HistWar
HistWar (English zone) => General discussions => Discussion démarrée par: Gunfreak le 02 décembre 2009, 21:15:20 pm
-
Now I'm not sure if this is one of the problems with the ai of the demo or if I'm doing something wrong.
When ever I order a crops to attack the enemy, I draw a line behind the enemy.
The order takes some time to take affect. and then the corps start to move, but it only takes about 10 minutes before the units of the corps drift apart, some brigades start to move far away while others just stop and by half an hour the corps is spread out over sevral miles long before they even make contact with the enemy
This is just one example
(http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp261/Gunfreak23/corps2.jpg)
After I orderd the corps to attack, it first moved back AWAY from the enemy almost 1500 meters, then concentrated, it then as you see only sends two brigades forward, the rest either move back futher or stay put, this happend to EVERY corps I order to attack, some brigades stay while other move,
This ofcourse negates the point of the corps, if it's seperates it can be destroyed peicemel and then you loose, this makes it VERY hard to actualy preform a cordinated attacks.
I know the corps CAN prefrom concentration movments, why dosn't it do it as soon as units get to far away, The commander should always keep track of it's brigades.
So my question is. does this happen in the full game, do other people have this problem with the demo?
-
Your other corps appear to have done a fairly good job, so it doesn't happen every time. One of the corps looks like it has part of its forces in reserve, a bit behind the lines, and all of them have deployed their artillery behind the lines to keep them safe.
The corps with the problem appears to have gotten hung up on the Swedish(?) unit in defensive line in front of it. It's not a normal unit icon, it's a small flag without a border. Notice the little blue arrows in front of it. The arrows and the flag icon indicate a defensive line. The real question is why the other two units advanced as far as they did.
One of your corps has reached its objective and has formed a defensive line itself, in the bottom center of the map.
You might look at the saved battle using the "Load a Video" option and look at the units in the rear in 3D mode to see what's happening.
Hook
-
I can only guess but from looking at the picture, maybe the right hand Regiments (2) advanced as there was no enemy to their front, but the left hand (3) Regiments hung back because the Russians were in a defensive line, but even so, it does look a little odd.
-
More often than not I think strange things appear to happen in this game because the AI is so smart rather than it being buggy.
As Hook says, corps have a reserve. I think it's 50% by default but you can change it. That might explain why some battalions are far ahead of the rest - they presumably are the other 50% or so the corps commander has committed to the battle.
As for why they are miles ahead, I've noticed sometimes corps commanders seem to spontaneously lend support to each other. I've seen artillery batteries advance well forward of their parent unit in support of other corps.
-
Ahhh yes, the reserve, I think your right, 50% seems the default, which appears too high for me, but in the demo we have Corps with not many Regiments in them, if there are 4, then 2 are forward and 2 are held back.......if we had 8 Regiments, or more, will will see the Corps deploy in more of a line than a "box" type formation.
-
Ive had a chance to download the demo
There is no Doctrine that can be editiable in this demo, that is in the full game.
Now I see that because of lack of Doctrine some regiments may have acted in accordance with the local situation as they see it. Not necessary how you see it as Corps or Army Commander. Sometimes the Colonel at his level always see a differant picture to you, some colonels are slower than others, some are go getters.
That is your job as Army or Corps Commander to set these paramaters to sub units under your command. Otherwise you will be running around micro managing every unit, and that is not always desirable either.
Fine tweeking done by the doctrine editor, which means that regiments could act more appopiatley, the way you want to keep Army or Corps integrity during a fight.
Do not underestimate this feature.
Also with advancing under a deploy order, this ensures that the whole corps move together, as one unit and coordinated, if a corps has had a reversal, the Corps will withdraw certain units to ensure that Corps integrity is maintained, under the current order you gave.
If you have pushed of an area you have tried to establish a line, then you will get the Corps having integrity problem, and you may have to defend on a differant defense line.
-
thanks for that clarification, Gaz. :)
-
Ahhh... This for me has been a real sticking point. I imagined my corps hitting the enemy line like a sledgehammer, close together and rolling over those weak Austrians after a brief firefight. This has not happened to date. :twisted: I thought it might be my fault, that I had put out too much artillery in theitr way as I noticed my regiments wheeling around these batteries.
:?:Can any beta tester tell me if in the actual game do regiments hit the enemy line together, almost in-step, with every regiment pretty close to the next and not spaced out?
-
It depends on the length of your deploy or defense line and the terrain, you want the Corps or Division to cover.
Infantry can suffer morale issues during the advance, by artillery fire.
But again you have to orgainise your doctrine appropiatley
-
So my question is. does this happen in the full game, do other people have this problem with the demo?
No, it's not a problem with the demo.
If we are talking about Ney's corp you can see in the CC box that the corp is in disorder. The question is, why ?
The line under indicates that you gave to this corp a "march" order (corps marching). What you have to know about this order is :
1. Every unit wil march to the indicated point at is maximum speed (so increasing tiredness) and some units are faster than others, that's the reason why about 10 mn or more your corps is in disorder.
2. The most important thing to know about the "march" order is that units are not under Tactical-AI for the time they move to the indicated point. It means that there is no support between each others like with the "deploy" order. So if your corp meets with an enemy corps that are deployed, it will be scattered with little chance to rally it.
I experienced this during a test where a french corp in march was scattered by a bavarian one. I have never been able to rally it during the battle. Consequently, I advise you to avoid giving "march" order to units of the first line but use it for units in the second line (especially to move from center to wing or wing to wing) or in very urgent case.
-
I advise you to avoid giving "march" order to units of the first line but use it for units in the second line (especially to move from center to wing or wing to wing) or in very urgent case
Good advice this, march is what it says on the box, march, from point A to point B and NOT anywhere near the enemy !.
We have all read accounts of troops on the march, in any era, being slaughtered by an attack before they have time to deploy correctly, it would seem this is the case with LG.
-
I had not given the march order, I gave the deploy order.
It happed with all the other corps to, but as the enemy's line colapsed the other units started to move on their own, just running around, it's just a coincidence that they all apear to be concentrated, they had all run around like headless chickens
-
Lodi, I would have expected a corp to march and fight for 8 hours in a day so 10 minutes seems a little short before fatigue should seriously degrade a force.
Grand tactical movement by column of peleton or division (one batallion behind the other) seems to have been the doctrine.
-
No one fights for 8 hours. Most of the time is spent standing around.
Any given infantry battalion is good for one, maybe two 15 minute firefights before they have to take a break. Any melee will exhaust them even more quickly.
It's a little easier on cavalry, but in that case it's the horses that get exhausted. One or two charges will leave the horses blown and they have to rest to recover.
In the case of artillery, it's firing the guns that is tiring. The guns have to be run back into position after they recoil. You can fire the guns all day, but the rate of fire goes down after a while. Most artillery units fire an average of one round every 2 minutes over the course of a day's battle, even when firing continuously.
Hook
-
Lodi, I would have expected a corp to march and fight for 8 hours in a day so 10 minutes seems a little short before fatigue should seriously degrade a force.
I didn't said that the fatigue seriously degrade a force after 10 mn but that advancing at accelarate pace increases the fatigue and, btw unit cohesion (ranks alignments but also alignment between regiments).
-
No one fights for 8 hours. Most of the time is spent standing around.
Any given infantry battalion is good for one, maybe two 15 minute firefights before they have to take a break. Any melee will exhaust them even more quickly.
It's a little easier on cavalry, but in that case it's the horses that get exhausted. One or two charges will leave the horses blown and they have to rest to recover.
In the case of artillery, it's firing the guns that is tiring. The guns have to be run back into position after they recoil. You can fire the guns all day, but the rate of fire goes down after a while. Most artillery units fire an average of one round every 2 minutes over the course of a day's battle, even when firing continuously.
Hook
I agree.
-
The suggestion here is that the game will allow some disorder and loss of cohesion when using the “March to area” command. I think the commanders of the era used methods of command which would counteract this tendency to disorder.
The 1791 Reglements include Evolutions de Ligne which describes how to manoeuvre divisions of 8 battalions. The concept of individual movement of battalions unless under specific orders is I believe a false premise. Many illustrations show a division formed for movement in a column of battalions one behind the other, each battalion in column of peleton. This is done to ensure the division is kept under control and able to deploy quickly if needed.
Ney in his writings focuses on handling groups of 8 battalions.
If a division or corps was deployed and needed to advance then one unit would be identified as a “base” or regulating battalion and the rest of the division would set their alignment and pace of advance on this “base”.
-
I've played the Montebello battle, commanding the coalition forces.
I had Constantine deploy in front of the center town, north of the marshes. It took him only a short time until he had reached the final deployment area. He put his horse artillery up front and a unit of dragoons behind it. A unit of hussars was also nearby.
Miloradovich was ordered liaison in support. So far so good.
The french approached Constantine's line with two units of cavalry. They managed to destroy one battery and rout a unit of cav all in front of the line. No help was coming to the cannons. Instead Constantine used his cav to charge it unsupported into the front line of the french, still out of cannon range, losing both cav in the process. Miloradovich then repeated the mistake.
What did I do wrong? Is this due to the missing AI, doctrine editor or a simple mistake on my side?
Note, I gave Constantine order to deploy.
Constantine held this line all through the battle, against all odds and without his cavalry, still I feel that he wasted his cavalry and lost his guns in the process.
-
I believe the editors allow you to modify the individual units' aggressiveness and initiative as well as the various doctrines. I'm hoping there's a combination that will keep cavalry in a supporting role and not going off looking for trouble.
Hook
-
Yes cavalry units seem a bit to aggressive/death defying in the demo. I'm sure it will be different in the full game, or else it can hopefully be corrected in the doctrine editor.
LvD
-
I believe you can specify aggressiveness and initiative in the Order of Battle editor for each unit. The doctrine editor allows you to specify behavior for all your forces. You could, for example, order detached cavalry to disengage rather than attacking.
Hook
-
I believe you can specify aggressiveness and initiative in the Order of Battle editor for each unit. The doctrine editor allows you to specify behavior for all your forces. You could, for example, order detached cavalry to disengage rather than attackin
One for later In MP games whose doctrine do we use?
-
One for later In MP games whose doctrine do we use?
I'm pretty sure that's covered in the manual, but each nation has its own doctrine so at least two sides wouldn't be a problem. If multiplayer forces were divided on each side according to nationality, then everyone could have his own, I guess.
Good question.
Hook
-
Another quick one, has anyone deployed skirmishers. I can get them to deploy from line formation what I can’t do is deploy the unit as a whole (in trees) Used Light infantry in trying
-
Another quick one, has anyone deployed skirmishers. I can get them to deploy from line formation what I can’t do is deploy the unit as a whole (in trees) Used Light infantry in trying
In LG, only skirmishers companies can deploy (for the time being), battalions can't (even if they belong to a light regiment).
-
Changed the range settings for every infantry regiment in a Corps today to minimum range. Tested it out and it 'felt' as though they caused more casualties. :) The downside I suppose is that they must come under fire longer when approaching before repling with their own volley?
-
Another quick one, has anyone deployed skirmishers. I can get them to deploy from line formation what I can’t do is deploy the unit as a whole (in trees) Used Light infantry in trying
Historically, even light infantry did not usually deploy completely into skirmish formation. A light infantry battalion might deploy more skirmishers than a Line infantry battalion but it would still keep a substantial reserve behind the skirmishers formed up like any regular unit in close order.
-
Historically, even light infantry did not usually deploy completely into skirmish formation. A light infantry battalion might deploy more skirmishers than a Line infantry battalion but it would still keep a substantial reserve behind the skirmishers formed up like any regular unit in close order.
Fully agree with the usually but it did happen
#
Several companies or even battalions could be employed as skirmishers (tirailleurs en grande bande). The tiralleurs en grande bande acted in large numbers, stormed or defended a position, or turned the flank of the enemy. The large skirmish formations were usually supported by columns and artillery.
# In 1807 at Friedland, General Oudinot had deployed 2 full battalions as skirmishers into the Sortlack Wood.
# In 1814 at La Rothiere, four French battalions were formed in skirmish order by La Giberie to anticipate any attack which might develop in the rear of the wood. The French on occasion deployed even entire divisions [!] in skirmish formations. (Nafziger - "Imperial Bayonets" 1996 p 111)
# In 1806 at Jena, the French 16th Light Infantry advanced left in front towards the woods: its third battalion advanced en tirailleurs (in skirmish order) towards the wood, the first and second battalion, marching still in column, went past the right of the woods and deployed into line in the plain at musket range from the Prussian battery.
I was suprised it happened in 1814 thought the troops were too poorly trained
-
The French on occasion deployed even entire divisions [!] in skirmish formations.
I have never read anything about that even concerning the Revolutionnary wars. I think it can be a mistake due to the word "division" because in french it is also used to designate a group of 2 companies.
-
I have never read anything about that even concerning the Revolutionnary wars. I think it can be a mistake due to the word "division" because in french it is also used to designate a group of 2 companies.
Good point here is the link
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_4.htm#_skirmishers
See if it confirms what you think
Again I was suprised that the Russians broke up Battalions for Skirmishing
-
Fully agree with the usually but it did happen
#
Several companies or even battalions could be employed as skirmishers (tirailleurs en grande bande). The tiralleurs en grande bande acted in large numbers, stormed or defended a position, or turned the flank of the enemy. The large skirmish formations were usually supported by columns and artillery.
# In 1807 at Friedland, General Oudinot had deployed 2 full battalions as skirmishers into the Sortlack Wood.
# In 1814 at La Rothiere, four French battalions were formed in skirmish order by La Giberie to anticipate any attack which might develop in the rear of the wood. The French on occasion deployed even entire divisions [!] in skirmish formations. (Nafziger - "Imperial Bayonets" 1996 p 111)
# In 1806 at Jena, the French 16th Light Infantry advanced left in front towards the woods: its third battalion advanced en tirailleurs (in skirmish order) towards the wood, the first and second battalion, marching still in column, went past the right of the woods and deployed into line in the plain at musket range from the Prussian battery.
I was suprised it happened in 1814 thought the troops were too poorly trained
The key word here I think is "wood". In difficult terrain skirmish order might be the only practical formation to use.
-
Good point here is the link
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_4.htm#_skirmishers
See if it confirms what you think
Again I was suprised that the Russians broke up Battalions for Skirmishing
When I said "I have never read", I meant in all French memoirs and officers reports I have read. So if someone is able to show me memoirs or reports that state that division was deployed in skirmish order, I will change my mind but actually I thing that it did not appeared ;) and that Nafziger made a mistake or misunderstood something.