Kiting

I can't help but feel like it ruins the game. I was playing a 3v3 and the other team (except for one member) shoot and ran away repeatedly. Made the game rather boring, and I got kind of annoyed that whenever I began to get advantage they just ran behind stakes, or just away, so then I'd have to give them first shot again. I feel the kiting was just too much, I understand a little kiting especially when your losing, but one of them said his strategy WAS to kite. anyone else feel the same way?

here is the replay of this game, quite good, except for all the running. http://www.filefront.com/177949335/kiting.replay

it's a legit tactic, and in fact a cornerstone of TW. everyone kites, but not everyone admits it. it is frustrating to deal with but i hold my tounge cause i do it too.

really i used to think it was funny, because before they patched this game to make it so slow, the way to kill a kiter was just to attack faster, and better, and with more coordination.

collapsing flanks and tactical retreats were part of warfare but it can just get pathetic sometimes and is not very sporting.Some games i just end because it seems all your doing is chasing units around for a hour,whats the point of playing on,it's not fun which is the whole point of playing a video game.There is a clan that i just refuse to play now because thats all they do.

One thing that really annoys me is how easy it is to disengage from a fire fight in real life you had to wait for nightfall or setup a rearguard action it would be good if they implemented something like this into the games.

My idea to prevent kite abuse is to introduce a morale penalty for 'falling back' or retreating.

I think this is true to real life, many stories of battlefield experiences I've read convey the general concept that soldiers dislike retreating and feel great when advancing against a retreating opponent.

This would still allow the tactical retreat to reform your line, with a small morale penalty that would could recover from, but repetitive retreating, like kiting, would ruin your morale over time.

Originally Posted by bushranger

it can just get pathetic sometimes

This pretty much. It's a matter of dosage.

Originally Posted by peapd

My idea to prevent kite abuse is to introduce a morale penalty for 'falling back' or retreating.

Yeah definitely.
I'm pretty sure there was an effect like this in Shogun 1 ("disheartened by constant retreat"), I wonder why they took it out.

I think kiting is a legit tactic so long as there is a proper reason behind it. For example I kite when I am need of desperate reinforcement from my allies; or when I face two opponents or overwhelming amounts of infantry. Kiting also involves a good deal of micro, and small mistakes can cost the 'kiter' heavily; all you need to counter kiting is a good micro, cavalry and initiative.

I agree however that kiting can sometimes be frustrating if your on the receiving end, especially if it's a 1v1; in team games if a certain body kites then that allows me to just turn in and flank my ally's opponent.

In terms of realism: kiting is a ridiculous notion, for obvious reasons.

too many people are kiting these days. I know quite a few people who were very good players but their main tactic was and is to kite from equallly good player. Due to this forum, i wont name and shame. But it is unnecessary!!

It was also in M1tw especially if you retreated your general, plus the Morale, rate of fire and accurancy were in favor of solid melee troops that could absorb distant kiting inaccurate missile fire. I can understand musket fire having reduced range while being rather potent. What I cannot accept is that units seems to reload even WHILE MOVING. On top of that the rate of fire is extremely high and light infantry units outrange normal line troops. Finally light infantry units have way too many men and can fend off lighter cavalry. Rifles were overpowered in Etw, now it's light infantry. Maybe having half the men, more ammo, same range or cost more with improved accurancy could do the trick besides removing the resistance to morale shocks. Besides the were elite light units used for harassment not massive lines of troops.

What I want to say is that although Cavalry should beat them they can devastate it with their firepower even when unsupported (having only lights and no line). The can outshoot Line infantry or kite it. They take little damage from artillery as well.

Hi guys, my opinion on kiting is that it is basically very bad sportsmanship, there are certain occasions when i believe it is acceptable and these are against an old guard rush, against melee units and against a no light build. Otherwise i see it as a very unfun way of playing the game and disagree with it.

Falling back is a legit tactic, especialy in team vs team games. But falling back is not kiting. Keep this in mind, when you ask for a penalty!

Kiting can be anoying, thats for sure- three weeks ago i tried the first time sweden (jaja^^) and wanted to rush, cause of the lack lights and the nice shooter cav- well my oponent was kiting, shot, kite, shot, kite, shot- at least i pin him down at the red line on the other side... Still his reaction was kind of legit, cause i rushed him...

About the replay: I saw no kiting at all. I saw the britain right player wasted his meatshield and a few lights in the beginn and i saw capital mistakes from the mid britain player and a really wrong decision to put the lights behind his own line and let them fire at will.^^
Nedkill did a little fall back on the right, but see, what it has done to the britain mid. gg! And i hope you dont mind, underworld, no offense!

honestly...ppl usually start kiting when the battle turns bad for them or if they know form the beginning that their opponent is better than them...but its a fact that even when they kite they lose 90% of the time so its just a big waste of time!

SO WHERES THE POINT IN KITING ? WHERE ?

my advice to all kiters...better spend ure time on learning real tactics than to kite to the end of the world

I don't mind at all, but I know for a fact kiting was going on in the game, when I asked them to stop falling back, one of their players said their whole strategy was based on kiting. that comment was one of the things that prompted me to post this thread.

Maybe a joke, mate? When someone say in battle to me: "Dont proceed your tactic", i could have said the same- but meant as a joke... well, you fought it, i wasnt there.

i don't see the difference between falling back, retreating and kiting. if you wanna split hairs i mean you certainly can, but at the end of the day isn't the intent the same? to run away from superior firepower?

kiting is a specific tactic that tends to feature the whole or a large part of the battle line and to keep doing it until you basically run out of map. A lot of us find it boring to play against and to be honest i've almost never seen it used successfully because the amount of micro involved means players make mistakes and get caught or get boxed in a corner. Falling back or retreating is a response to developing situation on the battlefield. It's just plan dumb to sit there and get shot for no reason when reforming a battle line or pulling back can prevent you getting out flanked. I'm getting bored of players being so quick to call it 'kiting' or 'running away'. Most of the time the diff is nothing more than semantics. It's amusing at times watching a couple of youtube commentators who are oh so quick to call any fall back by there opponents kiting or running away when they use the same tactics themselves.

Some of best players i see are constantly moving their lines forward and back but to effectively retreat all guns blazing doesn't work. You run out of space to manouever and get pinned. Flanking is so important in this game it makes no sense to surrender the battlefield.

However, on a map like Grass Flats on 3v3 or 4v4 where so have a lot of space and little terrain variation once one flank is lost it is ofter effectively game over. You see the weakened team retreating over and over so as not to be outflanked and the attackers just roll up the flank. It becomes a self fulfliling prophecy. I'm surprised more players on the opposing flank don't just go for all out attack on their wing in an effort to restore the balance. That's why i like Galician Ria because if you lose a flank you do have a chance to form a new battle line from which to counter and the advantage swings back and forth.

Originally Posted by dmcheatw

i don't see the difference between falling back, retreating and kiting. if you wanna split hairs i mean you certainly can, but at the end of the day isn't the intent the same? to run away from superior firepower?

pulling back a part of your army when you are certain of them losing is one thing and is completely understandable but there is players that will runaway as soon as you go near them and it seems thats all they do,trying to score lots of small victory's while you chase them around the map.

Not only is this annoying to the point of infuriating depending on builds its plain cheap.I always like to bring balanced builds and try have a good battle so i really dont have time for people who play this type of game its just lame.

Originally Posted by dmcheatw

i don't see the difference between falling back, retreating and kiting. if you wanna split hairs i mean you certainly can, but at the end of the day isn't the intent the same? to run away from superior firepower?

Not really... although the distinction isn't that clear-cut. The way I see it, "Falling back" and "Retreating" are more general terms, so you basically fall back while you're kiting.

You might want to go with something like this:
Falling back: moving part of your line backwards to avoid a flanking maneuver. Rest of the army stays engaged.
Retreating: moving large parts of your army back to regroup, possibly for a last stand or another attack.
Kiting: moving units backwards while firing at the attacker.

The large difference is that given the above definitions, "Falling back" and "Retreating" are reactions to a tactical situation, while "Kiting" is more of a general strategy, which uses "falling back" to avoid the opponent's attack.
To illustrate: in my videos, there are examples of retreating as I mean above here and here, followed by an attack afterwards. I do use "retreat", "falling back" and "withdraw" interchangeably in the commentary though (so I don't have to use the same expression over and over again).

Im not used to the expression "kiting". Is that another word for skirmishing tactic?

Originally Posted by Lucullus

Im not used to the expression "kiting". Is that another word for skirmishing tactic?

Yes, "kite" means "Drachen" (as in "steigen lassen"), it's supposed to invoke the picture of drawing units behind you (like on a string).
You see it a lot in Starcraft, where for instance if Marines are attacked by Zerglings they fire, run away during the cooldown, fire, run away... and can't be attacked because Zerglings are melee only.

Well why is "kiting" a problem then? Its probably THE most effective and most used tactic by any advanced player in earlier TW games. So either you adjust and prepare your build for this + find countertactics, or you chase him down to wait for errors, or you sit it out till his ammo is out. Once hes out of ammo hes forced to engage in melee (at least in any reasonable tournament). If ppl are out of ammo and they just retreat to avoid defeat its a different story but you can`t blame people to find and use the optimal tactical exploit the game engine provides. I havent played NTW and ETW for a long time but I cant remember skirmishing here to such a great extent like for insteance on RTW.