I guess they'd do what we probably tell them to do and just f*** off out of the fight before they kill their own general.

Sorry about the long post, but I'm at work and very bored.

[Didz]

Do they really need to see the enemy?

Yes. Otherwise they have no idea where they are?

I mean, they're not actually shooting at targets are they? The bowmen wouldn't pick out a particular enemy soldier, but just fire in the direction of the enemy unit.

This is a matter of historical conjecture, anecdotal evidence suggests that longbowmen could not only choose their target but actually choose the point where their arrow hit them. There are stories for instance of French Knights being hit deliberately in the face as soon as they raised their visor to take a gulp of air.

However, I tend to agree with you that in a massed charge of knights selecting a specific target was less important than laying down a heavy rain of arrows. The problem is that unless you can actually see the enemy unit you have no idea how much trajectory to give your arrow in order to land it amongst the enemy.

This is not just a matter of knowing how far the enemy is away from you but a longer ranges when it might take several seconds for the arrow to arrive on target one must also be able to see the speed that the target unit is moving and its direction so that you can judge where it will be when your arrow arrives and aim for that point.

So logically, there is absolutely no need for the archer to see his target - it would be just as effective to have some leader pointing in a direction and calling out '200 yards', '100 yards' etc.

I don't think so. Even assuming that an archer was able mentally convert verbal descriptions of distance, speed and direction into the physical skill of aiming his bow, the practical problems of actually communicating this information would render the process impractical. This leader for instance would have to be able to see the target and thus would have to be in front of the first line of infantry. Therefore, he would be as invisible to the archers as the enemy unless he was placed on a high platform, suspended from a tree or issued with very tall stilts.

Even then he would be at least 50 paces away from the nearest archers who would be arranged on a broad front of perhaps 100 paces frontage with a bunch of extremely noisy infantry psyching themselves up for mortal combat between him and the people he was trying to convey information to. And thats before the enemy closed with the main battle line and placed him in the middle of a slugfest.

Can't see it myself.

Now I'm not saying this is how things worked, just pointing out that there is no need for everyone in the unit to be able to see the target, but if the front rank can, the rest of the archers - and we're talking about trained archers who no doubt get a bit of practise in - could just match their aim.

Now you are talking about something completely different. I accept completely that if the front rank of archers can see a target then those standing behind them could certainly copy the direction and trajectory of archer in front them and loose arrows into approximately the same area.

However, in practice archers would not be standing that close together anyway and their files would almost certainly be staggered so that most of a unit would have be able to see something even from the back of their own formation.

The issue I have is with archers being able to fire from behind a close order unit of infantry or cavalry which would be several ranks deep and closely packed together.

Depends what you mean by indirect fire. The English longbowmen at Agincourt etc didn't fire a horizontal trajectory straight at the front rank of the French, they fired their arrows high up into the air, which then rained down indiscrimately on the mass of French troops.

I meant it in the strict military sense of the word as in firing at a target which one cannot see.

Direct Fire being the alternative of firing at a target you can see.

The archers at Agincourt for example were not deployed behind the English men-at-arms but were actually formed in four 'herces' one between each of the three 'main' divisions of Camoys, Henry V and York and one on each flank.

Not only that but to ensure that every archer could see a target these 'herces' were formed as hollow wedges which projected point forward a short distance ahead of the main battle line so that every archer could see through the quite shallow formation and so that even when the French closed with the main divisions the archers could still see targets both to their front and to both flanks.

After all, you can stick your onagers behind your lines, and they can shoot over the top , and they're going to have a much harder time seeing what they're aiming at.

I would argue that placing onagers behind a line of troops is unhistorical too for the same reasons.

I think its reasonable to imagine your archers hidden behind a phalanx and able to send hails of arrows over them and into the advancing enemy, without having direct line of sight.

I think the only way this might work is if the Phalanx was trained to lie down so that the archers could see over them, and then to jump up just before the enemy closed, bit risky but it could work with practice.

[Alphidius]

From my battles, I've had huge counts of men slain by FF. So what I did was turn FAW off at the start of combat.

Arrange eveything nicely, start battle and immediately pause. Now during this time, I would alter their orders and change formation depending on where the enemies are. Would place two infantry one on each side of archers in case the enemy charges or flanks. Lots of micro-management

[anti_strunt]

Mircomanagement of archers is bad, especially as it wasn't needed in the previous games... They had FF too, but not caused by the archer unit shooting up the friendlies two damn feet in front of them...! The same holds true for javelin units, bunch some velites or pelasts just a little bit too closly and they will soon start too throw javelins into their own squad-mates... Realistic? Nope!

[Alphidius]

anti_strunt: Agree with you there. In common sense no soldier will fire at their own mates especially if they're two feet away (what were they thinking )

Is there a way for the infantry to crotch down? I've only seen this in grassy or forested areas where my infantry will crotch down and the archers behind have a clear line of sight to fire away

[LordKhaine]

I believe you mean crouch down. Crotch means quite a different thing ;)

[Didz]

The problem is that FF becomes most damaging when the unit in front of the archers is engaged in H2H and the archers are trying to shoot the attackers through their own covering troops. So, crouching down is not really an option.

The arrows just hit the rear rank of the defending formation and wipe it out from the rear allowing the enemy to break through and massacre them. They would be better off not firing at least then their mates would still be alive to protect them.

[Alphidius]

I believe you mean crouch down. Crotch means quite a different thing ;)

Opppss my bad... yeah I mean that, crouch that is

Didz: Yeap agreed. That's why if my archers are pulled behind lines, I tend to turn FAW off

[Suraknar]

"Archers!!"

"But Sir, we will hit our own troops as well"

- Braveheart -

In all actuality, this was the Chaos of ancient battles, the archers would aim for distance and general direction, and not individual enemy soldiers as one would do with a rifle.

Spartan Scout "Sir the Persian Army has so many archers that a volley of arrows would cover the Sky"

Spartan Commander "Then we shall be fighting under the shade"

- Battle of Thermopylae -

FF was quite common back in those times, I would agree however with the comments about hiting someone in front of you at 2 feet, but in a melee H2H, always expect loses from FF if your archers are not ordered to stop shooting those arrows, or simply change target.