Friendly fire

[Deadwake]

I hate casualties, its kind of a curse really, If I lose more than 400 men even if its a heroic victory, I feel bad about it. So whenever my melee troops or calvary engage theirs I usually click hold fire on my archers and let them just chill there the rest of the battle.

I was curious if others let there archers continue to fire and suffer a few friendly fire incidents or tell them to hold fire as well?

[Othniel]

I think it depends on the situation. If I have melee in battle and it's obvious they'll win, I'll have my archers hold their fire, but if it's pretty even, that extra morale pressure on the enemy may be worth a few misplaced arrows.

[Nero Wulf]

So friendly fire from arrows don't add negative moral to your own troops?

[Othniel]

So friendly fire from arrows don't add negative moral to your own troops?

I don't know for sure, but I was fighting a multiplayer battle last night and had some units in a melee brawl with my opponent, and as soon as I set a unit of bows shooting at him, his morale melted (in that exchange).

[August]

Not exactly. The big factor responsible for breaking units in combat is having multiple troops die in the short period of time - meaning that poorly timed friendly fire volley can break the unit.
Matchlocks are the most dangerous in that regard, shooting in the back of a friendly unit.

[homefry]

they need to add an attack ground ability to elite archer units.

that way you can direct them to fire only way in front of your melee units and go for safety over enemy casualties.

[MXmadman]

they need to add an attack ground ability to elite archer units.

that way you can direct them to fire only way in front of your melee units and go for safety over enemy casualties.

I agree that something needs to be done in this regard. Really breaks immersion when you watch your ranged units aim squarely at their friends and rain hell down upon them. I understand the situations where its just a big blob of melee units and they're firing into the center, but this is straight up treasonous homicide their committing. Kills the immersion for me, as well as making me quite sad

[tarvu]

I hate friendly fire, even archers shooting each other in the back at sieges can be a problem. I haven't played multiplayer yet but I imagine it is a real problem there as you can't pause in battle and make adjustments when that happens.

I usually try and keep a clear line of sight for my archers, or throw them into melee on the flanks rather than have them fire into my men. After the enemy has engaged my line unless they have a long attack column that I can keep shooting at without endangering my men I turn off fire at will, or at the most use them to pick of routing enemy.

[redxavier]

I notice this happens all the time. All the previous games in the series made you command archers to fire into enemies engaged with your own troops. Now all of a sudden they do it themselves. That and the lack of a hold ground button for archers makes them really annoying to use - guard mode does nothing - as units chase down the unit you targeted and get themselves slaughtered running into the enemy lines...

[rob-a-dogg]

It is a lot better in shogun 2 than previous TW games, as your arrows home in on individual soldiers instead of just landing in the general area of the enemy and lets see how many arrows hit. Of course not all arrows hit a person but if you watch when only a few enemies are left they turn into hedgehogs/pincushions.

If possible have archers on your flanks. If you are fast enough (use bow cavalry really or the fight will be over before you get there) you can get them out far enough for a good line of sight to the bad guys that they can pretty safely start nailing the enemy even though they are fighting your own melee units. this is where the homing arrows come in handy

[fishcop444]

Friendly fire is so ridiculous. I fail to understand why it continues to be put into every TW game. Missile units should disengage on their own when their targets enter into melee with friendly units. How hard is this to accomplish for CA? I don't mind the odd arrows picking of a soldier or two as the enemy gets close to your unit, but once they are in melee, it's stupid.

[kronpas]

Its much less punishing than previous games really, and I dont mind extra casualty as long as those dead bodies dont belong to my precious samurais Like two third of every battle casualty I played is ashigaru, sometimes the whole unit got annihilated. Who cares?

[Stil]

I like FF being in games, adds to the realism and stops shenanigans. I guess if you don't like it you could micro manage your ranged units to hold fire if the enemy closes with your own troops? The archers in S2 seem to be good shots... most of the time.

[SnowRaven]

i usually stop all fire when my troops engage the AI's in melee and move my archers to the flanks but usually the battle is over before they can get to a good firing position.

[Blackthorne]

I like FF being in games, adds to the realism and stops shenanigans. I guess if you don't like it you could micro manage your ranged units to hold fire if the enemy closes with your own troops? The archers in S2 seem to be good shots... most of the time.

I like friendly fire too, however the issue is that in previous total wars your archers would stop firing on an enemy once they entered melee with your forces, in Shogun 2 they keep going until you order them to stop. In a big battle this can mean alot of dead friendlies before you notice, add to this the morale penalty for your troops being under missile attack whilst in melee and it can really screw up your day.

[Kraxis]

It is a lot better in shogun 2 than previous TW games, as your arrows home in on individual soldiers instead of just landing in the general area of the enemy and lets see how many arrows hit. Of course not all arrows hit a person but if you watch when only a few enemies are left they turn into hedgehogs/pincushions.

It has always been like that. Ever since the original Shogun. It was patently obvious when you had archers shoot at a Kensai (the best way to kill him btw).

I agree with you guys that it is silly the archers just keep shooting. It made sense that they stopped back in the day. I believe that was introduced in the original MTW, to great cheers among the fanbase. That it is gone makes it a step backwards, much like the elevation issue (what the heck is up with ranged combat?).

[Ritterlichvon86]

The English kept firing into the mix in Braveheart, didn't they? Mel Gibson ftw ^^

[SnowRaven]

well their troops were considered expandable

[Stil]

100 years before S2 is set, the war of the Roses had quite a few FF incidents. Wind blew volleys of arrows into allies and one Earl with a Sun as his standard was mistaken for a guy on the other side who has a star on his banner and they shot arrows at him

[Kraxis]

Mistaken, or forced FF is perfectly alright. If my unit arrives as arrows are in the air, then sure let them get hit, my own damn mistake. Also if I tell my archers, shoot those enemies in that melee, then it is also my fault that some FF will happen. But it isn't terribly nice that the archers just keep on sending shafts at a target they chose when said target is completely surrounded by their comrades. I mean, who do they think they are? Robin Hood the lot of them? "Yeah sure, I can hit those moving 15 men in the middle of 300 of our boys." Any sensible unit commander would stop, and only resume shooting after being told to, at least at those enemies.