Killing own routing units

[Shadow]

I was thinking if there could be a function that allows you to order your units to kill routing ones so as to force the fleeing units to stop and return to fighting

What you people think?

[Peasant Phill]

Was this 'tactic' used very often? I know about Agincourt where French knights killed the routing Genoese sailors. But the Genoese were mercenaries and AFAIK the French knights killed them out of rage not to 'encourage' them to start fighting again.

[Watchman]

Those were crossbowmen, mind you. I've read the knights by and large either confused them as an enemy attack, and/or thought they'd changed sides. Plus with medieval unit C-and-C as well as the warrior aristocracy's attitude to combat, if a part of the cavalry line which didn't have too many Genoese in the way decided to advance (since the mercs had obviously failed) the rest would almost certainly follow suit if only so as not to be though of as dawdling in the face of the enemy...

I don't think even the steppe nomads and derived empires (like the Ottomans) practiced that sort of Stalinist motivation of troops. It wasn't really feasible with the weaponry of the time if nothing else - try to stop routing troops by killing them, and the buggers just may in desperation fight you. Better really to just let them go by so the reserve formation is in shape and order to take on the pursuing enemy.

However, unreliable formations and allies were commonly placed in locations where they couldn't surreptiously sneak away from, and would be very vulnerable if they changed sides. This sometimes sort of backfired - I've read that when the Ottomans fought Tamerlane it turned out to have been a mistake to put their dragooned nomad auxiliaries in the front rank - these happened to share a language and culture base with the enemy, and found it pretty easy to defect en masse. And if pretty much the whole army is unreliable - as was the case for who was it, Kitbogha or whatever the Atabeg of Mosul was called, before Antioch during the First Crusade when his assorted vassals and clients flatly walked away with their troops and left him to get mauled by the Crusaders...

It's probably actually just nice the game doesn't go too deep into the political side of things, eh ? Saves frustration.

[Ser Clegane]

It's probably actually just nice the game doesn't go too deep into the political side of things, eh ? Saves frustration.

Although it might add a very interesting twist to battles if e.g. bribed troops would switch sides not on the campaign map but on the battle map (at least if such a thing would not be overdone and occur only once in a while)

[Bar Kochba]

but if you could do that then if you had a rich empire you can do it every battle and people will just abuse the power

[Ser Clegane]

but if you could do that then if you had a rich empire you can do it every battle and people will just abuse the power

I generally agree with yopu - hence my remark that such a feature should not be overdone - money should not be the most important factor here. Factors like loyalty (see old M:TW) or in which region the troops have originally been recruited could play a more importnat role
(note: I am not expecting something like this to appear in the upcoming M:TW2 - but it might be a nice way to spice up battles in future game; but again: only when it isn't overdone and cannot be exploited).

[Joshwa]

It'd be funky to have some real machinations going on- like paying rebels to attack factions while their backs are turned, etc

[lar]

or have a similar thing after the battle to kill, enslave, prison, decimate men who ran way etc. could be a way of gaining vnvs and loyalty.

[B-Wing]

I would love to see these kind of options implimented. They'd make some really interesting diplomatic options. I think the diplomacy aspect of TW games have been pretty weak so far. Rome added expanded the option greatly, but I think there's still plenty that could be done, such as these. Heck, just being able to make deals with the rebel groups would be a huge step up. Only thing is, they'd really need to improve the AI to make it capable of utilizing and preparing for such situations.

[AwesomeArcher]

the russians did it in WWII and it worked in the end. I think it would be kind of pointless, but a neat feature.

[The Stranger]

i dont think i will like the option. specially when i accidentally push the button and kill my elite units :S

[Shadow]

i dont think i will like the option. specially when i accidentally push the button and kill my elite units :S

Or we can make it that only elite units are able to do the killing (like mopping up your routing peasant running their way)

[Furious Mental]

To be honest I'm not terribly enthusiastic about this idea. Chiefly because I can imagine it finally allowing the AI to commit the ultimate in stupid screw ups, which is to spend most of the battle fighting itself, a previously and thankfully impossible feat.

[B-Wing]

Furious Mental, thank you. Those words of caution brought an indescribable smile to my face. That's all I wanted to say.


Well, actually, I do have something I wanted to mention. Reading Joshwa's simple idea brought an issue to mind. He suggested it would be cool to be able to pay rebel groups to attack a faction while their backs are turned. The "while their backs are turned" part is the issue. In RTW, the diplomatic agreement to attack a faction is currently completely ambigous. There's no specification as to whether the attack needs to be carried out ASAP or if it can wait indefinitely. And therefore, it seems to me to be a rather useless agreement. I might offer to attack a faction's enemies, but if there's no time limit, then there's no way to tell if I held up my end of the deal.

I don't know how the AI in RTW/BI judges such agreements (I'm not sure I've ever successfully negotiated one), but I don't like the vagueness of it. So, I'd really, really like MTW2's diplomacy to allow factions to specify when an attack is to be carried out by. If I really need help against a faction RIGHT NOW, I'd like to be able to make that clear to whatever faction I'm negotiating with. If I just want them to attack someone in the relatively near future, I can just ask them to do it within 20 turns. Obviously, the longer the faction you're dealing with is given to prepare for the attack, the more likely they would be to accept the deal. And likewise, offering to immediately help a faction who is under attack would carry more weight than offering to help them within several turns, with considerably larger penalty to your reputation if you failed to live up.

If you agree with me on this, please say so. :) I can't start a thread on this forum for whatever reason, but I'd appreciate it more people brought it to attention.