Game Mechanics needs

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Game Mechanics needs

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.] >> [Age of Muskets] >> Horse and Musket: Volume I, Frederick the Great >> Game Mechanics needs

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Game Mechanics needs - 2/1/2007 11:44:06 PM

anvl

Posts: 259
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline

I have been folowing these posts for a while and feel the main drawback of the H&M series has been missed.

We worked really hard to get the AI and player controlled armies to be able to maneuver at the brigade level. To form lines,column,march columns,etc at this level and be able to move in these larger formations where we wanted. But we were not able to do this...

If this could be fixed, then I feel that all the other problems here would become very small.

I think it is very important for higher level commanders to be able to order their lower level commands into formation, and indicate where they ought to end up. So if played at the brigade level, the brigadier should be able to order his two or so regiments into formation and the battalions will comply and move where ordered and in the formations selected. If played at the wing commander level,,, then he should be able to order his brigades into formations,line,column,march column, and they will comply and move to where he indicates. Same for the Over All commander. This would be my ideal,, but to at least have battalions operate as Regiments and at the Brigade level would be just superb!!

The minimum basic formations needed would be Brigade Line,Brigade double Line, Brigade Column, and Brigade Column of march. Brigade line would be a single line of battalions.Brigade Double line would be each regiment in line,,one behind the other. Brigade Column would be all battalions in line one behind the other. A brigade column of march would be all battalions in column and in two actual columns. With these formations, we would be able to graphically represent the tactics of the era. Even if this were simplified to Brigade Line and Brigade column would be just great!!

We have now all these levels of command, but we miss their most important,,and challenging roll, that of command and control. all they are used for now is basically a morale boost when needed,,and of course orders activation.

The other problem is artillery, which has been mentioned. I believe the reason for these problems is that they are not under the chain of command. Artillery needs to be assigned to a commander like any other unit. Most often this would be the Supreme commander, as at this time artillery was pretty positional and not agrressive, other than the 3lb battalion guns. artillery in the last vesion was way to agressive,,and since it was not under any command,, it would move to places where no one could do anything with it. As I remember, any commander could order artillery around, but if the commander moved to do this he jeprodized his infantry units by putting them out of his command range. So they need to be assigned to an artillery chain of command and tend to stay put,,not advance without orders. Then,, if possible, the time to limber and unlimber should be set to show how slow they were. No matter what,,when the artillery dashed up to the front lines of the bad guys,, then just sat there out of command,,, really detracted from the "realism" of the game.

This artillery chain of command is relativly historic as well. I believe most artillery was organized into gun batteries of two or so guns. These were under the command of an ad hoc artillery "brigade" commander who was under the Supreme commander. Rarely were guns under the command of infantry brigades,wings etc. The fledgling horse artillery is the exception here. I think this structure is already in the coding,, at least for infantry and cav. Hopefully artillery can be treated in the same way.

anvil

Post #: 1

RE: Game Mechanics needs - 2/2/2007 10:28:41 AM

I�aki Harrizabalagatar

Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline

Anvil
Take a look to my proposal of improvements list
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1275602
IMO the group movement should the standard movement, while moving independent Bns at will should be reduced as much as possible, that also would help the AI

(in reply to anvl)

Post #: 2

RE: Game Mechanics needs - 2/2/2007 8:22:01 PM

anvl

Posts: 259
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline

I�aki Harrizabalagatar,

I had read your post,,but must admit forgot,,

,,

You definitely cover most of the problems in the game. A few comments:

1: the PBEM is definitely a problem,, it just takes way too long to deal with

2: this must be a personal issue here,, i actually like the way this is handled. For me it adds a very nice fog of war, and creates a feel of continual motion,, in a turn based game.

3: routing units going in the wrong direction definitely needs to be fixed.

4: "Leader radius of influence should be blocked by enemy units, so that you can�t rally units behind enemy lines"

this is a Great suggestion.. hope this is implemented..

5: This is very important,, focusing movement\orders on upper level commanders and not having to micromanage each battalions,, however it is done, will be a much needed improvement. Semantics sorta,,but realize, there was no divisional structure in the 18th century. regiment,brigade,wing\reserve,army are all the levels of command used during this time. But to have more ie,, division level command etc options, is important for future expansions of the game into the 19th century. This falls under the catagory of forethought..

. We tried to do this,, but were not successful and this is where the"dithering" that has been mentioned comes in.. the AI just cannot form brigade type lines, but he tries!! Column movement in the game has the same problem. when a column of battalions crosses an obstical, one or two will pass it, and the rest will halt,, same problem passing thru other units. I believe this area is the most critical for improving the game.

6: Random factor,, I think this must be a personal decision. We talked of this on the other forum, but i must admit i never saw this as a problem.

7: Good point here too. Tim indictes the addition of "attack columns". I believe this is a good addition for the 19th century, but during the time of our game, attack columns were not used. column of lines were, but not column of columns in the attack. Recognize there are always the exception to the rule. Its pretty safe to say that columns were used for movement, not attack and lines were for attack, not movement.

8: rallying is another good point, but there are the examples,and not too infrequent, that i believe rallying should be done. The way it is done i believe is a player has an option of using his command figs to rally or give orders and control the battle, but not both. This creats a nice balance\choice in the game.

9: Lol,, anxiously looking forewards to the "in due time :)"

10: I'm not sure about this fire phase. I think it was added to make sure cav couldn't break infantry. Personally i would like to see this done a bit different as well. Cav well into the 20th century,, has had the belief that they could break infantry. Mostly they were proven wrong, but with just enough glorious successes to keep this belief alive. I would like to see a "slim to none" chance of cav breaking a fresh line, and having this chance increase as the infantry unit takes more casualties,fatigue,and moral losses. Lol,, the balance here creates reams of debate and prolly always will..

Anyway,, I am looking foreward to whatever happens with this game..

anvil

_____________________________

Deus subrisum stultusi et ferrari

(in reply to I�aki Harrizabalagatar)

Post #: 3