Is Friendly Fire an issue?

[Redpossum]

So there I am, my gallant men locked in brutal melee with the hated and despised foe...

And my archers on that hill appear to be raining arrows rather indiscriminately into the seething press of battle.

So, my question is, do friendly units take damage in that situation?

[scourge012]

Apparently so. I just got the game so I can't tell all that much, but while I was downloading the patch, I noticed on the list of fixes was "Friendly fire does less damage" or something like that. So, it seems like they do do friendly fire, but it has been reduced. I find if you build some training grounds and have them staffed as well as the Skirmisher barracks, then your archers and the like fire more into the enemy and less haphazardly.

[honvedseg]

First, let me assure you that there is no such thing as "friendly" fire, if it's heading in your direction it's ALL unfriendly.

Anyway, the ranged fire appears to have been directed at an area, and any of your men who strayed into the target zone were subject to being hit. Now, it appears that there is some degree of "aim", and the opposing figures will be hit more frequently than your own. On occasion, I still take more casualties from my own overly zelous skirmishers and archers than from the entire opposing army, particularly when playing an Eastern power. In the earlier game, Chariots of War, I had to reduce the javelin load of the skirmishers to 5, partly because they were still showering the front ranks of both armies with missles long after contact, and because the ludicrous 10 javelin load was making early skirmishers too powerful. The patch in Spartan reduces the problem, and they aren't as deadly in this game anyway.

[Redpossum]

First, let me assure you that there is no such thing as "friendly" fire, if it's heading in your direction it's ALL unfriendly.

ROFL!

Having been shot at a few times IRL, when I was younger, I can testify to the truth of this...

[ste]

I was gonna say that, if its coming at your its surely unfriendly. I think the Americans coined the term "friendly fire" aslong with "colleteral damage" in Gulf War I. So if we're being technical friendly fire wasn't around back in the day when Spartan/Troy are set

[honvedseg]

The term has to go back at least to Vietnam or even WWII, as I recall hearing it referred to back in my younger years, in the early '70's or late '60's.

One thing which is not depicted in the game is the difference between direct fire and volley fire. Bows were used either to directly target an individual at short range, with effect directly related to accuracy and power, or with large masses of arrows arcing over the heads of other troops, with its effect solely related to volume. Most chariot archers and many horse archers, for example, would ride close to a target and direct fire with a powerful composite bow or similar weapon, capable of piercing armor and shields, then use their greater mobility to ride away from any attempt to close. The huge formations of bowmen standing behind a protective front rank of spearmen would be forced to arc their shots over the leading rows, with very little accuracy, minimal penetrating power, and consequently not much effect against even a minimally protected target. A Greek was said to have reacted to a rumor, that the Persian army's arrows would fly thick enough to block out the sun, with the reply that it was good news, "for then we can fight our battle in the shade". The implication is that the indirectly fired volley was not perceived as much of a threat.

[stalins_organ]

High-register shooting by bows does not imply a lack of velocity at the target!! There is a marginal loss due to the increased flight time meaning more drag, but apart from that any velocity lost while rising is gained while on the downhill slope!!

the Spartan comment about fighting in the shade was made at Thermopylae, and is more about Spartan (and Greek) disdain for archers, and flippancy and maintenance of bravado in the face of certain death than reality - in the end the final survivors were wiped out by archery.

Cretans were also low register shooters IIRC - in Xenophon's Anabasis they are recorded as recovering longer Persian arrows and practicing long range high-register shooting in order to make up for their lack of range vs Persian archers and slingers.

Closing to short range is excellent practice if you can't be caught by a countercharge - and so is good for horse archers, chariots and dispersed skirmishers as you suggest. But when archers mass they are less able to run away from an enemy charge, so they start shooting at longer range to inflict as many casualties as possible.

"Direct" shooting - ie at a particular target - is possible out to about 80 yards AFAIK - after that most bows require so much elevation that you're shooting "area fire" whether you want to or not.

[DEB]

The term has to go back at least to Vietnam or even WWII, as I recall hearing it referred to back in my younger years, in the early '70's or late '60's.

Used in WW2 ( or at least in WW2 films... ).

I cannot recall if used in actual ( made during 1939-1945 ) WW2 films - but definitely in WW2 films made prior to the Vietnam War.