HRPT: Units and PCs

[Ava]

My biggest HRPT fear is of losing my moderately-beloved character in an instant because another PC OOCly knew it was better to "order archers shoot enemy_PC_grunt" than to "order archers shoot enemy_unit".

Leaders, presumably your units are already guarding you.  Under what circumstances would you order a unit to preemptively attack a PC?

I think my personal answer on unit-usage would be:
(1) Have 'em guard the principals; then
(2) use them to attack templars, magickers, and other leaders, in that order; then
(3) use them to attack other units; then
(4) use them to attack (or, if feasible, subdue) non-leader PCs if no enemy units are left.

[Malifaxis]

One unit of soldiers?  Yes.  More than that, no.  There's no way that more than 20 people can bring swords to bear on just one guy.

It's just ridiculous to even conceive of.

[Marauder Moe]

The problem is, unless you have several templars/commanders, the units (and NPC soldiers) will always be ganging up on one target.  There's no way to order your soldiers to just attack the enemy.

It might be nice if leaders on both sides refrained from ">order all kill PC", though, if they haven't been already.

[LoD]

My biggest HRPT fear is of losing my moderately-beloved character in an instant because another PC OOCly knew it was better to "order archers shoot enemy_PC_grunt" than to "order archers shoot enemy_unit".

Leaders, presumably your units are already guarding you.  Under what circumstances would you order a unit to preemptively attack a PC?

I agree that the specific targetting of PC's on the field of battle by leader characters who can "order followers kill <target>" is borderline abusive.

Single PC's in the midst of a raging battle would not be instantly accessible by one, much less multiple, units and/or groups of NPC's.  The present code will only base the targeting of that PC on whether the PC is in the room, and whether someone guarding the PC succeeds.  Armed with this knowledge, someone could recruit 10 NPC's and order them all to attack a given PC and ignore the rest of the NPC's who cannot act intelligently.

Unfortunately, this responsibility lay squarely in the hands of the PC leader involved.  There are situations where this is applicable, such as ordering your 10 followers to assist in downing an extremely large beast such as a mekillot that has a wide enough surface area to be accessible to a group of more than 5-6 people.

To avoid large one-shot insta-kills by Unit objects, perhaps they could be changed from doing a lot of damage with singular strikes to doing much less damage more quickly?  That would perhaps give a PC a chance to react to the situation for those of us that can't read through spam quickly and/pr type like the wind.

Example #1

>order followers kill templar
You bellow an order to your followers.

A unit of Tuluki soldiers hits the dark-haired templar's head, doing horrendous damage.
A Unit of Tuluki soldiers hits the dark-haired templar's neck, doing horrendous damage.
The dark-haired templar cires out in pain.
The dark-haired templar crumples to the ground.

Example #2

>order followers kill templar
You bellow an order to your followers.

A unit of Tuluki soldiers slashes the dark-haired templar's arm very hard.
A unit of Tuluki soldiers chops the dark-haired templar's arm extremely hard.

A unit of Tuluki soldiers lightly slashes the dark-haired templar's neck.
A unit of Tuluki soldiers chops the dark-haired templar's leg.

Decrease the damage per strike and increase their attack rate to simulate the individual attacks of members of the Unit rather than the sum of their attacks in one round.

This still does not excuse PC leaders from targeting PC's and ordering multiple followers (units or individual NPC's).  The best case scenario would be a situation where NPC's attacked/killed NPC's and PC's attacked/killed PC's to avoid these kinds of situations.

-LoD

[Commander Klank]

As I understand it, only templars can have multiple units/NPCs respond to a single command.  So the "order all <action>" question only applies to them.  Any other PC with NPC minions will have to order each one separately and individually to do things, which cuts down on the insta-swarm factor.

[adgohan]

Mass unit combat is a huge problem right now and I don't think a lot of people are seeing it.

Someone walking into the room and having 10 units instant kill PCs before leaving is totally rediculous. This is the equivilant of five hundred soldiers rushing (usually through an army) one dude and hitting them at the same time.

Templars and Leader PCs should -never- order units on PC combat, maybe in the case of one unit like Malifaxis said, but otherwise, there is just no way.

It's so dishearting to put hours and hours of love into a character and lose them in two seconds because of a totally unrealistic use of code.

Yet, I don't see people in the HRPT targetting units, it's never order all fight unit, it's usually a very short battle, where 4-5 PCs are instant killed - a few NPCs maybe, then people go home.

The PC victims, however, watch their character die in one prompt, can do nothing about it, and it's like, why bother? There's no glory or anything there, and it's not war - it's just bad RP and insta-gib.

A lot of people in a lot of threads have recommended changes to this so 200v1 is unrealistic. We need to listen to them - the people that are supporting mass-unit combat against one player character are not for the RP side of this war, they're just playing to win and it's no fun for the victims.

[Jakahri]

Sadly, I think I'd have to agree with the above post.

Sicking units of npcs on a single target is:

1) Not realistic

2) Not fun for the victim

3) Reminiscent of other hack'n'slash muds

4) Not realistic

It will likely stay this way until the proper code is applied to mass combat, though it appears the staff is hard at work on this project. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens.

[SpyGuy]

I never thought of this sort of thing until recently and I have to say I'm very uncreative when I think about it.  It's very unrealistic to have 4 units charging down a single PC when there are armies on the battlefield but then again mass combat in Arm is so unbalanced (in good part because it's so rarely used) that in my opinion any hope of military tactics from a battlefield point of view is nearly impossible.

The only possible suggestion I can think of to fix this problem might be to have all single PC and NPC units set so that only one unit mob can attack them at a time.  So lets say 4 units of soldiers could engage with one unit of soldiers and go by normal combat, but if those 4 units tried ganging up on a single PC then only one would be able to engage in combat.  That and to make unit NPCs max guards (if they aren't already) so that if you're a PC leader with an army at your command it's almost impossible for the other guys to attack you personally while you still have units surrounding you and guarding.

[Gaare]

It is stupid to play ARM for winning. There is no count for most PK, more damage, more hunted magickers, etc.. anyway.  

I get frustrated when I see.. Without any emote or at least some effort to create a scene.

>order followers subdue X

Or this is much worse, if examples above are really IG.

While controlling units of people,

> order followers kill X

even worse;

> order followers subdue X

Imagine a battle scene hundreds of people running towards a single person. In real, those units would be crushed in an instant by flanking or rearing units.

Templars are highly trusted players. It is surely hard to get hold of things at the beginning, but.. well.... as I said at the beginning:
For me,
It is stupid to play ARM for winning.

As a solution.. I do not think letting PCs to order units is a good idea. A bit of detrailment but, in this kind of HRPT, I think that would be nice for players -only- to play particularly important missions that can affect whole battle.. Maybe they are already doing these, but;

- Try of making a rear assult
- Light Cavalary movements
- Sabotage
- Holding or attacking a flank of real army.
- Attack to supply wagons
- Hit and Runs on sentry posts.
- Protecting a strategicly important spot, like a dune hill.
.. etc,

In that way, those codely NPC massacres, stupid looking actions as "order followers shoot X" would not happen (How a unit archers can pinpoint a single person standing in between hundreds of people anyway).

[bloodfromstone]

It would be nice if there was a command to make follows spread out and attack. As Gaare said, it is stupid for a unit to all blast one person, but if there is a group of enemy soldiers with bows standing above a templar, who's only archers are NPCs, they have little choice. There should be a command to make the archer followers select a random target in an area. 'Order follows shoot all w' or something. Sure, they'd shoot the hell out of your own men if there was melee ensuing, but calling archers down on a mix of enemies and allies is a bad idea anyway.

It would be nice if there was something similar for melee, but then their inability to distinguish enemies and allies becomes a larger problem.

All in all, I'd like to see use of NPCs be much less prominent than it is. I know it's easy for a templar to call 5 human soldiers of Tektolnes to his aide to help him track down a criminal, but there are PCs in the Arm of the Dragon that want some action, too. And, for the love of God, if you're going to lock a victim in a room and have guards kill him, have the decency to make one of them a PC guard. NPC guards can't spill the beans on you, nor can they give in to the victim's promises of bribery to change sides. Being hauled into a room and then having 3 stock NPCs be ordered to kill your PC is really lame. I know I'm derailing here, but I'm basically saying that Gaare is right. PCs > NPCs. If there is any way to use PCs in place of NPCs, do it. Please don't gather up a patrol of NPCs and ride out of the camp while 3 PCs are standing around, emoting about how they're standing watch.

[Bebop]

It is stupid to play ARM for winning.

I'm going to have to say I disagree.  Have fun at the HRPT but there are some PCs who's goal IS to win.  It does mean something to them their city state and their reputation.  I'm sure the leaders will do the best they can to make sure the fighting has as little spam as possible and that the RP is enriching but people are there to WIN.

As a consequence to this some PC's are going to die.  Be alert try to flee if you see a whole unit attacking you.  I'm not entirely sure what the code allows as far as units and I think a smart leader would have a unit facing a unit instead of a unit attacking one pc and then pc's trying to take down a whole unit but accidents happen and some times in the heat of things, things get confused just as they would IRL.  If your PC is involved in this HRPT then you are taking the risk of dying.

At the same time leaders have to be wary as well as magickers because for some reason everyone loves to take down the people with to which they can gain bragging rights so I'm sure it's not uncommon for like a handful of people to rush in and type KILL TEMPLAR!

It's crappy but it happens on both ends.

[Anonymous]

Something else I've seen brought up and want to clarify -

The NPC archer units do not codedly fire arrows.  What they do is virtual.  So please keep that in mind.  If you see one room away UNITS of enemy archers, don't assume you're safe just because they aren't shooting you.  More likely it's just because no imm is available/knows your there to give you the echoes of the virtual rain of arrows that would be falling on you.

Individual NPC archers can shoot real arrows, but this notion of "order unit shoot X west" is not going to instantly make a pincushion out of X with 20 arrows flying in at him.

[Me again (same as above)]

I don't bring this up so that people can abuse the knowledge and take advantage of archery units.  I say it so people are aware and do not abuse.

[Malifaxis]

Have fun at the HRPT but there are some PCs who's goal IS to win.

We're talking about code use and abuse, here, not IC goals and decisions.

No matter what I -want- to do, there is no -way- I could order 500 people to attempt to wrestle one person to the ground.  Pardon my Indonesian, but that is just fucking preposterous.

Be alert try to flee if you see a whole unit attacking you.

Which of course is completely possible when your screen scrolls 60 lines a prompt.

I think a smart leader would have a unit facing a unit instead of a unit attacking one pc nd then pc's trying to take down a whole unit but accidents happen and some times in the heat of things, things get confused just as they would IRL

If we were talking about an isolated incident, you would be correct.  We are, however, not talking about an isolated incident.  This action of ordering 600 people to strike, simultaneously, at one person has happened multiple times.

[adgohan]

As a consequence to this some PC's are going to die. Be alert try to flee if you see a whole unit attacking you. I'm not entirely sure what the code allows as far as units and I think a smart leader would have a unit facing a unit instead of a unit attacking one pc and then pc's trying to take down a whole unit but accidents happen and some times in the heat of things, things get confused just as they would IRL. If your PC is involved in this HRPT then you are taking the risk of dying.

Have you ever been the victim of what you're talking about? You don't flee, you don't get away. The entire force arrives, and before you can "st, flee self" or whatever - soandso issues an order to all who will heed it.

And that's that, you're dead - one prompt, instantly, no matter what - even if you have 300hp and some of the scariest magick in the game I can think of.

These are not accidents, these are people dropping out of no where onto player characters when there are 500 other soldiers in the room - this is abuse, your character as a character would not differentiate, unless there was some sort of blood-fued or hatred, between a regular soldier and a player character. That character is probably not standing out in the open, but is probably accompanying a very large unit or even army, you single them out based on your OOC judgment of their short description -only-. That's abuse, and needs to be stopped.

[Ava]

The concept of using a unit to attack a PC doesn't bother me in all situations.

Scenario #1: you're leading 3 PCs and 2 units. You stumble upon a group of enemy PCs with no supporting units. Will your superior numbers overwhelm them? Sure.  Unikill good.

Scenario #2: you're leading 3 PCs and 2 units. You stumble upon an enemy noble leading 3 PCs and 2 units. Will your units try their best to get to the enemy leader? Sure...which is why units should have l33t guarding skillz, including against ranged attacks.  Unikill good.

Scenario #2a: your band of merry men strikes down the enemy leader. You're now leading 2 PCs and 1 unit vs. 2 PCs and 1 unit. Since the enemy unit is now rudderless, you order your remaining unit to start smashing PCs.  This, I think, would be poor play: in reality, there should be no reason to single out a particular individual. The enemy unit might assist its compatriots (I'm not sure), but that enemy PC is still going to take the full offense of 20 guys.  Unikill bad, in my opinion.

If people are stupid enough to go wandering around a war zone in twos and threes, sure, they're going to get ganked (*glares tearfully at someone*). My only problem is with singling out PCs for special treatment while ignoring the scores of brainless NPC soldiers next to them.

[Twilight]

There are others than just templars who can order all.  I think the simplest thing would be to A) remove order all completely B) a small (.5 second?) lag to using the order command.

[LoD]

<message moved to its own thread>

[Ava]

At the same time leaders have to be wary as well as magickers because for some reason everyone loves to take down the people with to which they can gain bragging rights so I'm sure it's not uncommon for like a handful of people to rush in and type KILL TEMPLAR!

I don't have as much of a problem with that specific case, because:
(a) everyone is trying to take out the templar as fast as possible, and
(b) the templar has code support (via "guard") to represent the 1000 people standing between you and him. (In fact, you're running the risk of voluntarily engaging yourself with with at least one enemy unit.)

[slipshod]

I've always been iffy about having entire units guarding a single PC, but I see now more than once that comes up in this thread as a primary purpose of units.  I know people will say that if the PC is behind the units, they would close the gaps to protect their leader if he was under attack, but that's what bodyguards should do, and unless the leader is surrounded by his units on all sides, there will still be openings.  Units should be either/or - guarding the leader or marching on the front line to fight.  I just feel a moment of disbelief when they do both.  

Another thing to consider when discussing the singling out of PCs in armies.  Most of the units are infantry.  Most of the PCs are riding.  They would stand head-and-shoulders above the rest and would be more easily singled out/seen as commanders.  So it isn't totally unrealistic for people from opposing sides to be able to pick them out of the crowd.

[Gaare]

It is stupid to play ARM for winning.

I'm going to have to say I disagree.  Have fun at the HRPT but there are some PCs who's goal IS to win.  It does mean something to them their city state and their reputation.  I'm sure the leaders will do the best they can to make sure the fighting has as little spam as possible and that the RP is enriching but people are there to WIN.

Surely, I agree. What else a soldier of a city would think then winning in battle. What I mean is using OOC aspects, i.e. code to make your PC to reach his goals. I think like speaking with player of a soldier of opposite city-state to learn assult strategy is using OOC ways for IG events, using advantage of code is some kind of abuse.. For me.

At the same time leaders have to be wary as well as magickers because for some reason everyone loves to take down the people with to which they can gain bragging rights so I'm sure it's not uncommon for like a handful of people to rush in and type KILL TEMPLAR!

Well.. I truly agree there can be some people around, whom would kill a templar by using some spamming attack or any type of OOC advantage. And it really must be fun even to type "hit templar." On the other hand, I think templars' players have some responsibility of making game fun not only for themselves, but others. When I am running such a powerful persona, I try to take risk for creating some scene then immediately using my extremely powerful PC's powers. I am not saying offer a cup of tea while someone is already attacking, but before that.. before weapons are draw and bloody business of the day had began.

Edit: Grammar.

[lairos]

Heres my 2 cents. To have even 20 people (a unit) on one person may it be a PC or an NPC is completely and utterly ridiculous! I have seen it done time and time again and to take advantage of the code to have a templar or a commander or even a conscript killed within one prompt is stupid. If I knew a way to have it changed code-wise I would suggest it but at this time I dont.
So for you leaders running around with units and killing one person instantly
IMHO are cruel players and dont think how an RL battle would happen.
No one would send sixty people onto one person even if he was the best fighter.

[Tlaloc]

As we stated at the beginning: the current HRPT was an experiment to test the waters, and see what we needed to do to refine these things. Rest assured, many of these ideas/concerns we've thought of, and are already working towards solving.

This isn't a post to say "stop talking about this", but rather, just to reassure you folks that this latest HRPT has taught the staff many, many interesting things, which we're going to be fixing/changing/taking account of, etc.

[spawnloser]

I am fine with a unit guarding a PC.  Example being a Templar leading a unit.  It is unlikely that you can rush 20 guys and get through to the Templar at the back/center of the unit.

I do not like people ordering units to attack PCs, however, if there are other units available.  I consider it a form of powergaming, forcing those PCs to the front of the battle, where they very possibly wouldn't be...but the units can only guard one person each, and those'll be the Templars.  Realistically, if everyone else on the 'command team' was with the Templar (likely in my mind) they would also have a unit between them and the oncoming unit.  Is super-lame to deny the story by killing the people that contribute to the story the most while leaving the bit parts alive.  That's not how good stories are written.

[slipshod]

Is super-lame to deny the story by killing the people that contribute to the story the most while leaving the bit parts alive.

That's an interesting point.  Unless the leader is being reckless and endangering him/herself, they would be the last ones to go.  Or at least, killing a commander surrounded by an entire army should be the result of some seriously good strategismo and planning, not just whoever has the fastest fingers to type unrealistic commands.

Tlaloc, a question about your post above.  If changes to the whole unit functionality question come around soon, will they be implemented before this HRPT is over, or will this one just play out with existing code as the full experiment with improvements/changes to come for the next time?

[Dre]

You know another problem i see and its sort of related...Magickers in mass battle. Right now you have mundanes on one side and mudanes+magickers on the other.

Lets say you have huge units of NPC and vNPC rushing each other and about 7 mundanes one one side and 5 mundanes on the other with 3 magickers.

Now if it were just mundane vs mundane some might die others would run. However what usually happens is you have the invisible magickers targeting the pcs with macroed spells of doom and they drop them like rocks.

Now i don't blame the magickers, even though i miss my 2 year old uber PC, just because whenever one is spotted the leaders always try to drop the magickers as fast as they can aswell.
However i still would like to see something done about those uber spells of doom happening to hit single PC when there are hundreds of soldiers by their side. They should really be less likely to hit and a magicker rely on area effect spells, again nerfed a bit so all the PCs dont die all at once and maybe have a chance to run or hide.
Basically the chance spells(mostly individual one) work against individuals should drop depending how many VNPC , NPC and PCs are in the room.

That said people on both sides are playing to win, Icly for sure and and to some extent oocly too, however its within respectable and appropriate limits (they don't attempt to wipe out the other side ALL at once).
To those that say stop playing to win...lighten up, its a game...its so so SO much more fun when you have an invested interest in your PC, don't want him or her to die, and when your oocly rooting for your 'side' to win.

I think the HRPT has been a great success (I am sure the game will improve for it aswell but still) , i've seen great roleplaying with all the emotions, gameplay and stratagy, and just sheer "holy shit i can't believe we pulled that off or lived through that"...You imms have really outdone yourselves this time.

[ThirdEye]

Just a quick idea. If it already isn't in, how about when units of soldiers are getting closer to you that you get some sort of warning message.

> The sound of armor clacking together and obsidian and bone being drawn reaches your ears from some distance away. (obviously not a good one but you get the idea)

It could possibly stop 2 units of soldiers seeming to appear out of nowhere to kill you.

[Ava]

However what usually happens is you have the invisible magickers targeting the pcs with macroed spells of doom and they drop them like rocks.

I'd like to see magickers KOing units before non-leader PCs, unless they suspect that the PCs might be able to see them. But there may be sides to that story that I don't understand...I know next to nothing about wiggling.

[Armaddict]

Just a note...aside from those with the 'order' command, units can't be ordered to kill things.  Those who must use 'ask' on their units do not have 'kill' as an option.  Therefore...it comes up to someone in the clan to attack something first...and then all those units will autoassist.

That being said...I know it sucks, but it is also somewhat realistic.  Even if a bunch of units can't logically attack one guy...that guy being attacked by a leader with a bunch of soldiers behind him -will- be mopped up quickly.  How is this prevented?  I tried for awhile with a PC to explain it to people, but people just didn't pick up.  Let's just say that in early battles on earth, yes...it was swarms of people rushing forward to meet, with some being cut down and overwhelmed instantly before it slowly disperses into more spread out fights.  That's how these fights go, currently.

There -is- a way to defend against it.  There -are- ways to get formations going, IC'ly, without any changes to code.  There are certain skills -made- for keeping this onslaught from overwhelming every unit/pc/npc one at a time.  When I tried to talk about it in an IC manner, though, it was frustrating because even though I thought I was getting to close to just straight up explaining the ooc mechanics, people wouldn't pick it up and thought I was just talking out of my ass.

I, personally, do not feel that there are many changes that need to be made for code to fix it.  I think it's the players who need to apply some logic and tactical thinking to their armies/followers to find a way to defend against it.  It -is- there.  It's just not emphasized by anyone as important...and then, in those mass battles, the error of such shows but it's still blamed on current code.

Just my opinion.

[spawnloser]

A point was made about magickers attacking random individuals.  I do not count the leaders as random individuals...simply hard to reach.  Other PCs are not random individuals, but do stand out a bit, I would suggest.

For magick as for archery, many spells are 'ranged' attacks in one way or another.  Krathi don't have to run up and touch someone to light them on fire, and the same would hold true for other magickers and many of their magicks.  You want to target 'leaders' with magick and archery?  Go right ahead.  I'm all for it.

Targetting 'leaders' with units is just sad for the story...making baby Tek cry and all that.

[Halaster]

Morgenes and I have been talking a lot about this the past few days, and we've come up with an idea we really like.  However, it's fairly complex and will not likely be done before this HRPT ends.

But, a "quick fix" is also being worked on - I think Morgenes started it today.

The quick-fix is something like this:
order units attack - makes all the 'unit' type npcs engage in combat with enemy units in the same room
order soldiers X - makes all the non-unit type npc's commanded by that person do X

The old traditional order followers will still be in place, so someone could still order units kill bob.  But the above two options will help them until the long-term fix is in place - which I'm not going to detail yet.

As someone else said, there has been more than one instance of someome making all their troops attack one person.  Their errors have been addressed and handled, so don't worry (tho if it happens again, please do email in or use the request tool).  I will say, though, that they don't have a lot of other options so far.

For example.  I'm a templar and I have 4 units and 3 soldiers with me.  I walk into the room with an enemy templar who has 3 units and 6 soldiers.  Is 1.unit mine, or is 5.unit mine?  Which soldier?  I can type:  keyword unit (if you don't know about the keyword command, look it up!) and that helps, but by the time I type order 3.unit kill 4.unit, order 6.unit kill 1.unit and so on.. bad things happen.

Sometimes in the heat of battle, a player panics and does something dumb like order followers kill bob.  I'm not saying it's OK, just helping you try to see the other side.

But like Tlaloc said, we're learning from this.  We knew the whole "unit" thing wasn't great, but it's become a bigger problem than we though.  I guess part of that is because this is drawn-out, whereas in the past the battles were short-term and over quick.

I do like LoD's suggestion of less NPC's and more virtual fighting.  One of the battles was actually done that way, and turned out rather well.  I had leaders from both sides basically wishing up saying "Ordering the troops to do X" and then I'd dish out the appropriate echo's, decide (on the spur of the moment) how it worked out, and so forth.  Overall, I think it turned out well.  Both sides were told to just take it easy and go slow, that we weren't in a hurry, and by doing that, this format turned out decently.  I'm sure we'll try it again before this HRPT is over.

So, look for the quick fix soon, it should help by giving the templars options which they didn't have before and will help cut back on the unit vs individual problem.

[jhunter]

Armaddict is correct. There are ways to defend against unit attacks against you.
I don't think anyone is intentionally ordering units to gank other pcs. It's as Halaster said, in the heat of battle, trying to deal with all the scroll, and get the correct keywords while responding in some sort of timely matter, these things cause people to make mistakes. Sometimes, those mistakes cost others their pcs, sometimes they cost the one making the mistake their own.

[Morrolan]

I don't think anyone is intentionally ordering units to gank other pcs.

Um.  Yes they are.

[jhunter]

I don't think anyone is intentionally ordering units to gank other pcs.

Um.  Yes they are.

You're a RL mindbender?

*shivers*

[Halaster]

I don't think anyone is intentionally ordering units to gank other pcs.

Um.  Yes they are.

You're a RL mindbender?

*shivers*

Of course he's not.  But he's right, it was done intentionally.  It has been addressed, so let's not drag this thread down with arguing about it, ok?

[jhunter]

Here's a question though...since from looking at the poll some of you believe that noone should ever order units to attack pcs. So are you telling me that if the enemy consists of only pcs on the battle field, you are to let them sit there and do nothing? Just let the others get away or attack them with only pcs? Even though they are severely outnumbered and should have almost -zero- chance to get away unscathed?

Having been in a few of these things, something that has come to mind several times.

How about maybe cutting units down to quads? That way, if they end up attacking single pcs then it isn't unrealistic? Make them weaker, use more of them to balance out numbers. *shrug*

I'm of the opinion that you should have units attack other units, until there are no opposing units, then you move on down to the single npcs or single pcs. It's not wholly realistic, but neither is standing there to fight when you've just watched most of your comrades die around you.

Some things I've said behind the keyboard while playing in these things in the past:


"FLEE FATASS, FLEE!!!"

"You are outnumbered 40 to 1!"

"RUN YOU FOOL!"

"Surrender!"

"DO SOMETHING!!!"

[marko]

As I noted in another thread, the most difficult aspect with units is that there is no way to reliably order individual units under your own command - let alone target the enemy's units.  That leads to people using mass commands and attacking the leader PC.  

What happens is that all the units try and attack and all the units under their command try and guard - therefore most units peel off for unit vs unit combat.

As per whether or not it is "realistic" to have entire units kill individuals - well, actually, it is.  If you are an enemy scout who wanders in on a formation of the enemy.  That entire enemy formation is going to charge, surround, and kill.  Yes, a single individual of the formation will be the one that kills - but the entire group goes in for the kill.  It's just not pleasant or fair to the PC in question - but, again, if someone encounters fifty of the enemy who are charging across the desert... really, what is going to happen?

Units are representations of many people acting together in formation.  These formations can, and will, charge down individuals.  The problem with arm's combat system is that your options as a leader were limited to order everyone to do something or to not do anything.  

It's not a great way to handle the situation, I don't really like it, and I think the recent update to be able to command units and command individual npcs will help the situation somewhat.

I believe the ability to order units will help out a lot in trying to maintain control.  It is simple and elegant - it won't solve all issues of warfare combat but it will definitely help.

It would be nice if each unit and soldier npc had a "team" keyword.  For example, a Kuraci would have kuraci as a keyword.  Allanaki would have Allanaki as a keyword.  Tuluki would have Tuluki as a keyword.  Etc.  That way you can always be certain to be targeting the enemy unit and not just "unit."

From what I've seen not all npcs and units have their team keyword.  This makes trying to target the enemy unreliable which leads commanders to target what they know they can target - PCs.