Stances Might Need Some Tweaking

[Tutle]

I think Violent and aggressive (sword and double sword symbol) stance could use tweaking. I ordered my 2 elephants that were attacking (in aggressive mode) to return back to garrison, so the towers would finish off the enemy range unit (they also had half their health). However, they refused to follow orders and got killed for nothing. I think the reason why they refused to take orders was because they were being hit by arrows from 2-3 enemy archers. Here is some problems I noticed with the stances, and my suggestions on them:

Violent (1st one from the right): What it does currently. Suggestion: Also, workers will leave chores to fight nearby enemy units. Will refuse to follow orders if they are being attacked by the enemy.

-Players are recommended to use this stance for male workers, and for eliminating enemy forces completely.

Aggressive (2nd one from the right): What it does currently. Suggestion: Will follow orders even if they are being attacked by the enemy.

-Players are recommended to use this stance for coordinating an attack plan.

Passive (middle one): This one is actually fine with me. Although, it would be nice if female workers would automatically garrison the nearest building for protection, after being hit.

-Players are recommended to use this stance for scouting enemy territory, and for female workers.

Defensive (2nd one from the left): What it does currently. Please make the defense circle bigger. This one is very important since currently it's only useful vs. melee units (the A.I. is smart enough to know this weakness). Units should at least have enough space to attack standing enemy range units (not chase them though).

-Players are recommended to use this stance for defending territories or buildings.

Standing (1st one from the left): Another stance that is fine with me. Perhaps melee units could counter-attack though. It's funny to see a melee soldier standing still while he is being killed by arrows. lol

-Players are recommended to use this stance for coordinating a range defense or offense, or if they want to block an area.

Problems:

Violent: Not very useful unless your looking to eliminate the enemy forces completely.

Aggressive: Better than violent, but not much to distinguish itself.

Defensive: Attack area is too small. It can be really annoying with melee units.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Tutle

[Tutle]

Grr! 5th time in a row I lost a group of elephants because they would not obey my orders to garrison for health.

It cost me 3 absolute lose (I couldn't spawn anymore), and 2 base destruction (I rage-quit after seeing all of my units dead).

Please fix the attack stances, so at least 1 of them doesn't pose this problem.

[quantumstate]

These generally look reasonable, the main problem is that UnitAI isn't the nicest code to work with, so it might actually require quite a lot of work to get this fixed.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I also think he's talking about the tendency for units to not follow orders/player input when they are under attack. :/

[Gen.Kenobi]

The units are undisciplined

"START FIGHTING or I'll find someone who can!"

[Tutle]

Well I'm the kind of commander that prefers to waste resources, instead of wasting units (even in FPS games I would gladly wait for respawn if it means saving a teammate). Also, as Lion pointed out, it's mostly ends up failing when a unit decides to disobey their leader (especially when you're telling them to garrison a wall tower lol).

I also think he's talking about the tendency for units to not follow orders/player input when they are under attack. :/

Yeah, that is what I was referring to. It's not worth going after 1 archer shooting you, when there are 6 cavalry soldiers poking you with sticks.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Tutle