Do you often lose battles? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition



Message

Ugrok -> Do you often lose battles? (4/30/2009 2:25:49 PM)

Hello !

Just wanted to ask this simple question, because im a beginner at COG :EE and i almost never lose any battle. Dont get me wrong, this is not a bragging thread, just a worried one. I mostly play with Sweden, in simple economy and normal difficulty, and i have yet to lose a battle. I haven't been involved in very large or very unbalanced ones, but when the number of soldiers are equal, or even when the AI has a little more soldiers than you, it seems very hard to lose : you just have to flank one unit after the other with two or three of yours, make it rout or surrender, and repeat with all other units until you win the battle... This without knowing all the rules of the tactic combat at all (i sometimes cannot figure why one move takes 2 action points, the other 4, why facing a direction is sometimes almost free, sometimes very expensive).

What are your thoughts on this? Do you share the feeling that battles are too easy? Maybe it's just that Sweden has easy battles (so far i fought France, Denmark, Prussia and won all the battles with equal numbers, from 40k to 70k soldiers, - didn't attempt to attack supersized armies, of course), or maybe it's really harder in biggest battles or with other countries?

Thanks !



Franck -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (4/30/2009 2:35:47 PM)



I have found that it's quite easy to turn the side of a battle yes... But I guess this as to be expected of most computer game... AI will never compare to humans because it is not as adaptable... To be honest I don't fight battles anymore I just do quick battles (so I can see some action and I like seeing my leaders rallying a bunch of units or failling to.) Anyways, as a player you learn to expect what the AI will do and then even winning wars become easy. That's why I feel PBEM are better. I still find Detailed battles interesting... But I usually get so big a crushing victory that my ennemies are really weak for years and years to come... So I usually just start up a new scenario when I want to play detailed battles and fight all powers until I crushed all of them and then stop the game there...


Anyways that's just my opinion. And Madgamer, who did not purchase this game seems to have a completely different oppinion and I guess it depends alot on yours skills at ''abstraction'' I guess.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (4/30/2009 2:45:00 PM)

well, remember, Normal is really pretty easy, plus Sweden is a bit easier to play then say, Spain or Turkey, and to be fair, France can be interesting, the Grands when togeather are pretty HARD to beat, but they can't be everywhere

also, the higher in the Diff level you go, the higher the Attriction level is also, so any move is going to weaken you, start marching your armies all across the map, and you will start to lose more men in the March mode then in combat

early in the campaigns, France vs England in a fair fight, is going to be a very HARD fight for France to win

it all depends on what you think is fun and fair to play against





IronWarrior -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (4/30/2009 2:58:31 PM)

One of the reasons I don't care for single player. Got bored with it pretty quickly on Bonaparte level, although I was playing as France. A shame because I really like the detailed combat, but never get to play/enjoy them.

Although, I must admit, the new FoF patch has proven to be challenging!



06 Maestro -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (4/30/2009 6:08:32 PM)

After the ai gave me a couple of good bruisings, I thought I had mastered detailed battle. I won several very large battles-I was starting to think the ai was a little lame.
My last big fight was as the Austrian main army against the French in northern France. The ai kicked the fecal matter right out of me-cavalry charging out of the woods and bagging my arty. I may have been a little complacent at the start of that battle, but not for long. Try as I may, I could not get the upper hand-lost about twice the casualties as the ai. Perhaps the French generals and moral had something to do with it, but it maneuvered very well also.

No doubt a good human player will be superior to this tactical ai. However, this ai is pretty good.



Mus -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/1/2009 2:42:18 AM)

Whenever an AI that can run on a PC is capable of defeating a human in a game as complicated as COG:EE hexwar without "cheating" (numerical bonuses of some kind) its gonna be lights out for the human race, Terminator style.

Games theory is the whole enchilada.

[:D]



06 Maestro -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/1/2009 3:51:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

Whenever an AI that can run on a PC is capable of defeating a human in a game as complicated as COG:EE hexwar without "cheating" (numerical bonuses of some kind) its gonna be lights out for the human race, Terminator style.

Games theory is the whole enchilada.

[:D]


It won't be long Mus, not long at all. I read just a few days ago that IBM is offering to put its new computer on the Jeopordy TV show. I assume it has voice recognition and voice-its coming.



vaalen -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/1/2009 10:25:26 PM)

I thought I had the AI and could beat it at will during my Swedish game. Then I ran into a Prussian army with a good leader and got waxed. Most of my veteran units surrendered.

In my French game, I won several major battles against the Austrians and Russians without much trouble. I had a much closer battle with the British in Spain but crushed them as well.

I defeated the royal navy, and marched 77,000 veteran troops under Berthier and Ney into anglia. I then fought a battle against 34,000 redcoats. Despite my best efforts, the British routed my army, the AI making excellent use of Artillery and Cavalry. Almost all my veterans surrendered.

The British were commanded by Wellington.

In summary, the AI can occasionally fight a great battle , especially when it has a great leader.




Ugrok -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/1/2009 11:57:19 PM)

That's really good to know ! By the way, my original post was by no mean a strong criticism of the game : it's really one of the best strategy game i ever played, and its AI is great, especially when you compare it with the awful AIs of other wargames.

I always find the battles entertaining, even the smaller ones ; even if i win often (but i haven't been involved in the type of battles vaalen described yet), i always feel i have to play good to do so. It's not the "double click - charge - instant win" that E:TW offers, for example...

But even more, i find the battles really involving : sometimes the fights are really bloody, and you can actually feel the pressure on those little squary men on your screen. I feel bad when i see, turn after turn, my troops taking fire, returning it, fighting till the end, retreating then getting rallied and coming back to battle for more suffering... I dont know, maybe im too emotional for war, but i almost feel sad for them. The feeling, when your infantry unit is in front of artillery and suffers 1800 casualties in one shot...

So overall the battles are for me a major success. Glad to hear there will be very difficult ones ahead !



Anthropoid -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/2/2009 1:33:34 AM)

I don't lose very many. Once you get on a winning streak it is possible to keep on it. But watch out! The AI can surprise you and kick your behind!



06 Maestro -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/2/2009 6:10:43 AM)

Last night I tried my hand with Turkey. After getting into a little dispute over Montenegro with Austria, I headed to battle. The battle raged for 3 days. Until the last few hours I was inflicting losses of 2 or 3 to 1-and then my army just caved in. Right from the start nearly every unit misinterpreted orders. Also, most of the divisions took about 6 turns to change a formation. In the first volleys, one division went "south" never to be used again (it seemed they disappeared after running for their lives to the edge of the map).

I assume the lack of a 3 star general had something to do with this debacle- I put 3 two stars into it as I could not find a 3 star-still learning.

It would seem that a nations (yours vs the enemy) strategic situation has a big impact on how well your army will do in battle. If you are aware of the disadvantage you may have against a particular army, it may be possible to compensate with different tactics. I'm going to try Turkey again-from the start.

I've had 10 battles so far-lost three. In this last one I was routed with about 30% loss trying to get away. The ai seems pretty good in most of the battles. In this last one it attempted flaking moves, taking the high ground, cavalry moving into gaps-and apparently splitting units (it seemed). It is one of the better ais I've come across.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/2/2009 2:32:18 PM)

:)

to be honest, I think you found out what the poor sisters of the world looked like back then, Turkey can be a very interesting Nation to play, overall, there good troops stink, there Arty is almost worthless and don't let there Irr Cav see the enemy, I don't want to tell what there bad troops look like

but, if you can get them on a roll, they can be nasty (hmmm, less nasty then they are already ?)





ptan54 -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/2/2009 3:24:57 PM)

Is Turkish arty still crap with the upgrades? I remember in COG I got all the upgrades for arty and my arty was still doing damage of just a couple hundred, while Russian arty was inflicting 1000+ damage on my guys.



06 Maestro -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/2/2009 5:29:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
:)
to be honest, I think you found out what the poor sisters of the world looked like back then, Turkey can be a very interesting Nation to play, overall, there good troops stink, there Arty is almost worthless and don't let there Irr Cav see the enemy, I don't want to tell what there bad troops look like

but, if you can get them on a roll, they can be nasty (hmmm, less nasty then they are already ?)


I have acquired an unhealthy interest in the poor sisters-I tried Turkey again. This time; I was going to be smart. I stay out of all conflict, did my best to get along while preparing for war. I started by building barracks in Constantinople-that took about 45 turns. I built 2 factories in the provences just south of the straights. As soon as I could I started building corps. I jacked up readiness and training over a period of about 8 months and then I went after Austria. Austria was in the lead and was at war frequently. They were in a war against Prussia until the turn before I declared war.

So, I had built up the 1st army to include 3 corps-all with the best generals I had and the army commanded by the 4 star Dude the 3rd. A fairly mighty force of 144,000 thousand. I headed for Vienna thinking I might still pull it off as the Austrian Armies were still in the old war zones-including France. I won a couple small battles where I had a 10 to 1 advantage (instant battles). Then came the big one.

I still had about 140,000 in the army when I came up against about 150,000 Austrian-a big battle. I knew there were going to be problems when I noticed my overall combat power at about 25 when the Austrians had 0ver 40-this was for a force that was approximately the same size.

The battle started at night so I assumed that was why the supply trains could not find their way across the river. It took nearly all the next day for 2 of the 3 to find their way. One arty unit never made it across. The problem of misunderstood orders was much improved in the current organization, but was still there. Likewise, it took some of the formations multiple efforts to change formation-some never could get into a line-not moving for multiple turns before combat started. I cut and ran after the first day of the battle-still lost almost 10% of the army.

It looks like it is a good idea to buy the upgrades for the units-I did not do that as it cost so much.

If someone feels they are too good for the ai, they should try out Turkey. I am fairly certain that should I try Turkey again my emphasis will be on racking up Glory by politics and keep an army for palace duty. The fleet looks to be in worse shape than the army-lost a instant battle against the Neapolitan fleet.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/2/2009 8:02:45 PM)

the 4 starting Turk Arty start with a "skill" which makes them remain pretty bad (old weapons/tactics) but newly build or captured Arty is "normal"

Maesto
wait until you run into the Grands, defending Paris, now that was a fight ! (I lost that one the first time around, the 2nd time, I sucked them to reinforce a minor battle, so caught them peicemeal, and ate them up, a part at a time)

my main Turk's can form and fight with most of the rest of the nations now, my Navy is still pretty lousy, still had a number of Irr Cav running around with 1.70 morale (after each war, I hunt them down, see which ones I can suck the troops out of, and kill the units)

for provinces, if your going to be build, you got to put men into the top slider, even at 25% it cuts the time needed down by about half

overall, would say to pick about 2 provinces to be your main building provinces, and put everything into Devel and food, then set your other provinces to pick up the slack that these two are not covering

Egypt is your breadbasket, unless you can reach into the Russian underbelly and capture Keiv, and if you are able to stay peaceful, trade Wool/Cotton to France for money and food

keep a eye on your province numbers, you really  can't afford any waste, anything you take, that can be protectorized, do it, unless it is a monster of a province, then explot it



06 Maestro -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/2/2009 8:28:01 PM)

Thanks for the tips. I was starting to tinker with the sliders, but only mocved them a notch or two-after the builds were well under way.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/2/2009 8:47:57 PM)

roger on that, but Turkey is very much hurting for improving itself, it needs drastic actions :)

these are the starting Arty for Turkey

[image]local://upfiles/1438/C82CCCC1A00045A58AADE0A3D3F4AA75.jpg[/image]



Hard Sarge -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/2/2009 8:50:12 PM)

and as you say, I got around 88,000 men vs 37,000, but look at the WTF and then the unit boxes

(and this is one of my good Armies, that does not need massive support, it can work on it's own)

[image]local://upfiles/1438/BFF3AE3C9A4C43D18C36BF2A2E295045.jpg[/image]



Hard Sarge -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/2/2009 8:51:33 PM)

of course, all the doom and gloom, depends on your point of view, look at the mini map

[image]local://upfiles/1438/A9AFC5CB55F54CC19793A9C16592A3A4.jpg[/image]



Hard Sarge -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/2/2009 8:56:07 PM)

I am still at war with Spain, and now France has declared on me, which, opens up the provinces on the flank of France, I plan on blocking France until I can mass, then will take these provinces and then hit France from 3 sides (North, East and South (my Army in Spain)

wish everybody would stop picking on me, I am a peaceful type person, but you pick on me, I tend to react with a hammer





Mus -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/2/2009 9:38:57 PM)

Man that sans-serif font is icky.  Is that the new universal font or is that optional?



Adraeth -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/4/2009 5:19:24 PM)

Even on beta testing i found that tactical AI was really better than the first edition of COG. In my opinion in balanced battles the human player can beat the AI, but in unbalanced ones the AI can give a real (REAL) challenge.

For example i always lose in the 1792 being France against Austria and Prussia on Flanders. In addition you have to consider the difficulty level, i play strategic and tactical at Kutuzov level; and more i often play divisional level and not brigade level (this can affect my freedom of movement in terms of units).

Even more, playing with minor countries and being at war with some major ones like France or Russia can be a REAL tough test for everyone (see examples above for Turkey and Spain.... i have to try Poland in balanced)

Overall i really like the AI in tactical land battles (i love the AI at strategic level, very often it surprise me) and i am pleased to being part (just a tiny one) in this good product :)



morganbj -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/4/2009 8:56:44 PM)

I agree, the AI can make a decent go of it in close battles, but I can usually win, unless I'm in enemy territory.  The new WTF rules tend to skew the battles in favor of the "defender" in even battles.  So, I have to move quickly, even if it means at night, to sacrifice some fatigue levels for more troops ready to fight the next morning.

The naval battles seem to be harder for me, but that's probably because I don't fight that many of them.  Besides, I've seen far too many small British fleets hammer my more numerous swabbies out of complete disrespect.  [:D]



Russian Guard -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/5/2009 12:00:36 AM)


Another thing relating to how well the AI plays is whether you try to recreate "historical" type battles or not, in terms of how you move and deploy your units.

In my experience if you deploy your troops like a traditional Napoleonic battle (center, flanks, etc), then the AI can give you a real good whipping sometimes, especially if you do not play France.

Alternatively, if you "take advantage" of the AI by knowing things it will fall for and moving units around in a fashion that isn't necessarily "Napoleonic", then its easier to beat the AI.

No criticism intended or inferred either way; players play as they will, which is as it should be.







Adraeth -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/5/2009 8:01:30 AM)

Just started tonight the 1792 Campaign being Bavaria and i lost a snow battle against Hesse (i was attacker)... now i am even at war against France and i think the AI could test me really hard [:)]



ShaiHulud -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/5/2009 8:02:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Adraeth Montecuccoli

Even on beta testing i found that tactical AI was really better than the first edition of COG. In my opinion in balanced battles the human player can beat the AI, but in unbalanced ones the AI can give a real (REAL) challenge.

For example i always lose in the 1792 being France against Austria and Prussia on Flanders. In addition you have to consider the difficulty level, i play strategic and tactical at Kutuzov level; and more i often play divisional level and not brigade level (this can affect my freedom of movement in terms of units).

Even more, playing with minor countries and being at war with some major ones like France or Russia can be a REAL tough test for everyone (see examples above for Turkey and Spain.... i have to try Poland in balanced)

Overall i really like the AI in tactical land battles (i love the AI at strategic level, very often it surprise me) and i am pleased to being part (just a tiny one) in this good product :)


The key to 1792 is not to fight Austria in Flanders, but, in Luxembourg. With judicial troop movements you can have a slight numerical advantage in Flanders against the Prussians alone and near parity in Luxembourg against Austria. Further, Lux should fall just as the Austrians arrive, giving you the advantage of defense there. Often, I've beaten Austria so badly there that the war ended immediately after that battle, before I even get Flanders to fall to siege.

I disagree that the CoG AI was inferior to CoG:EE. In Cog, cavalry were more effective because they didn't get pounded by reaction shots. The battles often were heavily influenced by the success or failure to form squares. In EE, I can go through several battles without seeing a cav successfully charge and force my unit into square. It's about 50-50 that my units will NOT form square and will stand an attack to their rear. My guys have not yet been so attacked in column and, in line, they've never been disordered.

Further, in EE, units rarely get disordered, so, I never use infantry to charge. My charges are solely by cav, to the rear areas. Thus, it appears pointless to get the Mixed Order advance, and only moderately useful to get the +33% to Form Square advance.



Mus -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/5/2009 8:09:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaiHulud

Further, in EE, units rarely get disordered, so, I never use infantry to charge. My charges are solely by cav, to the rear areas. Thus, it appears pointless to get the Mixed Order advance, and only moderately useful to get the +33% to Form Square advance.


Same here. The fact that fire combat with infantry is way more dominant than bayonet charges makes me wonder if it isnt TOO hard for infantry to become disordered by fire combat in EE. Everything I read indicates that the bayonet was the dominant infantry weapon of the period.



Adraeth -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/5/2009 10:04:45 AM)

Well, regarding the dominant weapon i have to disagree, being in my opinion, the volley fire and then the bayonet. Columns charghes were effective only sometimes and only when the charge came from well drilled troops, battles like Wagram or Borodino and Waterloo prove that France mass columns caused a bloody mess and Pyrrhus victories or (in the worst) historical defeats.

Back on main topic i find really interesting the Will to fight rule and the vicotry locations, even more the AI do not disorder its troops too much and sometimes try outflaknking (i see it many times).

The player being unable to dislodge AI units by mere charges need to time his attacks and so this give AI a better chance to give a test to him (considering a human opponent is always the best)



Randomizer -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/5/2009 4:39:48 PM)

First of all I suppose I should apologize to the Forum Members and Moderators in advance for the following opinionated rant and just to be clear, it is not aimed at any particular member of the Forum.

All Internet arguments relating to computer game realism resemble in no small way, the classic theological discussion about how many angels can swim in the head of a beer, or whatever. There can be no right or wrong answer in the big picture but I would submit that at the individual level, gamers themselves can and should take more responsibility for imposing “realism” upon themselves. That is provided they wish to do more than whine or nit-pick the game designer’s compromises based upon their own (highly) subjective viewpoints.

Russian Guard hit the nail on the head nicely with this observation that is not only applicable to all games and simulations but a blinding glimpse of the obvious that many gamers ignore:

quote:

In my experience if you deploy your troops like a traditional Napoleonic battle (center, flanks, etc), then the AI can give you a real good whipping sometimes, especially if you do not play France.


Many vociferous game critics sneer at so-called ‘House Rules” but the latter are really sincere attempts to impose a gaming methodology that is appropriate for the particular situation being gamed out. Such efforts should be commended and not condemned.

When one makes the effort to learn enough about an era to play in a manner consistent with the doctrines, dogmas and politics and cultural mores of the times, CoG-EE can really and (I believe) fairly accurately reproduce events and situations that are entirely reasonable for the period. Note that there is no mention of historical accuracy since gaming should not slavishly reproduce history, rather it can recreate it in a new and unique form. Provided of course that restrictions and conditions that where applicable for the period be imposed by the gamer on their game play.

On another forum that I used to belong to, realism fanboys think that one could attain greater “realism” by graphical re-creation of broken, shipwrecked merchant crew survivors but when one suggested to them that their U-Boats be required to make frequent radio position reports (thus giving away their positions to the AI), the idea was rejected out of hand as ‘stupid’ and ‘suicidal’. Nevertheless that restriction was a reality faced by real U-Boat captains that can be accurately reproduced in a game setting but is rejected because it is ‘not fun’. Showing off bleeding bodies are somehow realistic; self-imposed adherence to period doctrines and tactics is apparently not.

I think that the CoG-EE designers did an overall outstanding job of recreating the Napoleonic era as I have been given to understand it. That is an entirely subjective observation and so may well be wrong but the game continues, in my view, to reproduce historically reasonable situations given what I believe to be historically reasonable inputs by me, the player.

Whether one wants to add panzers or magic pixies to their wargaming experience is an entirely personal choice: enjoy. But if you decide to treat your Napoleonic cavalry as M1 tanks or recreate Inchon on the Adriatic and find that CoG-EE does not behave like you think it should, consider that, in the gaming world, Garbage In = Garbage Out before you start complaining about a lack of ‘realism’.

Any player(s) can command the highest possible levels of historically reasonable re-creation provided they are not too lazy to expect the game designers to do all the work for them and are willing to take some responsibility for imposing historically reasonable conditions upon themselves.

Best Regards.



Kingmaker -> RE: Do you often lose battles? (5/5/2009 6:43:30 PM)

HiHi

Bravo Randomiser, Bravo.

Needed saying, loved the bit about uboats radioing etc, sadly you may well get jumped on by some indignate soul who thinks you are picking on him directly as happened when I put up a "Give the Guys a brake" post.

All the Best
Kingmaker



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.0625