A question about FLEE

[My 2 sids]

I understand how FLEE represents a pannic run in any given dirrection for safty, but why cant FLEE work when one is in a group?

I was following in a group when attacked.  The problem was to break from fighting we all ended up fleeing in different directions.   Shouldnt there be someway (esp. when you are leading/following someone) that groups all flee in the same dirrection?

[Anonymous]

Shouldnt there be someway (esp. when you are leading/following someone) that groups all flee in the same dirrection?

This should be handled via RP, IMHO.

say (As he stumbles back) Everyone run back towards the city!
flee west

I don't particularly like or see the realism in a command that allows everyone to break from combat in an organized form.

[Moe]

Another thing you can do if your not directly being attacked is disengage, which will remove you from the immediate melee.

From the help files:

DISENGAGE  (Combat)  


This command allows anyone who is not the 'main' fighter in combat to stop fighting. Being the main fighter means that your character is the one getting hit. This command is superior to the flee command (q.v.) in that one does not need to leave the room in order to stop fighting, and is especially useful for spellcasters who can stop combat in order to prepare new spells, or archers who wish to shoot an opponent to assist a friend.


Syntax:


disengage


Moe the Schmoe
:evil:  :twisted:

[Carduus]

Also, the skill rescue will keep another person from being the target of the enemy.

The problem with being unable to flee in the same direction as a group is that flee is seen as, not a tactical retreat, but a drop-your-weapons-and-book-it-out-of-there sort of thing. Think of rioters fleeing when a tear gas cannister lands amongst them.

That being said, I would be interested in looking into a watered-down flee command called withdraw or something which would still run away, but have less of a chance of success (because you're covering your back and not trucking it out of there) and if you've withdrawn, have a bonus if you're the first to attack when the enemy follows you. Sort of like guerrilla warfare.

Actually, now that I think of it, I'd love to see some group-based skills where if you're grouped with someone else with the skill, it becomes more effective. Likewise, these skills would barely work, or not work at all, if not grouped with others with similar skills. This would simulate the soldier ability to fight side-by-side with comrades effectively.

[Gorobei]

I don't like the sound of your guerilla warfare theory, Carduus.
When you flee, especially in the desert, outside of the code it's not like you acctually make it a whole room away before the opponant starts to follow.  If you withdraw, then he/it's going to be right there, about to smack you around if you stop.

[Carduus]

I suppose you're right, to an extent. As opposed to warfare in terrain with easy quick hiding places, the desert isn't the best place to do that. And obviously you can't run past the horizon.

[5 day lifespan]

CRW wrote:
I don't particularly like or see the realism in a command that allows everyone to break from combat in an organized form.

You dont?  What about army combat?  Tactical retreats happen all the time.  It seems to me that if you are in Tor or the Byn (maybe) and have recieved extensive military training, your whole unit should be able to withdraw as one.  It could be a branch of flee, or something that happens as you progress in the skill, as undisciplined or rookie troops are likely to break and run, while vets will wthdraw in an orderly fashion.  In that sense, Withdraw is an excellent idea.

But what do I know, I only have a
5 Day Lifespan

[Lazloth]

You sorta have that right now.

#one#> disengage
#one#> fol $whoever

#two#> disengage
#two#> fol $whoever

#three#> flee


This, of course, only works when #three# is the only guy engaged. I think it'd be possible but kludgy to pull off a withdraw command.  What's the logic you want to emulate?

Code Select Expand

if (!(player->group_leader) && (player->following_someone)) {
    affect(WANTS_TO_WITHDRAW);
}
if (player->group_leader) {
 if (check_skill_level(WITHDRAW) == SUCCESS) {
   do_flee();
   for (all_players_currently_following) {
     if (affected_by(WANTS_TO_WITHDRAW))  {
       if (check_skill_level(WITHDRAW) == SUCCESS) {
         do_disengage;
         echo_withdraw_string;
         move_player_to_group_leader's_room;
        } else {
           // think up failure cases
        }
     }
   }
 }
}

Actually, looking at that little snippet, I think it's possible to pull it off.  Would have to ensure any movement zaps the WANTS_TO_WITHDRAW bit, etc.

[Stroker]

I completely agree with 5 day lifespan on the idea about organized retreat.

[krelin]

Arm has a grouping system now?

[creeper386]

I think in his little snippet.... the check for "group leader" would be just checking if anyone is following him. Not that they are "grouped." But, this sort of thing WOULD be a start of some sort of group code beyond follow.

Creeper

[EvilRoeSlade]

Nobody seems to realize that there is another function to flee beyond its most basic use.

When you flee, you can type flee (direction), and if you succeed in your skill check then you will flee in that direction.  As your skill increases, you will get the "you flee, head over heels" message less, and you'll usually know what direction you've fled to even if you fail.

Why did your unit scatter when a retreat was ordered, My Two sids?  Because you don't practice flee enough, thats why.