Baffled and Confused

[RichardG]

Thats how I feel after this battle, and I uninstalled the demo out of utter frustration.

After sweeping 2 enemy corps from the field, I captured one of the enemy suppply points at their rear. I now turn north where the last enemy corps is in defenseive line. I have now flanked, and am behind a cut off enemy Corp with 2 corps of my own. My third corp is directly opposite enemy 1500 meteres to the west to keep them pinned. Enemy line is facing west, I am to the south east of this corp, facing north.

Long story short, my south corp advances to roll up enemy line, but my cavalry move ahead behin their line. I think I've got them now I'm going to attack their infantry from the rear. But cavalry have other plans and rout? Then escape? Their spirit was high and fatigue was low. No one fired a shot. (they couldnt, I was behind them!)

So I order an infantry regiment to roll up the arty battery the enemy has on the south end of their line (which is why I went to all the trouble to flank them to begin with). The cannon are all facing west, I'm marching in from the south east. Should be easy to roll them up.But my infantry march right by the cannon, and out in front of the battery!!?? The cannon open up at close range, destoy and route the regiment who are now retreating to the west, so cannon get to shoot them in the ass all the way home. Meanwhile another of my cavalry units  is standing 200 meteres away from cannon, and despite all I do, it will not charge and route the cannon (Cavalry are also to the south and behind guns).

I don't understand any of this really. Maybe AI needs some work? Perhaps units do not know when they are in an advantages position?

[Montecuccoli]

Sorry you unistalled it... maybe you could be able to offer some more feedback, by now you can't help ... sorry for that, hope you will like the final game.

[von Döbeln]

If you played one of the tutorials (from your description it sounds like it) try Solo mode with the Montobello map and armies, and it will be a completely different (as in better) experience. The tutorials have some severe issues with missing AI routines and bugs. Re-install and try the Montobello battle and I'm sure you'll feel happy again.

LvD

[bidermann]

I dont under stand why people get upset with AI , I never play against AI in any game there has never been a good one and never will!!   So I play PBEM and I think thats where the game will come alive.

[Montecuccoli]

AI is an important part for every game, otherwise the gamng industry will produce only sandoboxes for multiplayer gaming... and it will be a shame because we can play now on "machines" that are far more powerful than old computers.

I am a great admirer of games with a good AI for single player

[FranzVonG]

And in this game nearly all is AI, unless you want to micromanage every regiment (end even in that case, the regimental AI is still there  )

[Franciscus]

AI is an important part for every game, otherwise the gamng industry will produce only sandoboxes for multiplayer gaming... and it will be a shame because we can play now on "machines" that are far more powerful than old computers.

I am a great admirer of games with a good AI for single player

+1

I am a solo-only player, and AI is very important to me. And what I have seen so far in the tutorial gives me great joy and expectations regarding the full game.
Amazing work, JMM

Regards

[Gunner24]

So I play PBEM and I think thats where the game will come alive.

PBEM and MP will still rely on the in game AI for most of the movements and reactions, the player can only control the Corps, the AI controls the rest, unless every unit is mirco managed, and that will be very hard work, but maybe possible from what I've seen in the demo so far.....the AI has to work well even in PBEM and MP, if it don't work well the game will be something of a lottery.

[Gunner24]

I'm a bit confused with some things, overall I like the demo more and more with every look at it, but.......a little example of why some will be confused.

900 men of the French Guard (Marines I think) form up in a line and were approached by over 2,000 Russian Light Infantry.....neither side fired a shot, although they were very close, neither side lost any men, the French Guard routed.  I can well understand this happening, but should they not have at least fired off a volley as the Russians got very close, before then backing off ?.  Strange thing was the Russians also pulled back after the French routed, but they did not rout.

If we can understand why these thing are happening it will be a great help, it somtimes looks like a bug but there could be logical reasons for it.

[von_Clausewitz]

The game has 2 engines, the internal engines where everything gets fought and resolved and the graphics engine where this is represented to the palyer. It is possible, although i might be wrong, that in the internal engine the battle was fought and won by the russians but due to some bug, this was not represented in the graphical engine. JMM can shed some more light on that when he has time.

VC

[Hook]

Gunner24, have you tried watching that particular engagement in the video viewer to see what happened?  I've found a lot of things explained when I did that. 

It would be possible to upload the saved game so anyone else could look at it as well.  The files are about 2.5 to 3.0 meg, and compress down to under one meg using Zip.

Hook

[Gunner24]

Gunner24, have you tried watching that particular engagement in the video viewer to see what happened?  I've found a lot of things explained when I did that.

I will try that this afternoon, but I was watching this on the 3d map at the time as I was very interested to see what was about to happen.

that in the internal engine the battle was fought and won by the russians but due to some bug, this was not represented in the graphical engine

This could be right, or it could be that they never had enough close support and routed......but the thing I was most surprised by was no musket volley first.....having said that I'm not finding many musket exchanges in the demo at all.

[Gunner24]

http://uploading.com/files/3mm97732/Montebello-091202-22H48.sav/

Could be all ok on another look, the action is on the far right French flank, from about frame number 138.....the replay shows what I saw in live play on the 3d map.

I think they routed as the Regiment to their left routed before them, and they were exposed with no support (on either flank or rear) with a mass of enemy approaching them.....they did form a "defensive line" and held as the enemy got very close, then routed and the Russians also turned away......seems ok EXCEPT for no volley fire from either side.

One other small thing, the Corps Commander was with them but as you hold the mouse over him it says the CC name, but then changes to Napoleon - who was no where near this area at the time ?.

[englishoo7]

I have had that a lot with a local Corps commanders card showing as Napoleon. Must be a small bug.

[Hook]

Someone from the Marines fired even if the animation didn't show it.  Around 12h26 the ammunition count dropped from 60 to 58.  The Russians weren't that close at that time, though.  I need to change the game options to get exact troop counts to see if the fire had any effect.

The Russians didn't fire because they'd decided to close with the bayonet.  This was how the generals preferred it, and it didn't always happen.  Usually, when troops stopped to fire, they wouldn't start moving again.

Typically, when the attackers decided to close to bayonet range, one side or the other would leave before contact.  Actual bayonet fights in the open field were very rare.

As for why the Marines didn't fire on the advancing Russians, I don't know.  Maybe there's a minimum distance for them to be able to fire in cases like that.  What we saw was certainly within the realm of possibilities, and I wouldn't have even questioned it. 

I've seen the problem with Napoleon's info box showing up when I didn't mouse over him.  Didn't see it in this case myself though.

I'll probably look at this again later.

Hook