Board Thread:Suggestions forum/@comment-28122306-20160707194705

This isn't exactly a suggestion, but it's really more of a discussion.

As you know, multiple NPC's can attack the same target at once. However, the reverse is not true: an NPC can only fight one foe at a time. For example, a Gondor Soldier fighting two Mordor Orcs (let's call them Orcs A and B) has been provoked by Orc A. He will not attack Orc B, even if Orc B hits him, until Orc A has been killed. Then he will focus on Orc B.

Why is this important?

Well, it doesn't actually make that much difference for melee units, or when the numbers of soldiers on both sides are approximately equal. However, when one side has far fewer units than the other side (think defeating an invasion with hired units) then it does become important -- and it also becomes much more important for ranged units. For example, let's replace the Gondor Soldier with a mounted Gondor Archer. Yes, the soldier has AI that allows him to back up from a unit if it gets too close. But if there's a second Orc attacking him, the Gondor Soldier will continue to shoot at the target he started shooting at, even if it's farther away than the incoming Orc.

A better solution would be to base combat on distance. If an NPC sees two enemies, he will fight whichever one's closer to him, even if he's already in combat. This means that if a second enemy gets too close while he's fighting his original target, he will abandon fighting his first enemy and switch to the more immediate threat.

I am aware that this might cause a lot of lag, and is probably very, very difficult to put into practice, but it would make NPC vs. NPC combat a lot more realistic.

Thoughts? 