Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

serious combat bugs

 
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 >> serious combat bugs Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
serious combat bugs - 8/9/2005 6:03:08 PM   
gdpsnake

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline 		I have played many detailed battles and I'm completely annoyed with several "Bugs" or poor programed routines.

1. The set-ups for detailed battles are absolutely ludicrous. The computer just bunches the defender somewhere in the middle always unprepared for battle and the attacker is not much better on the outside. Several times as a defender, my supply is left bunched together somewhere right next to where the attacker sets up?!
I believe this should be fixed. BOTH the attacker and defender should be allowed to set up their units in whatever facing/formations/positions he desires. The only exception is when a random determines one side or both is SURPRISED by the encounter. In this case the units should all be in column along a road. This would definitely add some reality and spice to the combat game.

2. Why can't I control my garrison units during a battle? They do nothing unless attacked and rarely have any punch even in areas with high gun values. Oddly, the computer kills hundreds of my men at long ranges with his garrisons but I can't do anything with mine. Also, several times they are expelled from the fort and just sit there getting killed when I could/should be able to move them. Also, the fort positions are spread all over the map with no basis for the positioning. The whole thing with garrisons needs to be fixed.

3. Why is everthing only good in line? This is NOT historical. Sure, fire power is optimized in line but the Melee was ALWAYS carried best in a column type formation ESPECIALLY WITH CAVALRY! In this crazy combat, everybody melees best in line all the time?! Mixed order was just a way of combining troops in front in line and troops behind in column which charged through the line when the other side looked to be wavering. This needs to be fixed - line for shooting/bad for melee - column good for melee/bad for shooting. As it is now, this is not the case. Line should also be better for fire defense and column worse.

4. First of all, most Cavalry was armed with sabers - they should not shoot at all. Dragoons were the Cav with the guns. Lancers and light cav melee best in line but regular cav and especially Heavy cav should melee best in column. Some light cavalry like Hussars were armed with guns and best deployed as skirmishers. They avoided melee combat and harassed troops with gunfire at a distance. We should see DIFFERENT FORMATIONS having different benefits so we can approach the true use of combined arms. Cavalry needs to be fixed. Formations need to be fixed.

5. Artillery should not be line or column but limbered or unlimbered. You can leave it line or column but with the following restrictions: Column moves well but shooting should be much worse than now. Line gives the excellent shots but movement is almost non-existent - you could move one hex but be unable to shoot AND HEAVY artillery should not be moveable at all in line. The Russian heavy guns of the time, the pride and joy of the Czar's artillery, were practically useless in combat unless in pre-set defensive positions that never moved in combat. Horse artillery moved very fast but was almost exclusively 6 pound guns - they should NOT shoot as well or as far as regular artillery (bigger guns - who says size isn't important). Horse artillery unhitched the horses too so they shouldn't move any better in line (unlimbered).
Howitzers have no punch at all?! Yes they can shoot over friendlies but they should also be devestating at close range direct fire. Parrot guns would not be but have great range (can't have everything in a game though?).
Oh, see #1 about setting up again as this is most important with artillery.

6. See #1 again. Sometimes the defender should get a well prepared condition especially if the units have not moved on the strategic map in a turn or are in a seige. In this case lets have some redoubts or fleches available for placement with the defenders.

7. The most important thing about skirmishers is ignored in this game. They are GREAT in terrain like buildings and woods! Right now, woods, villages and the like are nothing but BAD in this game when they should be GOOD for the guy that gets there and assumes skirmish or what was known as GENERAL FORMATION! Where is that in this game? General formation should be adopted in villages or woods. It was a VERY difficult position to take when kept supplied and could harass and do a lot of damage. Melee out of the position should be poor and fire should be reduced (defenders spread out) but the defender should enjoy huge defensive bonuses against melee and fire. Think of all the Napoleonic battles that raged over these type of positions yet this game these positions are just bad and in the way. Cavalry NEVER meleed such a position but in this game the AI charges really stupid. I mean, cavalry charging a fortification, village or into dense woods?! INSANITY yet they do AND they WIN especially against garrisons who just get slaughtered!? MORE INSANITY!

8. When the enemy leaves the field (sounds the retreat), units in ZOC of the enemy SHOULD LOSE SOME MEN like in a rout and units surrounded SHOULD NOT JUST GET AWAY (disappear) like they do now but should be captured.

9. AND THE NUMBER 1 BAD - ROUTING! I am sick and tired of seeing the enemy rout RIGHT AT and THROUGH my lines instead of routing AWAY from me. The whole point of a retreat and especially a rout is AWAY FROM THE OTHER GUY. This is so insanely stupid that I'd rather not rout the enemy because he routs behind me and then recovers and attacks my rear. INSANITY - FIX THIS!!!!!
Plus a routing unit SHOULD LOSE MEN in the rout especially when it leaves the ZOC of any enemy unit except the first ZOC. This is where the rout should matter as men fled from the field. Usually, a routing unit was never seen again unless a leader of some important rallied the men. A routing unit should rout TOWARD it's supply, not the enemy's. It should rout a fair distance before even trying to rally. AND IT SHOULD LOSE MEN when invovled with enemy ZOC. When surrounded, it should keep fighting (very rare like the Old Guard at Waterloo) or surrender. These losses don't have to be prisoners (as in real life) as this may be difficult to program but extra strenght loss would be easy to do.

Let's get to work on some of this for the next patch?

A confused combatant.

Post #: 1
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/9/2005 6:24:19 PM   
Jordan

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		Agree with many of your points especially about the set-up. Unit which are in a province already should get their pick of terrain...a good point. Don't agree with number three, for which you will find a tremendous amount of debate. Read Muir's The Experience of Battle...or many other studies which do not come to the same conclusions as you suggest.

As I understand it, the detailed battles were not meant to be the major part of the game. (However most of the manual is devoted to it). The units are at Divisional level, which I think is the major cause of some of your points, and the divisions are assumed to contain all arms (hence your cav units engaging in fire combat). I would have like to have seen a brigade level system. Skirmishers were meant to wear down an opponent and impair a unit's integrity and cohesion and also to protect a unit from the enemy's skirmishers - although you could conceivably do this in the game it is not really feasible.

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 2
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/9/2005 6:30:53 PM   
Malagant

 

Posts: 372
Joined: 3/13/2004
Status: offline 		#1: I agree with.

#2: Garrison units start 'Fortified'. Hold cursor over garrison units and hit E, this will 'wake' them and let you control them. RTM.

#3: This is historical. Cavalry and infanty can and did primarily fight in a Line formation. Others that enjoy discussing the historical accuracy of things more than I do can continue (L-M?)

#4: These are cavalry divisions, with attached artillery. As has been stated many times on these boards, at the divisional level things are somewhat abstracted.

#5: I agree mostly, but I thought the Parrot guns weren't developed until the 1850's?

#6: I'd love to see some advantage given to the defender.

#7: Your assessment of skirmishers is incorrect: infantry in skirmish formation are better than non-skirmish infantry in 'rough' terrain (woods, buildings, etc.). See the thread below labeled "Detailed Combat" started by Gem35 for a detailed description of the advantages of skirmish formation and light/jager infantry. I agree about the AI blindly charging infantry in rough terrain and getting thrashed. I don't have a problem with results of several AI divisions (20-30 thousand men) being able to move a small garrison of a few thousand out of a redoubt.

#8: I agree.

#9: I agree.

_____________________________

"La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!"

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 3
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/9/2005 7:15:08 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline
#1. I've found that sometimes there is enough time to prepare for battle; sometimes there isn't, which is how I intended the design.

#2. You can control the garrisons during battle; please consult the manual.

#3. Firing is much better in line but charge attacks are only marginally better in line (+10%).

#4. Cavalry fire attacks also are intended to include cavalry probing attacks.

#5. Artillery column/line simply intended to model artillery that is carefully deployed vs artillery that is hastily deployed.

#6. There are no redoubts or fleches programmed in the game.

#7. Skirmishers receive only half the penalty of normal units when firing out of rough terrain, which includes buildings and woods.

quote:


9. AND THE NUMBER 1 BAD - ROUTING! I am sick and tired of seeing the enemy rout RIGHT AT and THROUGH my lines instead of routing AWAY from me. The whole point of a retreat and especially a rout is AWAY FROM THE OTHER GUY. This is so insanely stupid that I'd rather not rout the enemy because he routs behind me and then recovers and attacks my rear. INSANITY - FIX THIS!!!!!


Other players on this forum made the polite request that we modify the behavior of routed units, and in response to their polite requests, this is on our list of changes we'd like to make in a future patch.


Eric



(in reply to Malagant)
Post #: 4
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/9/2005 7:39:36 PM   
Jordan

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		Eric (he notes politely) I do think his idea of putting a force along a road in a strung out column is a good idea to represent the unpreparedness of a force. I think his frustration, and possibly others, comes from the way the forces initially appear on the map - all grouped together in a hodge podge. However, I don't advocate a Rome Total War pre-battle set-up, maybe just a grouping by Army & Corps with a little space between the disparate units.

Also, I like the idea of a defensive force (one that hasn't moved on the strategic map) receiving good ground. If this can't be coded into the random map generator then perhaps the def force should receive a free move in order to set-up.

I haven't played the detailed battles in awhile...for a line infantry unit, does deploying skirmishers mean that the entire division falls into skirmish order or just that they have abstractly deployed skirmish companies? If it is the former, please consider the latter.

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 5
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/9/2005 9:55:10 PM   
plasticpanzers

 

Posts: 67
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline 		I have also had issues on the way the armies setup at
the start with usually no rhime or reason. There are
times at the beginning i have to form a circle of my
army because i cannot find out where the enemy is! LOL!
On column vs line i often see little advantage to using
a column to attack as it does not seem as powerful in
attacking as it should even with overwhelming force.
cavalry firing as much as it does is strange too. if
they did have weapons firing from the saddle was only
done in very limited situations and not during a charge. cav should be more based upon melee (which
in cav vs inf can be devestating, more so than inf vs
inf where the loser often simply ran away) rather
than cavalry firepower (horse arty or not attached).
also there it should be far harder for inf to form
a square the closer an cav unit is when it charges.
and lastly (glad i am almost finished arn't ya! LOL!)
cav is pretty much useless against fortifications such as buildings, castles, and forts.
Tim

(in reply to Jordan)
Post #: 6
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/9/2005 10:07:57 PM   
ericbabe


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

ORIGINAL: plasticpanzers
I have also had issues on the way the armies setup at
the start with usually no rhime or reason. There are
times at the beginning i have to form a circle of my
army because i cannot find out where the enemy is! LOL!


The enemy is on the other side of the map in the direction your units are facing. Units enter the map adjacent to other members of their corps (insofar as that is possible.)


quote:


On column vs line i often see little advantage to using
a column to attack as it does not seem as powerful in
attacking as it should even with overwhelming force.

The flanking/facing bonuses are very large and it is much easier to move into flanking positions with units in column formation, so I was hoping to make the combat power of units in column formation reflected in their increased mobility.

quote:


cavalry firing as much as it does is strange too. if
they did have weapons firing from the saddle was only
done in very limited situations and not during a charge. cav should be more based upon melee (which
in cav vs inf can be devestating, more so than inf vs
inf where the loser often simply ran away) rather
than cavalry firepower (horse arty or not attached).


As mentioned, I consider cavalry fire attacks to include probing attacks by the cavalry; it seemed reasonable to fold this into the fire attack at the division level rather than have a separate action for it.

quote:


also there it should be far harder for inf to form
a square the closer an cav unit is when it charges.


All charges are from adjacent hexes.


quote:


and lastly (glad i am almost finished arn't ya! LOL!)
cav is pretty much useless against fortifications such as buildings, castles, and forts.
Tim


Yes-it is pretty much useless.


Eric

(in reply to plasticpanzers)
Post #: 7
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/9/2005 10:23:01 PM   
ericbabe


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

ORIGINAL: Jordan
on the map - all grouped together in a hodge podge. However, I don't advocate a Rome Total War pre-battle set-up, maybe just a grouping by Army & Corps with a little space between the disparate units.


Units appear adjacent to other members of their corps (insofar as that is possible). The amount of dispersion of the corps is given by a commander vs commander check made at the beginning of the battle, with a hefty bonus going to the defending player. The player who loses the check has a greater average distance between his corps. One of the reasons for the design decision not to allow players always to setup their units wherever they want was that random setup gives more of a chance to the underdog player, who can go into a battle with a much smaller force and hope for a better initial setup. Another reason was simply to cut down on the time required to play a detailed battle, as setup adds considerable time to the battle.

As we have had many requests for battle setup, this is what we are considering for our sequel products, and perhaps for a COG features patch: each corps makes a command check based on the commanders attached to it. If it makes the check, the player can choose the center of the corps; if it fails badly, it arrives at random near the reinforcement area; otherwise it begins the battle in the normal starting area.

Another consideration is simply that I don't have a good routine for the AI to evaluate where it should setup its units. I have ideas for writing such an evaluation routine, but it will be an awful lot of work to implement a feature that really may not add that much to the game.


quote:


Also, I like the idea of a defensive force (one that hasn't moved on the strategic map) receiving good ground. If this can't be coded into the random map generator then perhaps the def force should receive a free move in order to set-up.


That's a good idea, though it may be a little too long of a pause in a mplayer game.


quote:


I haven't played the detailed battles in awhile...for a line infantry unit, does deploying skirmishers mean that the entire division falls into skirmish order or just that they have abstractly deployed skirmish companies? If it is the former, please consider the latter.


Combat at the division level has to be abstracted in a lot of ways: obviously an entire division isn't going to form an emergency square in response to a cavalry charge, nor is an entire division going to enter line formation. The states of the divisions in detailed combat are meant to represent the preponderate attributes of crucial areas of the division. If we did detailed battles at the regiment level, they would take as long to play out as the battles in the old TalonSoft Battleground games -- the time I spent playing the TalonSoft Waterloo game was longer than the actual battle of Waterloo!


(in reply to Jordan)
Post #: 8
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/9/2005 10:26:04 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Hi PP
(LOL that looks bad, Hi P Panzer)

your troops will pretty much be facing your enemy when the battle starts, look at how your troops are set up, if they faceing north, your enemy is north of you

at times you do some confusing faceings at the beginning, but that just means the enemy is split up

over all, I think the detail battle set up is fine, a little too much confusion to the routed uints, but over all, seeing the scale of the game, I think it works well

(now if it was a Bn level game, hell yea, it needs to be changed, but it is a Div level, so it works)

other points or complaints

line or unlimbered ? , I think we are just playing with words here, you don't think Arty deployed in line, it was unlimbered, well, you can take line to mean unlimbered (now I would not really mind a little more of loss of firepower to a limbered arty unit, but as it stands now, the difference between a good volly from a Arty unit in line or in column is like night and day)

and I think you need to do some more checking, arty could be fired from the limbered state, it wasn't good, it wasn't the ideal or the norm, but it could be done, at times it was also fired while the horses were still attached to the limber, when in need, you did what you had to do, the recoil made a mess of everything

time to be nice :) so I shut up

HARD_Sarge


_____________________________


(in reply to plasticpanzers)
Post #: 9
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/9/2005 10:39:29 PM   
Joram

 

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline 		Can't add much that hasn't already been said but I think the majority of your problem is that you are thinking too tactically, and not operationally. I had trouble changing my mindset but once I reached this new paradigm, it feels a lot better. The rout is really the only thing on your list I remotely agree with. The rest, while not perfect, works with the game.


(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 10
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/9/2005 11:06:14 PM   
carburo

 

Posts: 108
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline 		Eric,
As for the initial set up, I like the randomness (except for the supplies at the front). My problem is with the unit selection. I’m almost sure that the game select which of my units go to the initial set up based on their absolute strength, but it does it contrary to what I would want. All my arties and depleted units go first, and the 10k strong come as reinforcements. This is especially easy to spot when there is an allied army present and only part of my army is deployed. I usually get just 5 or 6 units on the field, and they are always the artillery and the most depleted infs and cavs.
After really paying attention, I’m almost sure the guy with more troops in the province is the attacker. I think it doesn’t matter who got there first, who owns the province, or anything else.
Any possibility that I’m right in this two?

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 11
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 12:03:56 AM   
plasticpanzers

 

Posts: 67
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline 		Column vs line was not a flanking type attack. Columns
were used to rupture lines and were not designed to
dance about their flanks (thats light cavalry work!).
You formed attack columns and launched them at the
enemy line. If you were lucky enough to have one
hitting their flank, so much the better
Cavalry firepower is just wrong. a square should be
able to chop up an attacking enemy cavalry column but
i often see the opposite. Cav vs an unshaken sqaure
always puts cavalry at a disadvanatge. Nappy's Maxims
at the start of the game emphasise the cavalry is very
dependent upon the sabre. Its the effect cavalry has
in melee and morale upon other units that makes it at
times a devisating force. It appears in the game more
as mobile infantry at times. sorry, just my humble
opinion.
thanks for the headsup on the start of a detailed battle. was setting up in a big circle a'la Custer
a couple of times! LOL!
I have seen cavalry attack forts and such and cause
casualties. i don't think your average cavalryman
is going to ride up to a fort and open fire with
his cavalry carbine! LOL!
ps: I DO like the game. I have been playing it
for up to 8 hours a day since i got it (retirment
leave alot of extra time! LOL!)
Tim

(in reply to carburo)
Post #: 12
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 12:17:53 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Well, I think part of the hassle with this style of game, is we think in hex, where the system is really hexes, we see a Cav Div 2 or 3 hexes away returning fire, where the designers have said a few times, it is really more of pobing attacks, swarming around the edges and or what not

that Cav unit sitting 3 hexes away, may in fact be taking up 3 hexes

(now what throws me, is when your Inf fires and kills 8 horsemen and they return fire and kill 30-50 Inf !, now that looks wrong on top of things, but...)

HARD_Sarge


_____________________________


(in reply to plasticpanzers)
Post #: 13
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 10:26:10 AM   
Alaric_31

 

Posts: 65
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline 		cavalry melee attacks are limited on the game, it's at this time a bad thing to charge a unit in formation, so i do not have problem to cavalry to be given shooting capabilities, it's shooting capabilities at the moment do much more damage to enemy morale and contribute to the rout of the enemy army than latter cavalry charges to give the "coup de grace" to the enemy army.

with regards,

alaric.

_____________________________

There is no plan of battle that survives the contact with the enemy.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 14
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 11:05:18 AM   
Reg Pither


Posts: 196
Joined: 9/19/2003
From: London
Status: offline 		Illogical routing is the main problem I see on that list. I'd certainly like to see that changed, although the slight possibility of troops fleeing in unexpected directions should still remain.

The simplest change I'd like to see concerning the initial setup of forces is that there should be a little more space between units. It's very frustrating to have units right in the middle of the 'clump' getting to move first, but not be able to put them anywhere useful. I quite like the randomness of not knowing exactly what sort of disposition you are going to start with, but taking leader quality into account in some way would be a nice addition.

I can't remember a formed infantry unit ever becoming disordered or not forming an 'emergency square' when charged by cavalry. 95% of the time they form the square, the rest of the time they stay in line or column and the attacking cavalry gets a pasting, even (especially?) when they attack from the flanks. This doesn't seem right to me.

But apart from a few litle niggles, I think the detailed battles do a pretty good job of recreating the combined arms tactics of the period.

< Message edited by Reg Pither -- 8/10/2005 11:10:21 AM >

(in reply to Alaric_31)
Post #: 15
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 1:48:59 PM   
Latour_Maubourg


Posts: 90
Joined: 7/7/2005
Status: offline 		Most of the points have already to a certain extend been discussed. But I'd like to look closer at one point. Column vs Line. I think (and I might be wrong here) that a lot of people when thy think of a column they think of 2 lines of soldiers on a road marching along. While this technically correct they use to call this a marching column which is a something different than the column Napoleon used in battle. Let me try to explain.


1 regiment in column formation looked a bit like this


---c-c------c-c------c-c---
---c-c------c-c------c-c---
---c-c------c-c------c-c---
---c-c------c-c------c-c---
------Cs Cs Cs-------

c= company of inf.
Cs= company of skirmishers

The battalions each have 8 companies in column formation. The company was than made up in a formation of for example 30 men wide and 4 deep. The space between the battalions was large enough so the companies could move into line formation without tumbling over each other However while attacking the space between the battalions was minimized to create an even compacter effect. Skirmishers were posted behind the regiment so they could move quickly through the line to cause havoc when going offensive. So what a defender faced was a compact block of soldiers of 180 soldiers wide and 16 soldiers deep. If the regiment would be in Line formation he would face a line of 720 soldiers wide and 4 deep.

The column formation basicly started out as a nesseccity because the french revolutionary army was very poorley equipped so they tried to compensate the lack of quality with quantity. Another thought was that if we crash to a line formation we hope that the defender panics and routes. Another thing was that when marching towards the enemy. The chance that soldiers in the frontline would panic and run away thus leaving holes in the line would be reduced because the lines and companies behind you pushed you forward whether you wanted it or not. When in line formation if the company next to yours panics and leaves the line often has a damaging effect on morale because the chance that you will be flanked has increased. If a company in column formation would panic wasn't too bad bad because behind the panicing company the gap would be filled with another one thus keeping formation intact. The column formation like all formation only had effect to a certain extend. If one put too many regiments into column formation they would get incredibly difficult to handle and wheeling got virtually impossible. In one of Napoleon's later battles (I forgot which one), he used a column made out of 10 regiments. It looks impressive but the effect was not as he wanted because the regiments started stumbling over each other and the effect was minimal.

Conclusion. The column was very effective in the beginning of the napoleonic wars because most of France's opponents still fought in the classic (or ancien regime) line formations. Seeing a compact block of soldiers coming towards you must have been truly damaging for moral, knowing that you are only in line formation and behind you is no cover of other companies. When time moved on and France's opponents addepted their techniques and found countermeasures (massed artillery for example). It got more and more difficult to use the columns effectively.

Down: 4 regiments in offensive column formation
about 720 men wide and 16 men deep


--------------------------skirmishers----------------------------------
--c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c--
--c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c--
--c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c--
--c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c---c-c--

c=company of infantry

(a lot of c's there ).



L-M





< Message edited by Latour_Maubourg -- 8/10/2005 2:02:54 PM >

_____________________________

"What have you got to cry about man, you have one less boot to polish in future." L-M's reaction at his distressed valet after his leg was shot off at Leipzig.

(in reply to Reg Pither)
Post #: 16
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 4:42:32 PM   
ian77

 

Posts: 627
Joined: 4/27/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: carburo

Eric,
I’m almost sure the guy with more troops in the province is the attacker. I think it doesn’t matter who got there first, who owns the province, or anything else.
Any possibility that I’m right in this two?



If this is the case it helps explain the nonsense in the "results" window giving attacker and defender casualties...

Good spot!

Ian

(in reply to carburo)
Post #: 17
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 5:14:14 PM   
carnifex


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

(now what throws me, is when your Inf fires and kills 8 horsemen and they return fire and kill 30-50 Inf !, now that looks wrong on top of things, but...)


I ran some tests - four infantry divisions vs four cavalry divisions, roughly equal morale.

I deployed all in line formation, one hex apart. I then fired two infantry divisions at their two cav counterparts and fired the remaining two cav at their inf counterparts. I kept trading fire like this until all units were disordered or routed (no charges, just fire combat).

I did a similar test, the difference being that all the infantry was in square and the cavalry was adjacent.

I ran this scenario only a couple of times each, but the results were dispiriting. In the first test, it was a tossup. Sometimes the cavalry won, sometimes the infantry, sometimes both sides shot the other to pieces.

Using squares, the results were more lopsided. The squares were consistently outgunned by the cavalry. True, they were invulnerable to charge, but they took more fire casualties and inflicted less.

Now, the argument here is that cavalry fire attacks represent probing attacks and such. The problem is twofold. One, a probing attack vs infantry in line formation would be ineffective at best. You could harass troops in column formation, but you're talking about sending out a squadron or two against infantry in line. The probing cavalry would be decimated. Simply put, probing attacks vs ordered troops are suicide. You either charge them or leave them alone.

The second problem is that infantry in a square would be completely protected from probing attacks. A cavalry unit that remained within range of a square would have all it's horses shot away in short order. Infantry in a square should be completely invulnerable to probes from cavalry.

My conclusion is that cavalry is currently overpowered. Because of their ability to project fire combat, they can function as regular (albeit slightly inferior) infantry. However, they have several advantages to more than make up for it.

First is their very large movement allowance and their ability to turn on a dime and deliver a devastating attack from the rear. Second is their ability to force squares. An infantry unit has no capability to reduce the cavalry fire and defense, but a cavalry unit can make an infantry unit into a giant target for all opposing artillery. And third, and of course the most significant, is their ability to charge. An infantry unit in a square dare not deploy into a more effective fire delivery formation in fear of being charged and routed with significant casualties. The cavalry unit has no such fear, it can just plug away at the square and if things go bad they can retreat way out of range instantly.

I propose several changes.

One, reduce the maximum strength of cavalry divisions to around 8000. Two, with the exception of Lancer units, cavalry should not be allowed to enter line formation. Third, cavalry unit fire attack effectiveness should be reduced by 50% vs infantry in line formation, and by 90% vs squares. Fourth, a cavalry unit should have it's facing change cost increased significantly (perhaps tripled) if within 2 hexes of any enemy unit.


I have edited the maximum strength of all cavalry units to 8000. We'll see how that plays out. I wish I knew how to make the other changes but I don't




(in reply to Latour_Maubourg)
Post #: 18
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 5:41:11 PM   
Reg Pither


Posts: 196
Joined: 9/19/2003
From: London
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: carnifex

One, reduce the maximum strength of cavalry divisions to around 8000. Third, cavalry unit fire attack effectiveness should be reduced by 50% vs infantry in line formation, and by 90% vs squares.



I agree with those two proposals, but I'm not fussed about the other two. One thing I put forward in an earlier post was simply to make cavalry more expensive, or give it an even longer training time.

(in reply to carnifex)
Post #: 19
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 6:23:58 PM   
ian77

 

Posts: 627
Joined: 4/27/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline
If cav charging in column is nurfed and they are therefore made to charge in line, the running past target and turning right around to hit rear will be stopped. Cav should charge in line, column should be column of march, not column of attack.. just a thought..

Ian


(in reply to carnifex)
Post #: 20
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 6:38:14 PM   
MarcelJV


Posts: 343
Joined: 5/9/2005
From: Mohrsville, PA
Status: offline 		I agree fully. The only change I see needed in addition is to change the mixed order upgrade to have a bonus to charge power equal to the loss in firepower from the upgrade, then get ride of the charge after shooting feature. This would create a nice upgrade based on the style of play you have or nation you are playing. You would have to manually choose to charge or fire. Historically the French approached in attack column which was just a short line that was deeper, in front of the columns were lots of skirmishers, so the overall musket fire was reduced, but the charge value was increased by the larger mass of troops at the impact point of the charge.

Perfectly simple solution to the problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ian77


If cav charging in column is nurfed and they are therefore made to charge in line, the running past target and turning right around to hit rear will be stopped. Cav should charge in line, column should be column of march, not column of attack.. just a thought..

Ian




(in reply to ian77)
Post #: 21
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 7:20:56 PM   
carburo

 

Posts: 108
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline 		I agree cav needs serious adjustments. As it’s now, you can use in the place of infantry. I think some unit stats should be changed to give a balanced army the upper hand.

My suggestions are:

Cav units should be 5000 men strong, and more vulnerable to inf fire. Any cav standing at close distance in front of a formed inf unit should be doomed.

Turning should cost cav a lot of MP, to make the “advance past the enemy - make a U turn – charge” tactic impossible. A player would need a clear straight path to the target in order to charge.

OTOH, cav in general should be easier to reform –lights easier than heavies though- and more capable –especially the heavy variety- of disrupting the enemy’s formation with a flank/rear charge. This would make cav good at flanking –with a wide detour, not the current U-turn I think we all use- and at chasing fleeing units, but a lot more weaker in frontal fire exchanges and unable to hold a line against inf. There should be more differences between cavs types. I would says lighter types easier to reform, and heavier types more able to disrupt formed infantry if charging from the flank/rear. Lancers, that are fast and have a strong charge, could be made weak against other cav, to give them a drawback.


I would also add:

Artillery shouldn’t be able to move/turn and fire in the same turn, and should be more vulnerable to flank/rear charges. Now arty can fire effectively in any direction.

Skirmishers shouldn’t be able to form squares. Any skirmishing unit in plain terrain should be wiped out by a charge.

(in reply to carnifex)
Post #: 22
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 7:32:26 PM   
carnifex


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

One thing I put forward in an earlier post was simply to make cavalry more expensive, or give it an even longer training time.


You can do all that by modifying master.txt in your Data folder.

(in reply to carburo)
Post #: 23
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 7:50:11 PM   
carnifex


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

The only change I see needed in addition is to change the mixed order upgrade to have a bonus to charge power equal to the loss in firepower from the upgrade, then get ride of the charge after shooting feature. This would create a nice upgrade based on the style of play you have or nation you are playing. You would have to manually choose to charge or fire. Historically the French approached in attack column which was just a short line that was deeper, in front of the columns were lots of skirmishers, so the overall musket fire was reduced, but the charge value was increased by the larger mass of troops at the impact point of the charge.





(in reply to carnifex)
Post #: 24
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 7:55:14 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
quote:

Lancers, that are fast and have a strong charge, could be made weak against other cav, to give them a drawback.


I disagree here. Lancers were good against cavalry. I'll have to find my references now, but there are records of curassiers getting eaten up by lancers.

Do lancers really need a drawback that isn't realistic? They are already pretty expensive.

(in reply to carnifex)
Post #: 25
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 8:28:11 PM   
carnifex


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

Lancers were good against cavalry. I'll have to find my references now,...


Just ask Ponsonby



"We shall match them with our Lancers!"

Edit: by the way, Ponsonby's cavalry was a Heavy Cavalry unit. It's true that they were somewhat disordered by their effective charge against d’Erlon’s Corps, but the Polish Lancers reamed them just the same.


Heh, this makes me laugh: "The Poles were recorded to have been one of the only French cavalry units to have charged in full dress uniform." No wonder the textile requirement is harsh.


Eric: request the following sound effect be added for any successful Lancer charge www.blackbellamy.com/sound073.wav

< Message edited by carnifex -- 8/10/2005 8:43:44 PM >

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 26
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 9:06:25 PM   
mdesarno

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/5/2005
Status: offline 		Here's a thing about cav that I've noticed. I've only played Russia in 2 or 3 games so far, so I don't know if this has any bearing on it. I'm pretty sure it happens on cavalry other than Cossacks, too.

Whenever my cav units get disordered, they are usually disordered for the rest of the fight, even when their morale is good. I can get the fatigued or shaken status to go away, but they never seem to be able to recover from Disorder at all. Usually, the most I can get them to do once they are Disordered is to get about a 10% chance to form column. This is after the unit has been pulled from combat and has been either doing a pass action for many turns until their shaken and/or fatigued status is removed, and even after leaving them in Fortified/sleeping status for a while. While not being shot at or even near any enemies. It never gets better and I can almost never get them to recover from Disorder and take part in the battle again, other than to make extremely ineffective gunfire attacks, and they can't charge at all while disordered. Are they supposed to not be able to charge at all when disordered? Seems like they should be able to do it, just not very well.

In my game, I followed Raliegh's tips to make my draft recruits 4.7 morale, and my overall army and unit morales are generally good, in the 3.5 to 5 range for non-elite units. But, once they get disordered, it is virtually impossible to get them in good order again, even with an attached leader and having the unit do nothing overnight in a multi-day battle. Plus I usually can't resupply them [that part might be just when they are shaken, I can't remember]. This doesn't seem right.

I was under the impression that using the pass or fortify move and having an attached leader should allow units to recover somewhat after several turns. I've seen this chronic lack of good order thing happen to cav units that have not been shot at, still have good morale and have rested for an entire night with an attached leader. The infantry units seem to recover well, and putting them into column is easy [80-90% for regulars, 40-60% for militia and Cossacks] and makes the disorder status go away. Then I can easily change them into line later. Infantry seems to work like it should.

Has anyone else seen this? Is cav not being able to get out of Disorder a bug, is it WAD, or am I doing something wrong?

My take on the columns vs. lines posts earlier: I like the game the way it plays now, although I would also like to see the cav charges while in column nerfed. I would also be very happy to see column formation split into march columns and assault columns if possible. Make march columns weak and vulnerable but fast, and assualt columns could be between line and march in terms of speed and vulnerability, actually maybe more vulnerable to casualties even than when in march, big decrease in firepower, big increase in charge effectiveness. The French at least, did use infantry assault columns a lot. Maybe make a military technology advance that you have to pick to get it [Assault Column Formation]? That would be way cool.

And sorry to pile on more wish list stuff, but I would love it if there were a third graphic option for the detailed combat screen: Replace the sprite graphic with a single NATO symbol, while keeping the neat formation graphics that are used on the sprite type display. It would be easy, just replace all the sprites on the template with a single graphic, it does not need to change facing because the formation graphics already do that [maybe add an additional dot at the front of the column graphic or a directional arrow for columns though]. I would love that. I usually prefer NATO symbols in my games, but I am using sprites in this game because I really like the formation dot underlay graphics.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 27
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 10:02:43 PM   
carburo

 

Posts: 108
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline 		Well, historical records, as usual, are mixed. And, in my non-binding opinion, has to be applied creatively to a game. In Leipzig, Napoleon’s Horse Caraibiniers were routed by hungarian hussars. This doesn’t means Light cavalry would routinely defeated heavies.

The “Cheveau Legers Polonais de la Garde Imperiale” were created in 1807, and it’s fame was due mainly to it’s charge in Somosierra in 1808, which gave them entrance to the Old Guard. It was in 1809 that they got their lances, and were renamed “Chaveau Leger - Lanciers Polonais de la Garde Imperiale”. As their name suggest, it was a Light Cavalry unit. Of course, they performed very well in combat, as almost every polish unit in Napoleon’s army, but nothing suggest they were some sort of steamroller, and certainly they weren’t a heavy cavalry unit. If I remenber correctly, Napoleon created several lancers regiments before the invasion of Russia as a way of dealing with the cossacks. So they were meant to be used against cavalrymen, but not the big ones.

The reputation of the lancers as absolutely devastating arise mainly from this original polish lancers, but they were one elite unit. It wasn’t the lance that made them formidable.
In general, the lance doesn’t seems to be a very effective weapon against a sabre. But of course, if it’s me with the sabre you probably would have a fair chance. I don’t think it’s inaccurate to say that lancers would be at a disadvantage against heavy cavalry due to their lack of armour, their smaller horses, and their lances.

Sorry about the rant. It’s just to make my point understood. No I-know-better intention. My main concern here is not with absolute historical accuracy, but with game balance and the rock-paper-scissors nature of the game. If lancers rally faster, have more MP, and are also stronger against both inf and cav, why would I build other cav?

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 28
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/10/2005 10:59:41 PM   
carnifex


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

I was under the impression that using the pass or fortify move and having an attached leader should allow units to recover somewhat after several turns. I've seen this chronic lack of good order thing happen to cav units that have not been shot at, still have good morale and have rested for an entire night with an attached leader.


I noticed that leaders do make a difference. I've been frequently able to rally cavalry by attaching a good leader (and of course de-attaching him right afterwards as leaders attached to cav units tend to die real quick). Then again I've never played the Russians, and I do expect their Cossack Cavalry to be crap and basically a one-charge deal.

I wonder if a leader with a cavalry bonus helps rally or just charge or what? I should read the manual again har har.


Edit: interesting note about Lancers. Wellington created several Lancer regiments in the post-war British army after taking note that at Quatre Bras the Lancers were able to penetrate and stand up to British squares due to the extended reach of their weapons. So maybe Lancers should retain their fire against squares

< Message edited by carnifex -- 8/10/2005 11:15:13 PM >

(in reply to carburo)
Post #: 29
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 12:17:05 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
I don't have any problem with lancers having a "light vs heavy" disadvantage if they are truly a light cavalry unit. Again, my fading memory is whispering that there were lancer units that would classify more as medium in the game.

I just don't agree, and still don't, that the lancer has a disadvantage against a heavy due to armament. Most lancer units carried sabres too, and a lance certainly outreaches a sabre.

(in reply to carnifex)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory >> serious combat bugs Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.109