Detailed Combat Initial Deployment

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Detailed Combat Initial Deployment

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory >> Detailed Combat Initial Deployment

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/7/2005 5:44:18 PM

Russian Guard

Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

Anyone else have this issue?

Most every detailed battle I choose to fight, my supply caissons are deployed at the far ends of either or both of my flanks. Sometimes even worse (scattered far away from the main force).

I try to protect them by racing cavalry out to screen them, but many times they are whacked by enemy cavalry before I ever get a chance to move anything, let alone move the caissons. I have had to control/alt/delete (start over) numerous times, as the enemy literally over-ran and captured or routed all of my supply caissons before I could even move.

Is there a way to influence where initial deployment of units (or at least caissons) set up?

One other question - maybe I'm reading it wrong but the rules state that cavalry cannot charge Artillery if the Artillery is adjacent to good-order infantry. Yet in my games the enemy cavalry attacks my Artillery like they were magnets, conducting charges repeatedly regardless of the presence of infantry. Am I reading this rule wrong?

Post #: 1

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/7/2005 6:15:31 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

yea, even with the upgraded code, they still seem to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, over all not much help for the supply wagons yet

for the Arty, you need to have the Inf so that the Cav that is attacking is next to both the Arty and Inf when it charges

just having a Inf unit next to the arty is not enough

something like this, it may be HARD to see, as the bad guys color is close to the good guys

but I am facing one way and they are facing the other way

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Russian Guard)

Post #: 2

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/7/2005 6:29:26 PM

Russian Guard

Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

Ahh, I get it (Cavalry/Artillery issue). Thx HS.

I have seen very little mentioning this supply wagon issue - surprising to me. That's why I thought perhaps there was a way to influence the deployment that I was missing.

Strange because it's clearly not random. By that I mean, the darn things are almost ALWAYS on the ends of my flanks (or worse), clustered together. Alas, a later patch perhaps...

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 3

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/8/2005 1:24:14 AM

thufir

Posts: 31
Joined: 10/9/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard
I have seen very little mentioning this supply wagon issue - surprising to me. That's why I thought perhaps there was a way to influence the deployment that I was missing.

Strange because it's clearly not random. By that I mean, the darn things are almost ALWAYS on the ends of my flanks (or worse), clustered together. Alas, a later patch perhaps...

I have had this problem as well, although in my experience it has not been a disaster all that often. To be more specific, from what I've seen placement of supply is always random, and usually rather odd. However, so far, I can usually get the supply away from the enemy before he has a chance to attack it, and it has been rather rare that the enemy has been able to actually capture the supply before I can move it. Also, I would say I have used the supply extensively in my detailed combat, and to date I have found it very helpful.

Now I would also have to say that so far, I most of my detailed combat experience is in cases where I have outnumbered the enemy. I could imagine that random supply placement could quickly become more of a problem if the enemy were numerically superior.

(in reply to Russian Guard)

Post #: 4

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/8/2005 4:28:29 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

For what it's worth, placement is random, but is farther back toward your back line than your main setup area.

I personally like the game-play aspects of this variability, as it makes having cavalry to protect and escort your caissons more useful, and it gives the underdog (out-of-supply) player a better chance of intercepting and stealing some supply. However, we have had a few complaints about it and are considering positioning one caisson with each corps/army for units that are in-supply.

(in reply to thufir)

Post #: 5

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/8/2005 5:07:38 PM

Russian Guard

Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

My hat's off to your design team. Here's why:

Last night, I was playing (as usual) Russia and tangled with the French in a number of battles, in western Austria. What I noted was "hmm, why am I not having the supply caissons being over-run issue, like I was before?"

Then it hit me, and goes to your point. Previously, I was battling the Turks alot, in mostly open terrain, and their preponderance of cavalry was having a field day with my scattered caissons.

Fighting in western Austria the terrain was cluttered, lots of streams, trees, and hills, and French cavalry - both less numerous and constrained by terrain - was unable to get at my caissons as easily.

While I do think it would be a good idea to have minimal protected supply of some kind (assuming your Army is in supply in the first place), this definitely gives cavalry, and the Turks, a needed element of danger.

In the main, I withdraw my concern.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 6

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/8/2005 5:18:00 PM

TexHorns

Posts: 243
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline

While on this topic of battle set up, I would like to point out the jumbled mess of the divisions. It sometimes takes me 2 turns to get them untangled and in an organized line.

I would like to see them arrive on one end of the map edge in column, with the other side the same on the opposite end. Then a meeting engagement could ensue. Both sides being given an opportunity to select the terrain they want to position themselves. Another option would be for the defender to be established on good defensive terrain and the attacker arriving in column.

I guess my point is that the randomness results in a messy disorganozed initial placement and it would be nice if it were less messy and more ordered.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 7

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/8/2005 7:22:01 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

A key design consideration is to make detailed battles short enough so that they don't overwhelm the game. We experimented with many battle setup schemes and map sizes, and the result we found is that even small increases in map size and starting distance cause large increases to game playing time. As it is now, the average playing time for an experienced player playing a moderately sized detailed battle is less than an hour. When we had setup close to the edge of the map and allowed a lot of room for maneuver prior to the engagement, then the battles took closer to four hours to complete.

From a playability perspective, the random setup gives a possible advantage to the underdog in a fight. If players don't have perfect control over their units' setup, then it becomes more likely that a weaker player can move quickly to exploit a larger player's disadvantaged setup. My sense is that if we allowed perfect setup that the results of battles would become more predictable, and that numerical/troop superiority would be more of a determining factor.

Never-the-less, detailed battle setup is something that a lot of players would like to see handled with more player control. For our sequels, we are looking at ways to expand this area of the game engine.

(in reply to TexHorns)

Post #: 8

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/8/2005 10:05:52 PM

carnifex

Posts: 1295
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Latitude 40� 48' 43N Longtitude 74� 7' 29W
Status: offline

Personally I think it's fine as it is. During that time era there are numerous examples of armies basically blundering into each other, of massive engagements precipitated by a chance meeting of peripheral formations that escalated as the army commanders more or less blindly fed reinforcements to the sound of the guns.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 9

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/8/2005 10:25:11 PM

Russian Guard

Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

With the exception of the issue of minimal supply caissons for supplied troops starting within a safer perimeter, I agree. Fine as is.

The initial tension and excitement as you try to construct a cohesive defense/attack with the enemy closing, makes for some good fun. And I definitely do not want 4 hour detail battles.

(in reply to carnifex)

Post #: 10

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/9/2005 6:56:51 AM

TexHorns

Posts: 243
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline

First let me say Eric how much I apprecaite your consistent response to issues brought to the forum.

Second, inspite of the issues brought to your attention, bugs, frustration with intended designs etc, COG has proven to be an excellent game that provides a gastly amount of fun filled hours.

Third, I must be a dull witted general as my detailed battles usually take an hour. I usually form a line along favorable terrain when outnumbered or on the defensive. Since the AI still attacks even when they are on the defense, I usually set up a strong line and let him come to me. As I've grown more comfortable I have begun to be more aggressive in initiating contact early on.

I understand the design idea that you described above. And I definetly can live with it the way it is. I guess even if continuing start within close proximity, I still think it would be better and even quicker to at least have the placement reflect some kind of organization as opposed to the jumbled mess it usually is.

Thanks again for continuing to be involved and I look foraward to future adaptions.

(in reply to Russian Guard)

Post #: 11

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/9/2005 5:05:06 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

Under normal circumstances, members of a corps or army try to start a detailed battle adjacent to each other. It's the one way to try to organize your units when entering detailed battle.

(in reply to TexHorns)

Post #: 12

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/9/2005 6:37:00 PM

carnifex

Posts: 1295
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Latitude 40� 48' 43N Longtitude 74� 7' 29W
Status: offline

quote:

Since the AI still attacks even when they are on the defense, I usually set up a strong line and let him come to me.

Yeah, this is something I would like to see changed. The defender doesn't have to attack - if he waits out the attacker then the attackers time-based morale loss will eventually cause him to retreat. I would like to see the AI on defensive more often, just form a nice line in good terrain and wait for me

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 13

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/9/2005 9:39:41 PM

Napi

Posts: 19
Joined: 12/28/2004
Status: offline

I'm afraid I really hate the fact that my supply caissons start so far from my main boddy. In combination with the mess of the initial setup I ussually end up racing towards my supply units to make sure they are not overrun. taking unnecessary and sometimes substantial losses in the process. As France you can usually afford this but when playing on high difficulty this is often fatal.

I'm unpersuaded by the the reasons to deploy them so far. If someone enters a battle unsupplied then that's the fault of that player and the advantage of the guy paying dear bucks for that supply should not be undone by forcing him to put himself in a possition that negates that advantage. So please, drop this "feature".

Also, I agree that setting up your units all the time is probably in most cases a waste of time but in the large and important battles it can be the difference between victory and defeat.

I just played a battle as Russia against France on Bonaparte level and (as you know better then me) those French are bastards to get routed. If you then have to start with your forces being deployed with 2 rivers running between them and very few available fords to get to the other side that _really_ sucks and honestly takes a lot of the fun away from the game for me. I had been preparing a long time for this battle, building up my economy etc... to then have to start the battle with such a disadvantage (and off course with the supply so very far away) is annoying.

(in reply to carnifex)

Post #: 14

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/10/2005 12:30:42 AM

Ursa MAior

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline

But probably you have fared much better then Napoleon whose marshalls have let him completely down many times either by not obeying or 'over' obeying ( I mean sticking to teh letters of instead of the spirit) his intructions. IMHO the greatest and most typical feature of war (chaos) is not really portrayed in most of teh wargames. I'D like to see a game where I issue orders and they are carried out or not based on teh units commander's skills and/or the chain of command's quality. (Anyone remember when Boney asked Grouchy replacing Berthier how many messengers he has sent with an important message. One he said. Berthier would have sended at least 5 replied sadly Napoleon.)

_____________________________

Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Napi)

Post #: 15

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/10/2005 3:10:29 AM

thufir

Posts: 31
Joined: 10/9/2005
Status: offline

All in all, I'd have to say I am rather enjoying the random placement of supply, although I admit that this is based on limited play experience.

I did have one detailed battle in which I was facing both Austrian and Russian troops, and it seemed that the Russian troops were coming in from my rear (as defined by the placement of supply). In this case I certainly felt screwed, as I lost 2-3 supply caissons before moving a single unit! But I saw this only one time, and I have not seen it since.

(in reply to Napi)

Post #: 16

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/12/2005 8:23:08 PM

LeBaron

Posts: 16
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

I totally agree that initial deployment to often is moronicly stupid. I'd also be happy to see the AI sometimes on smarter defense. I've won to many battles by just waiting for the attack, blowing it to pieces with strong artillery and finishing with my cavalery.

(in reply to Russian Guard)

Post #: 17

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/13/2005 7:53:07 PM

Napi

Posts: 19
Joined: 12/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

But probably you have fared much better then Napoleon whose marshalls have let him completely down many times either by not obeying or 'over' obeying ( I mean sticking to teh letters of instead of the spirit) his intructions. IMHO the greatest and most typical feature of war (chaos) is not really portrayed in most of teh wargames. I'D like to see a game where I issue orders and they are carried out or not based on teh units commander's skills and/or the chain of command's quality. (Anyone remember when Boney asked Grouchy replacing Berthier how many messengers he has sent with an important message. One he said. Berthier would have sended at least 5 replied sadly Napoleon.)

IMHO you are mixing 2 things. One is, as you say, getting your orders obeyed but this is depicted in the large map overview where your corps and armies move. As you will have noticed, at times corps and armies move at different impulses. As a result forces taking part in a planned battle are often less then you would have wanted. At times, some corps don't move at all. I think this takes care of what you are asking.

What I am asking is that my supply starts together with my troops, close by and in the rear. I would imagine that any soldier making it to an Army or Corps commander would have the wits to make sure his supply is protected. It does not make any sense to charge big time for supply (money), which is by the way entirely correct, and then put that supply so far it becomes a liability and it takes you, at times, several turns to get it where it is needed. Sorry, but that is frustrating.

Concerning deployement, I would suggest making it optional. Before the battle let players chose to either automatically deploy your troops or manually. This can't be to hard to program and it would take care of that.

(in reply to Ursa MAior)

Post #: 18

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/13/2005 11:55:52 PM

Ursa MAior

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline

I stand corrected. :D

_____________________________

Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Napi)

Post #: 19

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/19/2005 9:05:15 AM

zorlag

Posts: 9
Joined: 10/19/2005
Status: offline

I find this very annoying as well... Just ran into battle with Spain where all my supply wagons are on right wing without protection (4 of them). Also one of my artillery is on front line without protection. On first round they all get ripped apart when spanish cavalry charges them. If I even could just get first move with supplies I might get some of them to safety but no.

I'd really love either little more space between starting armies or way to set up your troops for battle.

(in reply to Ursa MAior)

Post #: 20

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 11/21/2005 5:59:32 PM

Russian Guard

Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

Wife was away this weekend, so I had a marathon session of COG

Consequently, I had many detailed battles. Sadly, this problem reared it's most ugly head once again. I had previously decided that it was a "feature" as opposed to a "problem" after a discussion earlier in this thread.

'Fraid I've changed my mind...or else, if it's a feature, it's IMO a poor one. I repeatedly had this issue. Although it is stated above that the placement of supply caissons is random, I believe I'm confused as to what part of the set up process is random.

What is clearly not random, at least as I define "random" is the fact that supply caissons deploy together, in clusters, and are almost (as in 90% of the time) always deployed at either or both ends (wings) of my forces.

When I get to move first it's not a serious problem, as I can usually deploy to protect at least a cpl of them. As the above post describes, however, some of the time I find my strung out supply caissons run over by enemy cavalry and routed, before I even move, whereupon I face a long battle with at times not a single caisson for supply.

Control/Alt/Delete.

It's not a game-breaker for me by any stretch (I can hear the sighs of relief at COG HQ

) - in my opinion there are other much more serious issues to fix - but it is quite annoying.

(in reply to zorlag)

Post #: 21

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 12/1/2005 7:55:49 PM

declark

Posts: 3
Joined: 11/30/2005
Status: offline

I like the random set up. 200 years ago armies and battles were disorganized chaos. I actually enjoy trying to figure out how to untangle and deploy onto favorable ground. Sometimes, I have to send 1 or 2 units ahead as a forward guard, in order to buy time to fall back slightly to a more favorable postion at the expence of getting the forward unit(s) shot up severely. The random set up does gives corps units the advantage that they deserve. I have seldom had problems protecting my supply units. However sometimes the battle is all but decided by the time my supply units catch up. If your cav is largely outnumbered (by Spain or Turk for example), then you should have additional problems because it might have been unwise to enter into battle in that situation. I love the detailed battles. The AI aggressiveness is a bit out of balance, however it does greatly speed up game play. Therefore, I vote not to make the AI too defensive because I do not want to see the battles take more than one hour.

(in reply to Russian Guard)

Post #: 22

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 12/1/2005 9:13:41 PM

Russian Guard

Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

To be clear - I have no problem with random initial deployment per se, except as relates the supply caissons. I also enjoy what can be a tense time getting forces into position to attack/defend, sometimes under fire.

(in reply to declark)

Post #: 23

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 12/1/2005 11:34:34 PM

Kevan

Posts: 72
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: Brandon, MB, Canada
Status: offline

I've encountered this frustrating problem with supply caison setup as well. Against cavalry-heavy armies, it's possible to have all your supply caisons routed before your first move. It probably wouldn't bother me if the cavalry was riding around to my rear and attacking it, but sometimes it starts out sitting between the lines.

My other beef with initial setups is fortifications. At first, I would risk exposing some units in dashes for these, but now I rarely bother. As far as I can see, there is no way to expel friendly militia units from them, and the militia tend to be located in the fortification hexes with the best firing arcs. This also means the single-hex forts only come into play if the attacking force targets them. I would rather have the single-hex forts unoccupied and a single central militia in the larger forts. Or better yet, have the province's actual garrison unit(s)initially set up in the fortification.

I'm also bugged by terrain features adjacent fortifications. I often have forts where the battlements are adjacent hills or other natural features that block sight lines and screen enemy units or, in the case of hills, provide them with an advantageous position. As far as I know, engineers of that period usually situated fortifications with a minimal radius of clear, flat ground. I'm pretty sure that the preference was for this radius to be up to 300 yards, though older fortifications might have been built with weaker canon or bows in mind. This could be solved by having the templates for the forts modified to include a 1-3 hex width of clear ground around the fortifications.

(in reply to Russian Guard)

Post #: 24

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 12/2/2005 4:10:05 AM

TexHorns

Posts: 243
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline

Kevan, Left click or hit "e" with the cursor over the militia in the castle or fortification to be able to control them. I usually don't mess with the castles as they don;t really provide much benefit. But I do tend to deploy in proximity of friendly fortifications as the units, militia or other, fire as cannons from the fort. I'll activate the militia in forts and move them so as to have a LOS to an enemy unit and blaze away. Another advantage is that they auto-resupply in the fort.

_____________________________

We're gonna dance with who brung us.

(in reply to Kevan)

Post #: 25

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 12/2/2005 4:47:07 AM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

I probably shouldn't voice an opinion on this since I haven't played COG much at all; yes, I'm one of those fanatical history nuts who want their wargames to closely mirror real historical possibilities and have been waiting for COG to get patched up a bit, but I'll mouth off anyway. I can agree with some random disorder in the initial deployment, but the Supply Waggons out in no-mans land almost all of the time should really be changed. This just isn't right. I will now go back under deep cover until the patch is released.

(in reply to TexHorns)

Post #: 26

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 12/2/2005 8:01:49 PM

1LTRambo

Posts: 313
Joined: 8/31/2004
Status: offline

I'm looking forward to getting my copy of CoG in the next few weeks after it is updated with this new patch. However, I will pipe in as well. Supply trains always followed the army and were kept in a some what secure location behind friendly lines. The fact that supply wagons show up in battle on line with the infantry during movement to contact (especially on the flanks) is obsurd. This really should be fixed.

As for battle setup, that should be determined just prior to the battle. For example, if your army is moving from point A to point C in column formation and your engaged at point B, then you would begin the combat in column formation. Another option would be the player learns the enemy is moving in their direction. They opt for setting up a defense and are given the oppertunity to determine the terrain in which they want to defend and have a specific amount of time in which to set up the defense. If the player runs out of time, the enemy slams into their unprepared forces just like in reality. In other words, there should be a "chit" option as to how you will approach battle that can either give you an advantage or dissadvantage based on your choice.

What the complaints in this forum sound like is the battle begins with the players army in camp during resupply and the enemy army penetrated your picketts in force before your army could be alerted by your scouting calvery or the picketts themselves. Highly unlikely. But, this is the only possibility where supply cassions would be amongst the troops during the initiation of combat. I can see this remaining in the code only if it occurs in this manner where during resupply the players army is caught off guard and vice versa for the computer opponents.

(in reply to sol_invictus)

Post #: 27

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 12/3/2005 6:27:17 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

Please let me clarify how the game works: supply don't show up "on the battle line" but between 4-8 hexes behind the line of battle. They can show up on the wings and are thus vulnerable to enemy cavalry early in the battle when the terrain is open. As mentioned, we are planning to add some supply directly with the corps/armies.

Allowing players to choose setup would drastically affect game balance in COG, so we probably won't add support for that unless we make other major changes. We are taking this request into consideration for the sequel product and hope to work some control over setup into the rules for that.

(in reply to 1LTRambo)

Post #: 28

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 12/3/2005 9:22:56 PM

jimwinsor

Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline

I for one prefer things as they are. The less than ideal setups (theoretically for BOTH sides) put every battle on a "crisis mode" from the get go and makes each combat that much more interesting. Having to make decisions as to whether occupy this key ground, or some exposed area because a wagon or cannon might be in danger, or to go off hunting for the enemies wayword wagons and/or cannons...makes it much more intense.

Now, I don't know if this is just my imagination or not...but I've been somehow under the impression from playing that army commanders play a role in setup. It SEEMS to me that better commanders generate closer, more compact. ie, sensable setups. Poor commanding generals tend to give me spread out setups...as if my army had just been ambushed on its line of march.

Now reading this forum, I realize now this has *probably* all just been my imagination; Eric or anyone else here has not mentioned commanders playing a role, so I'm guessing this is not a feature like I suspected it might be.

But...what a cool feature to add! Maybe base setups on a commanders initiative (ie strategic) rating...and beter generals would give you nicer, more compact setups. Just a suggestion.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 29

RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment - 12/4/2005 3:58:36 AM

1LTRambo

Posts: 313
Joined: 8/31/2004
Status: offline

Thanks ericbabe for the reply. It speaks volumes about the quality of development in this game to receive feedback in such a timely manner, and to be open to suggestions.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 30