RE: Do you often lose battles?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Do you often lose battles?

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: Emperor's Edition >> RE: Do you often lose battles?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Do you often lose battles? - 5/5/2009 10:33:32 PM

IronWarrior

Posts: 801
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: Beaverton, OR
Status: offline

I agree with Adraeth re: volley fire. Seldom did bayonet charges actually happen, usually one side broke and ran.

That said, I can't tell one way or another about how it's represented in COG (re: disorder), as I am used to playing miniatures battles on battalion level scale and this is brigade or division level. I do know that in the Tiller's series there was way too much melee, and cavalry was unable to be used historically and pretty much useless.

Not trying to be over-critical or offend WCS... in fact if I didn't like this game so much I wouldn't bother giving any feedback at all.

(in reply to Kingmaker)

Post #: 31

RE: Do you often lose battles? - 5/8/2009 7:51:12 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard

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.

That right there, says it ALL.

I have found the AI in War in the Pacific, which is an utterly brilliant game, to be sorely lacking. I started a thread with title "Helping the AI to Challenge Me" and some guys proposed some 'self-rules' or rules of restraint to make the AI a more challenging opponent. THEY WORK!

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to Russian Guard)

Post #: 32

RE: Do you often lose battles? - 5/9/2009 1:36:15 AM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

I agree with Adraeth re: volley fire. Seldom did bayonet charges actually happen, usually one side broke and ran.

I have been reading a lot of descriptions of people breaking and running in the face of a bayonet charge. After being hit with a few volleys of fire to soften them up. In the game Im not seeing that kind of thing in game because the other troops are always well formed, in good order, etc. Infantry fire attacks dont seem to be "big enough" to cause disorder anymore.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

That said, I can't tell one way or another about how it's represented in COG (re: disorder), as I am used to playing miniatures battles on battalion level scale and this is brigade or division level.

It was toned down from COG to COG EE and it doesnt seem to happen often enough as a result of fire combat anymore IMO.

About the only time I see a unit get disorganized from fire combat its from artillery.

< Message edited by Mus -- 5/9/2009 1:49:30 AM >

(in reply to IronWarrior)

Post #: 33

RE: Do you often lose battles? - 5/9/2009 2:59:21 AM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

Charging is just about as suicidal in COGEE as it is/was in FoF. Not worth it, unless enemy is utterly disordered wreck already . . . which case very much worth it.

not sure if that is realistic or not.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 34

RE: Do you often lose battles? - 5/9/2009 3:29:29 AM

Randomizer

Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

There is evidence out there that even during the Napoleonic era, the legendary bayonet charge had been largely superceded by the close-range firefight and that few soldiers were actually bayoneted from their front. Anecdotally this is supported by the Line vs. Column argument since the success of shock combat had always been predicated on concentration in width and depth, both characteristics of infantry column formations. On the other hand firepower was enhanced when in line solely because more muskets could be brought to bear against any particular target. The short range firefight theory goes a long way towards explaining why steady infantry in line could so often defeat superior numbers in column.

If one believes that any of the above is accurate then CoG-EE models contemporary tactical combat pretty well; with creating disorder against well motivated troops requiring some time, effort and firepower superiority while shock charges against all but broken troops are ill-advised and probably disasterous for the attacker.

Best Regards

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 35

RE: Do you often lose battles? - 5/9/2009 4:37:28 AM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

There is evidence out there that even during the Napoleonic era, the legendary bayonet charge had been largely superceded by the close-range firefight and that few soldiers were actually bayoneted from their front.

Because units frequently broke and ran when facing a bayonet charge. It was a moral weapon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

If one believes that any of the above is accurate then CoG-EE models contemporary tactical combat pretty well; with creating disorder against well�motivated troops requiring some time, effort and firepower superiority�while shock charges against all but broken troops�are ill-advised and probably disasterous for the attacker.

I dont know that it does in this respect, again mainly because of how difficult it now is to disorder an infantry unit with another infantry units fire attack. Even after delivering several lopsided volleys (which I believe represent many minutes of constant engagement each) I see opposing infantry "in good order" with terrible morale scores. I see divisions routing before they become disordered by infantry fire attacks. When I do see units disordered they have negative morale, its from an artillery attack and they route next turn.

Im not sure what exactly the values are, or how exactly they have been changed from original COG, only that the chances of disordering in the face of a fire attack was reduced and that it now so rarely happens that you dont see many "Mixed Order" followup bayonet charges.

This is a far cry from contemporary accounts where bayonet charges are a frequent occurence in the final phases of an engagement. Bayonet counter charges are also fairly common, with the defender softening up an attack with a few volleys as it comes in and then countercharging with the bayonet driving the broken attackers in front of them.

Understand Im not advocating the bayonet become some kind of super weapon, only that its use should be frequent and fairly effective given the right circumstance. If its the changes to disorder by fire combat that have made bayonet charges rare and ineffective than some tweaking there is in order.

PS IF you own COG load it up and observe how common it is for a unit to become disordered as a result of fire combat. Compare that to what you see in COG EE. Now I dont know that it should be as common as in original, but I do think its too difficult in COG EE. In fact I dont remember ever seeing it occur as a result of fire combat except from an Artillery attack.

< Message edited by Mus -- 5/9/2009 5:07:22 AM >

(in reply to Randomizer)

Post #: 36

RE: Do you often lose battles? - 5/9/2009 6:13:41 AM

Randomizer

Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

I am not convinced that there is direct and automatic corelation between loss of morale and disorder although in board wargames the rule was combat losses=morale loss=increasing disorder. Indeed, it is entirely reasonable that one could have a disordered unit with high morale and a demoralized formed unit that needs just one little push to send it to the rear in panic. Disorder caused by artillery fire makes some sense, a single roundshot could easily take out two or three files of soldiers to a depth of several ranks so a battery might tear huge holes in a formation and putting these to rights under fire could prove difficult particularly if the junior officer and senior NCO casualties were significant. Likewise cannister would gouge large chunks of soldiers out of a formed body whereas musketry was less penetrating and would tend to cause casualties one rank at a time and so not require major alterations within the formation to make up the damage.

As always though, there would be exceptional circumstances and unique situations so generalizing is a bit dangerous. Also some armies were doctrinally committed to the bayonet and there is the Bayonet Practice upgrade that improves the effectiveness of the charge.

It seems to me that the biggest cause of disorder is attempting formation changes while under effective fire and that is entirely reasonable from what I can see.

So I still note not too much wrong with much of the detailed combat model in EE. However, I do not own the original CoG and so must defer to your observations there.

Hand to hand combat certainly occured and the bayonet could still be effective in particular situations but am skeptical of the typical classic accounts of this kind of fighting being the norm. Rather, in the smoke and confusion a close-ranged firefight and hand to hand melee would probably be indistinguishable from any distance and carrying a position at the point of a bayonet makes better copy than does merely occupying after winning a savage musketry exchange.

Even at this stage, General Suvarov's dictum that "The bayonet is a brave fellow but the bullet's a fool" was a quaint anachronism.

Best Regards

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 37

RE: Do you often lose battles? - 5/9/2009 9:08:57 PM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

Hand to hand combat certainly occured and the bayonet could still be effective in particular situations but am skeptical of the typical classic accounts of this kind of fighting being the norm.

Rather than "hand to hand combat" taking place as a result of a bayonet charge I read about the advantaged side charging and the disadvantaged side running more often than not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

Rather, in the smoke and confusion a close-ranged firefight and hand to hand melee would probably be indistinguishable from any distance and carrying a position at the point of a bayonet makes better copy than does merely occupying after winning a savage musketry exchange.

Im not prepared to mark down the bulk of contemporary accounts basically as propaganda. Even if the bulk of casualties in a "bayonet charge" can be shown to have been caused by close range musket fire the act of physically marching on to the position to be seized is distinguishable from staying in place and exchanging volley after volley. In my limited study I see more accounts of the former happening than the later. Once one side had an advantage I have every reason to believe it would be pressed.

The infantry combat in COG EE is less dynamic than in COG, reminding me more of FOF. In FOF it makes sense because of the common use of rifles. In COG EE not so much.

< Message edited by Mus -- 5/9/2009 9:20:36 PM >

(in reply to Randomizer)

Post #: 38

RE: Do you often lose battles? - 5/10/2009 4:36:26 AM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

Very well said Randomizer, but just one question: does this mean that I cannot have my sharkes withe lazers on their heads stationed in the Med?

_____________________________

(in reply to Kingmaker)

Post #: 39

RE: Do you often lose battles? - 5/10/2009 5:15:11 AM

Randomizer

Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

I would think that laser-armed sharks should be able to freely transit the Straights in both directions provided the orcas with the ballistic missiles are not set to blockade but the manual is strangely silent on this topic. Also have to wonder if a can-opener equipped 3rd Rate gets an opening advantage over the Chicken of the Sea? Enquiring minds want to know...

Best Regards

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 40

RE: Do you often lose battles? - 5/10/2009 7:45:52 AM

Hard Sarge

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

sorry, been a little slack in following the line of thought running though this post

to be honest, in the game, most disorder comes from missing a formation change die roll, back in CoG, most of the times you are seeing the enemy go disordered while in contact with your troops, is due to the AI trying to change it's formation (it can happen, based on fire, but much more common due to formation changes)

during testing, the testers (some/most/what not) didn't like this, and got Eric to make a change to the system, which is why we have threat zones now, if you are not in the threat zone, you will not go disordered from missing a die roll, you just won't make the change, you fail while in the zone, you go disordered

now units with morale of 2.0 can still form a line, as long as they are not in the zone, just takes them more time to join combat, with out this system, these guys are nothing but cannon fodder

if they march up to the enemy and try to change formation, they are still going to go disordered

better trained, better morale troops, will still be better in combat, as they can march to battle and form at will

so, if you don't like the system, blame me, not Eric, as I was the most vocial about it

_____________________________

(in reply to Randomizer)

Post #: 41

RE: Do you often lose battles? - 5/10/2009 7:50:36 AM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

HS do you know what changes were made to the chance to disorder by fire combat?� I used to see it in COG from infantry fire attacks all the time and followup charges from mixed order upgrade.� The only time I see disorder from fire attacks in EE�its the really big ones, like from artillery. And the only time Im seeing mixed order upgrade followup charges is when I fire at a unit that is already disordered, in other words I never see the fire attack cause the disorder and then an immediate followup charge.

The formation rule change doesnt really make sense as a reason for what Im seeing.

< Message edited by Mus -- 5/10/2009 8:00:42 AM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 42

RE: Do you often lose battles? - 5/10/2009 8:04:38 AM

Hard Sarge

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

from what I know it is a % change, based on a morale roll, I think you had to miss a couple of rolls in a row

to be honest, I don't know how many full games of CoG I played during testing and afterward/ patches, but it was alot, and I do not really remember a massive amount of units going disordered from fire, most times it was with them in front of me, going disordered during there turn, and then my turn, I fire and charge them

(it does seem to happen much more often in FoF)

of course, going from memory, but I am suppost to be the HW expert, but...

_____________________________

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 43

RE: Do you often lose battles? - 5/10/2009 8:06:54 AM

Hard Sarge

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

I think one of the things, is Inf going to Square, it used to happen a lot more before, we have more upgrades and training to stop them from going disordered

Cav in EE is more used for forceing Squares, while in CoG, it was used for overruning the Enemy

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 44

RE: Do you often lose battles? - 5/10/2009 8:11:46 AM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

(it does seem to happen much more often in FoF)

of course, going from memory, but I am suppost to be the HW expert, but...

Maybe my FOF memories are merging with my original COG memories in that case. I need to reinstall FOF anyways and check out the new patch.

But now that I think about it... I hated the "wild" upgrade in FOF and always avoided it like the plague so I think Im remembering COG and Mixed Order.

< Message edited by Mus -- 5/10/2009 8:16:22 AM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 45