HistWar
HistWar (English zone) => General discussions => Discussion démarrée par: JMM le 13 novembre 2009, 11:04:48 am
-
Before releasing the game, a wish list ;)
JMM
-
1. 3, 6, and 9Pdr., different Howitzer-Calibers including Russian Unicorns. Not really a big deal, great Stat Changes or new models wouldn't even be necessary.
2. Maybe a option that all Corps Commander can be wounded/killed instead of just one per battle. The manuell says that this was a balance decision and of course I can't really comment on that without having played the game.
3. The possibility to use attack columns as a mere maneuvering formation to close up on the enemy and then form line, as it was often used historically.
-
3. The possibility to use attack columns as a mere maneuvering formation to close up on the enemy and then form line, as it was often used historically.
It's already exist. Columns advance in open ground, deploy when close to ennemy, deliver fire, stand or not enemy fire then reform to chase or retreat or when everybody stands fire, the one who have an offensive mission try and close the range to have melee (in column or in line if too close to reform column) then the ennemy stand or not the charge and so on....
-
more than 100 units/300CEH
-
JMM, Please don't add anything if this delays the release :cry:
Once again, many thanks for all your efforts. Anticipation is the best part of the journey :!:
-
It's already exist. Columns advance in open ground, deploy when close to ennemy, deliver fire, stand or not enemy fire then reform to chase or retreat or when everybody stands fire, the one who have an offensive mission try and close the range to have melee (in column or in line if too close to reform column) then the ennemy stand or not the charge and so on....
Okay, that's great to hear. :)
-
1. 3, 6, and 9Pdr
Guns are gathered in 3 groups : 4 pounds, 8 pounds, 12 pounds. For example, austrian 3£ is included in 4£ group and russian 6£ in 8£ group. But this doesn't mean that it has the same capacities of french 4£ or 8£. Groups are modulated in relation to the real specifications of each artillery nations.
-
Just a little thing that is fairly unimportant and may well already be in the release. But when you access the online help it would be great if it could pause the game, because I presume the whole thing would minimise and open the web browser. That would be great.
-
Terrain features like sunken roads, stonewalls and hedges. Stuff that annoys movement, especially cavalry charges or gives a defensive bonus versus muskets.
-
The possibility to send a sequence of orders with the same messenger.As I understand it now each messenger can carry only one order. Besides being unrealistic,the first aide de camp can be killed so only the second order reaches the destination.The result is that the corps commander starts executing directly the second order when the chronological execution is most important(for ex. making a detour movement)
The option to choose between a safe route or a fast route for the messenger,according to the needs of a particular tactical situation.If a fast action is desperately needed we can choose a faster(but perhaps more risky) route.If we need an order to reach safely to the destination,even with a delay, we may choose the second route.
PS I just want to say that there is no hurry to implement all theese into the first release which can delay it even longer. The game is great as it is now and we can wait for this wish-list to be into the next release.
-
I like your suggestions, Cambronne.
Another suggestion.
Making a special forum devoted to wishlist.
I guess in a few month, there will be 30 or 50 pages in this thread.
Most of the time, this kind of thread becomes messy. Cause in the same topic, we get many different ideas/subjects with differents discussions and posts talking about different subjects, mixed all together.
I know many fora have their "suggestion topic".
But, those marmelades of ideas give me headache and daunt me.
Morever, i'm afraid good ideas go unnoticed in the river of suggestions.
I would prefer creating 1 topic for 1 suggestion.
This would make better debates, and may improve the original suggestions more surely.
But, may be it would make the forum too fat :?
-
There is already one:
Evolution / Evolution / Evolucion
Exprimez vos souhaits pour améliorer HistWar / Tell us what you want to improve HistWar / Diganos lo que quieres para mejorar HistWar
-
A couple of little suggestions :
1. Some form of "extended" play, be it a Campaign, or some form of "linked" battles, where the result of one battle has an effect on later battles, so each battle is not a "one off" result with no bearing on future events.
2. More detailed terrain, but this is not vital, as it can make things worse for AI pathfinding.
The most important thing LG needs, as soon as it's possible, if it is possible, is a :
MP game lobby, where you log in, host a game and can be joined by anyone in the lobby, with games password protected so you can invite players into your game.
-
There is already one:
Damn you are right. My fault :(
But this thread is not short-circuiting the Evolution / Evolution / Evolucion forum ?
We need to revamp it.
-
Terrain features like sunken roads, stonewalls and hedges. Stuff that annoys movement, especially cavalry charges or gives a defensive bonus versus muskets.
I just wanted to add my vote to this.
-
To me, it would be great if in the future one could give precises instructions (itinary) to fix the path that a corps should follow until it will finally deploy. That, without the need of indicating intermediates times to the AI if not necessary. The AI will just do its best to reach the final position accordingly to the player wishes (of course with penalties if the choosen path is too demanding for the troops). It would add a lot's of adrenaline to the game : it might be harder to stop the movement and the risk or bad surprise would be higher than if you progress carefully by little jumps. On the order hand the game might be more enjoyable, with less writing orders to adjust the itinary. Could be very appreciated in campain mode.
It would be also great if one could give combined orders to detached units, group of units or even corps: for instance if you see that there is a gap that opens up in the opponent line, give to cavalry units order to fill it and THEN attack the ennemy on the flanc ASAP !!!. At the moment I think that the only way to do so is to give a march or deploy order to a destination and then another order with another execution time to attack (for one unit) or deploy (for a corps). Since it is hard to estimate the time it will take to deploy (for a corps), the time given to order attack might be too early (the corps is not deployed yet) or too late (the "surprise" effect will be lost!). It would be better to let the AI do the job: just by giving it the path to follow and the order to be executed when the destination will be reached (attack left, right, in front; hold the position; arrass enemy...).
It would be also nice if one could easilly detach a group of units (let's say a cavalry brigade) from a corps for special missions without to assign a new corps commander to it taken from the pool of free commanders that you have saved (just using the general already in charge). But I think that this is already planed, with a brigade or division AI)
I know that it is allowed to especially "motivate" one unit before the beginning of the battle to support the tactical plan. But it would be great if, during the battle, the commander in chief would be allowed to give only one "special order" based on standards historicals orders such as : "hold at any price", "full assault", "reach this position as fast as possible"...
And... if in the future we could reach a 1/5 scale for the game it would be great : that would narrow the intervals between the units and give a more impressive sensation of mass.
But these are just wishes, the game is already a masterpiece as it is now compared to what exists.
Congratulations !
-
And... if in the future we could reach a 1/5 scale for the game it would be great : that would narrow the intervals between the units and give a more impressive sensation of mass.
I add my vote, It would fantastic if we could choose our scale for the game (1/10, 1/5, 1/2 , 1/1 :shock:).
-
My first wish is that nothing NOTHING at all delays the release of the game, as is, and any further items are added in patch!
That said, I would love the following for PBEMs
- an auto function that boots up my email program and auto-attaches the PBEM file to it. I can add in the address. :)
- a little program like PBEM helper that will keep track of what games files I owe and what I have sent
- the ability to have multiplayer PBEMs
More generally
- more terrain pretties - even if they don't actually affect anything and are just there for appearence sake. Little hedges, fields in various states (full of wheat, ploughed, fallow, etc.)
-
Ok this is for the future:
A game Lobby is the most important thing to keep the comunity alive.
More terrain features would be cool.
A bridge train that can be used during a big battle.
maybe 5 vs 5 MP games ?
hmm. Need to play to add more ;)
-
Actually, currently my biggest wish regarding LG is to have a few clear weeks to play it and a few friends about to play it with. ;) Oh, and lots of sunshine and beaches in between times. The list could go on...
-
WEGO mode for hot-seat. Just suggestion.
-
Accumulation of smoke from guns being fired.
-
Accumulation of smoke from guns being fired.
Done: take a look at Book1, page 42.. Indicator 'V' indicates the visibility levels. Under a level of smoke, cannon must cease firing during some minutes.
JMM
-
only 1 thing on my wish list :
2009 release date guaranteed and playing it on my xmas break :)
Wishes may come true :)
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
-
Well done to JMM and all the team for getting this Sim finished :D
Vive L'Empereur.
-
Hear hear, Mojo.
I want to play on the plane back to Australia just after Xmas!
-
Well done to JMM and all the team for getting this Sim finished :D
Vive L'Empereur.
I second the motion!
-
I would like to see this game system cover the whole of the Age of Blackpowder... :smile:
anvil
-
May be some of the JMM concepts could also be applicable to the well structured and organized roman and greek antic armies? And one could play the battles on 1/1 scale ! :D
But that should be after the great success of HWLG, when JMM will have a whole army of graphic designers etc etc...
-
Done: take a look at Book1, page 42.. Indicator 'V' indicates the visibility levels. Under a level of smoke, cannon must cease firing during some minutes.
JMM
Nice :)
I was thinking of the early videos I had seen maybe a year ago.
-
I'm not sure if this is already in the game, or has already been mentioned.
I would like to see troops in line formation, volley fire and then a bayonet charge immediately after they have fired.
:smile:
-
Without the game.... how are we going to make a wishlist? :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
-
Start by wishing VERY HARD for the game...
-
For this first version, the nations are:
France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, Bavaria, Duchy of Baden, Kingdom of Denmark, Italy, Kingdom of Naples, Saxony, Kingdom of Westphalia, Kingdom of Wurttemburg, Duchy of Warsaw.
Some Prussian regiments are also included...
Around 1500 regiments.
Britain, Spanish, Brunswick, all Prussian units and some other ones will be added in the future, with an advanced AI.
JMM
I wish to see OTTOMAN with the future release. :|
(http://i434.photobucket.com/albums/qq62/AnkLrd/th_Otto.jpg) (http://s434.photobucket.com/albums/qq62/AnkLrd/?action=view¤t=Otto.jpg)
-
I am someone who is an avid wargamer but like many others not very knowledgable of 'online gaming'. I could be wrong but I would guess many here will be the same. I am perhaps the 'average guy' (although my mum tells me I am special) buying this game. This is not a mainstream product. We are grognards!
So my main worry is this- Although I am keen to 'meet' other gamers on the fielld of battle, especially in team play, having read JMM's great manual I am concerned about where I will meet these other players without the long drawn out process of setting up dates/times and then how to technically set up a battle. I know it tells us in the manual about IP addresses and stuff but I think your average buyer will be a bit confused.com. :?: I really think we need a dedicated site online with a few buttons to get a battle going. This simple site would draw many who I think would probably not get involved in online gaming else. To me this is very important... Either a dedicated 'War Room' or perhaps other dedicated gamers being extremly supportive and understanding).
Am I worrying too much about what looks to me like a complicated process in the manual?
-
With a game like this, I think you'll find that everyone is extremely supportive and understanding. Don't worry about it. :)
Hook
-
I really think we need a dedicated site online with a few buttons to get a battle going. This simple site would draw many who I think would probably not get involved in online gaming else. To me this is very important... Either a dedicated 'War Room' or perhaps other dedicated gamers being extremly supportive and understanding).
Am I worrying too much about what looks to me like a complicated process in the manual?
The "War Room" as you call it has to be the number ONE most important thing LG needs.....no doubt about it............there are many supportive and helpfull people out there, but your point about getting MP gaming is correct, as things stand you will almost certainly need to join a "group" "club" "clan" whatever you want to call it, once your in with such a crowd (whoever it is) you will get all the help you need.
-
Prussia as major faction.
then England + theire allies.
Attack in line formation should be possible then.
-
Prussia as major faction.
then England + theire allies.
It is planned to be part of the first patch/add-on. ;)
-
Great
-
Woohoo! I will be Russian only until the English make an appearance! :D
-
this would be difficult to do, but in JMM's next game it would be cool if he made the corpses physical objects the troops had to move over. the simple way to do it would be to give them a movement pentalty as they move over a field of bodies. the harder way would be to incorperate animations of people climbing over and stumbling on corpses.
-
I prefer a good working machine to animations........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
( CA is a bad example for animations)
-
It is planned to be part of the first patch/add-on. ;)
From what i have understood it will be in an add-on.
I guess (an i hope) the game will be patched several times before this occurs.
I prefer a good working machine to animations........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
( CA is a bad example for animations)
I don't know what is CA.
Is histwar working with CA ?
-
I don't know what is CA.
Is histwar working with CA ?
Abbreviation for : The Creative Assembly. The name of the company which creates Total War games.
-
Ah ok, thanks.
I was thinking about a specific engine :mrgreen: :oops:
-
Realistic Brigades and Divisions,and improved Grand Tactical AI for the 30*22.5km map.
-
My wishes:
- a long and healthy life for everyone, but, especially for JMM, so he can continue to create new features, new add-ons for manny years to come.
- that this game will be a HUGE success which will allow JMM and his team to create new games, add-ons, etc... for manny years to come.
- that this game will give JMM the possibility to hire or work with more programmers to increase the depth and gameplay of the AI even more.
That's it, ..... for now :mrgreen:
-
Divisions, the game definately needs deivisions! Musket fire sounds is very hard on the ears!
Really enjoyed the demo... very hard if you make settings more realistic.
-
Waypoints for Orders.
In the demo I am seeing units march into the enemy in order to get to a point on their flank that I ordered them too. They could have followed the path I sent them on which was nowhere near the front line but didn't.
-
Waypoints for Orders.
In the demo I am seeing units march into the enemy in order to get to a point on their flank that I ordered them too. They could have followed the path I sent them on which was nowhere near the front line but didn't.
You can do this by giving out two orders can't you?
-
Camera movement with the keyboard since the mouse is used for most anything else and you'll select any unit the cusros happens to move over when moving the camera.
Having to click to select a unit or menu item since now you select stuff if you just happen to move the cursor over it. I never know which unit that is currently selected (or even if it's one of mine) - it would be nice to have some more control over that and only select units when you mean to.
Looking forward to the complete game with all the features/AI etc in it. :D
LvD
-
I like the Right Click from F2 screen to view the unit from above. It would be nice to be able to zoom out to see further afield possibly to eventually the full F2 screen, or even a zoom in the F2 screen that eventually zooms down to the equivalent of the Right Click
The right click does seem a little flaky and drops from the zoom back to F2 .... but in all honesty I think I may have a faulty mouse..... to much Assassins Creed I action might have damaged the right mouse button :-)
-
tool tips would greatly reduce confusion with this game and increase accessibility.
-
The unit info box in the 2d map view must be able to move or at least make it stick to one side. As it is now if there is action under the box on the opponent side it constantly gets in the way, e.g. if you select a corps commander whose units are under the box when the commander isn't you can't see the units at all.
Had a great solo battle where the allies kicked some French butt, but only just. ;)
LvD
-
I totally second JoBe (great first post!)
And, having played around with the demo a little, I would like to have more dialogue, so to speak, with my generals. I mean, at the beginning of a battle I make my tactical plan etc, but when things happen during the battle I would like to receive messages from my generals informing me of:
- enemies spotted
- engaging enemy with artillery
- keeping my distance
- what are your orders, sir?
- casualties at #
- may I retreat?
- commencing attack
etc. just off the top of my mind (many others could be added). The message could be in a nice XIX c. sepia-colored pop-up, or just in a dialogue box, and it may or may not pause the game (something we adjust in the "options").
Just a thought to enhance my gaming experience in a future version.
-
Additions for the Manual:
- An Index page
- A map of the Keyboard / what each key does
BTW - well done with the manual
-
Some of mine are a repeat of others suggestions and might be irrelevant with better use of manual.
- Anywhere that you click on a Unit the Unit info box should be filled with that Units info UNTIL you click on another Unit. OK in the mean time if you pass the mouse over any other unit then the Unit info box should be filled temporarily with that Units info.
- The left click context menu of a unit should contain an option to “move camera to this unit.
- Once you click on/choose a unit, you should be able to scroll the mouse up and down to choose the units superior officer etc. And maybe by holding Shift key at the same time you could scroll through the all units at the same level as the chosen unit (if that makes sense). If this is done on the 3d view then the camera moves to each select unit and if done on the 2d view then the chosen units icon is highlighted by flashing.
- The F2 – 2d big-map: it has the unit info box semi-permanently located on the right hand side. This covers a major portion of the map(!!!), limiting the users view and ability to issue orders (I know this unit info box flips to the left but that’s not satisfactory – put it on the bottom of the screen underneath the map along with any other info boxes/options or buttons that can appear on this screen/map.
- Also on the 2d map the unit icons on this map can get very clustered on top of each other making it very hard to click on the one you want – make these icon smaller and/or add an option to zoom in on this map.
- Should the 2d mini-map contain little dots representing all visible troops ?!
-
I would suggest replacing having to SHIFT+indicate direction with mouse with the ability to slide either way via (only) the mouse.
-
Divisions! - We need divisions we can order individually! -
(Perhaps later in a patch?)
-
Artillery seems VERY powerful. Almost to the point where there has to be a long artillery duel before infantry can advance with any chance of getting through. Could it be made a little less powerful?
I am all only just beginning to get to grips with the Demo and this may be a not be an issue for everyone else!
-
I really like the 'look' of the soldiers. :D They have an appeal. They do however move about about a bit which is great but probably do this a bit too much. Perhaps tone it down a bit and just have one or two soldiers in each regiment moving. They start to look a bit odd when five or six are moving their heads at the same time.
Hardly worth mentioning, I wouldn't want any time wasted on tit but this is a wish list!
-
Divisions indeed!
I wonder how many of the wishes we have here are already in the game, just not the demo. So JMM can smile and nod, knowing he's already done that work.
Actually English, I like the moving about. You'd expect 'em to chatter in the ranks. Thankfully we're spared the fellas running off to sh%# in the grass/woods but a bit of movement is fine by me. I've got to go and check the manual as to what zooming in you can do. Can I zoom in on the 2D view, for eg?
-
I won't have my guardsmen 'waggling their heads about in the ranks Harry!
-
Have just played the Demo again and found that many time units are not 'aligned'. They come in at all sorts of different angles which I suppose is realist but sometimes the programme cannot cope with it. Often regiment stand about and look like they are tryng to 'engage' but move about without being able to volley in return.
This could perhaps be sorted by a 'strict' invisible 'corridor' regiments would have to be within in order to engage in a firefight, this way they would be opposite each other?
-
Divisions indeed!
I wonder how many of the wishes we have here are already in the game, just not the demo. So JMM can smile and nod, knowing he's already done that work.
Ok, I haven't tried this in the game yet, BUT...
If you left click on an individual unit to give it an order, then click on the commander's name in the order menu, it changes to "division" with fewer order options.
Hook
-
"Ok, I haven't tried this in the game yet, BUT...
If you left click on an individual unit to give it an order, then click on the commander's name in the order menu, it changes to "division" with fewer order options.
Hook"
Tried this.Comes up with “division Liaised” & both start to move (if ordered)
-
Thanks. I just tried it in the game but couldn't tell if it did anything useful.
Hook
-
Thanks. I just tried it in the game but couldn't tell if it did anything useful.
Hook
Like you I don’t know. In other Nap war gaming you would have a moral bonus from having the Divisional/Brigade Generals near
-
When I say I would like to order Divisions I mean I would like to see divisions manouvering as a unit. using the above order through the regiments card is all a bit vague. At the moment we have many regiments doing their thing. I don't think it is a huge problem as long as an individual Corps looks like it is a single entity, its units wheeling and attacking the enemy together. I am more and more impressed by the demo...
:arrow:The only thing I cannot get used to is that I see many 'individual' battles going on. I think the one thing the game lacks is a dicisiveness! I want to order an assault on the enemy line and if it is well coordernated I want to see it smash the line as one or be repulsed as one! At the moment I am not seeing this... Of course it could well be something I am doing wrong like the length of my deployment lines? Mmmm!
-
I tried to use the "division" aggregation and then gave one of the units an order. The unit plus the other attached unit then headed for the upper left corner of the map. Tried twice so a firm "feature"
-
Thanks 'quartermaster,' I will try that.
-
I tried to use the "division" aggregation and then gave one of the units an order. The unit plus the other attached unit then headed for the upper left corner of the map. Tried twice so a firm "feature"
The upper left corner of the map is location 0,0. Sounds like a definite bug. I haven't had it with the division commands, but I've seen other units with movement arrows going there, although it usually sorts itself out after a while.
I saw an enemy cavalry unit suddenly appear in that area today. No idea how he got there and it was early in the battle. Sounds like a teleportation issue of some kind.
Hook
-
The unit plus the other attached unit then headed for the upper left corner of the map
I've seen the CiC do this many times after after sending an ADC off.
-
I haven't had much game time, I just finished the tutorials. Something I immediately noticed was the fading rate of sound with distance. I imagine you should be able to hear guns from more than 1-2 miles away but in the game it seems more on/off. It would help the immersion, for me at least, if you could hear the distand boom and thunder across the battlefield. (how else could we march to the sounds of the guns ;))
Overall I'm very pleased with the demo (knowing that it has flaws) because it does give a hint of what the full game is going to be. I do not understand all the units behaviors but I still have to try the solo game. Some additional wishes for the list might come with more game time.
-
:arrow:The only thing I cannot get used to is that I see many 'individual' battles going on. I think the one thing the game lacks is a dicisiveness! I want to order an assault on the enemy line and if it is well coordernated I want to see it smash the line as one or be repulsed as one! At the moment I am not seeing this... Of course it could well be something I am doing wrong like the length of my deployment lines? Mmmm!
Corps or divisions are composed of regiments so when two lines meet, it is not a fight opposing divisions against divisions but individual fights between regiments. In a line some regiments are better than others so when some regiments break some others don't ; the breaking regiments step back to reform behind the ones that stand and so on until there is more stepping back regiments than standing ones, then all line is pulled back by enemy and it may continue till the corp break up. But a line smashing another in minutes exist in popular belief only. If you have the occasion to read the very interesting "La campagne de 1809" from Commandant Saski (don't know if it exists in English) that assembled hundreds of official reports from chief of battalion to marshals, you will have a more understandable view of the mechanisms of napoleonic warfare. To have read it, I can say that fighting seems to be chaotic with some infantery and artillery firefights, infantry and cavalry charges, advancing, moving back, counter charges, rallying and so on. These mechanisms are, in my opinion, well reproduced in LG.
-
Lodi, I would dearly love to read that book. What year was it published? I'm guessing it's in French. A book like that could be as useful as Nafziger's "Imperial Bayonets" for wargamers.
english007, if you can imagine the difficulty of getting a mile wide corps formation to all advance at the same time, try to imagine how much more difficult it would be to get them all to retreat at the same time while they're still engaged with the enemy! :)
I would have expected the battle line to be a bit less chaotic, but I don't know how it could be otherwise. Some attacking battalions will win their fights, others will lose theirs and retreat, and the well formed lines will break down into individual fights at some point. Victorious units will turn to face enemy units on their flanks... probably; it's a difficult maneuver under fire. A battalion that finds itself with no friendly battalions on either side is likely to retreat to avoid being cut off.
Hook
-
Lodi, I would dearly love to read that book. What year was it published? I'm guessing it's in French. A book like that could be as useful as Nafziger's "Imperial Bayonets" for wargamers.
You can buy it there : http://www.decitre.fr/livres/Campagne-de-1809-en-Allemagne-et-en-Autriche.aspx/9782916473062 (http://www.decitre.fr/livres/Campagne-de-1809-en-Allemagne-et-en-Autriche.aspx/9782916473062) or there http://www.editionsquatuor.com/campagne_1809.php (http://www.editionsquatuor.com/campagne_1809.php)
More info : http://openlibrary.org/b/OL6908287M/Campagne_de_1809_en_Allemagne_et_en_Autriche (http://openlibrary.org/b/OL6908287M/Campagne_de_1809_en_Allemagne_et_en_Autriche)
-
Very interesting piece of literature, not really in the "Nice Price" category though.
-
You can read it online.
Now to learn to read French. Oy.
Hook
-
Thanks Hook for pointing that out.
I find myself in the situation that I have te learn French anyway, this is a good incentive.
-
not really in the "Nice Price" category though.
I agree. That's the problem in France with all renews of this kind of studies :evil:.
-
Corps or divisions are composed of regiments so when two lines meet, it is not a fight opposing divisions against divisions but individual fights between regiments. In a line some regiments are better than others so when some regiments break some others don't ; the breaking regiments step back to reform behind the ones that stand and so on until there is more stepping back regiments than standing ones, then all line is pulled back by enemy and it may continue till the corp break up. But a line smashing another in minutes exist in popular belief only. If you have the occasion to read the very interesting "La campagne de 1809" from Commandant Saski (don't know if it exists in English) that assembled hundreds of official reports from chief of battalion to marshals, you will have a more understandable view of the mechanisms of napoleonic warfare. To have read it, I can say that fighting seems to be chaotic with some infantery and artillery firefights, infantry and cavalry charges, advancing, moving back, counter charges, rallying and so on. These mechanisms are, in my opinion, well reproduced in LG.
War Is Chaos... Mmmm. Yes I can see your point. With the smoke and the noise it would have been difficult to get an overall picture of what was going on. I have played a full battle now and I can see more and more that that the game mimics the chaos of battle. The (somewhat smaller) problem I still have though is that divisions/corps would not just keep fighting until they all ran away. They would retreat (in the army we had a start line/a position from where we would launch our assault) back to a safer distance - reavaluate, re-organise and then perhaps renew the action or withdraw or form a defence line or whatever else.
The demo has grown on me more and more, it has very many good points, brilliant points, but a battlefield where the enemy just leave a regiment at a time is not realistic. Armies did break and flee en-masse.
This is only one bad point for me that is outweighed by very many good points!
-
Wish list:
A hotkey list :smile:
-
Thanks for the tip for the book... I am always interested to read good books about the Napoleonic wars era. Unfortunately I can only find French versions. I can't read French so that's that! ;)
Thanks anyway.
-
War Is Chaos... Mmmm. Yes I can see your point.
It's not my point, it's just what transpires from reports and military mémoirs of this period.
With the smoke and the noise it would have been difficult to get an overall picture of what was going on
Not only because of smoke and noise but moves too : charge, counter-charge, retreat for rally or not, fleeing units, etc.
Armies did break and flee en-masse.
I can't agree with this.In Austerlitz, Allied left wing and center fled but right wing under Bagration retreated in order ; in Montmirail French left wing was overwhelmed and fled but the center and left wing retreated in orderso so it's wrong to say tha an army break and flee en-masse.
where the enemy just leave a regiment at a time is not realistic
I advise you to read how the left Allied wing units was engaged in Austerlitz.
-
Thanks for your reply lodi... I will read up again on Austerlitz.
-
Armies did break and flee en-masse
Regardless of this being true, or not, game play wise it won't be a lot of fun if your Army packs it's bags and heads off home.
-
It's not my point, it's just what transpires from reports and military mémoirs of this period.
Not only because of smoke and noise but moves too : charge, counter-charge, retreat for rally or not, fleeing units, etc.
I can't agree with this.In Austerlitz, Allied left wing and center fled but right wing under Bagration retreated in order ; in Montmirail French left wing was overwhelmed and fled but the center and left wing retreated in orderso so it's wrong to say tha an army break and flee en-masse.
I advise you to read how the left Allied wing units was engaged in Austerlitz.
At waterloo the French Army broke and fled en-masse! Also I think you reinforce my point, you say that. 'the French left wing was overwhelmed' and then the go on to say that the center and left wing made the decision to retreat. Rather than flee I should have said 'withdraw' perhaps. Either way this is a dicisive result. The Army elements recognise they are defeated and withdraw. (The player may contest this withdraw though). If not we are left we 'peices' of units left all over the battlefield attacking, deploying etc.
-
Also I think you reinforce my point, you say that. 'the French left wing was overwhelmed' and then the go on to say that the center and left wing made the decision to retreat.
I don' think I reinforce your point saying that because your point was this :
Armies did break and flee en-masse.
I just showed by examples that it may happens but it's not a rule as you submitted it.
The Army elements recognise they are defeated and withdraw
Recognise the defeat and withdraw does not necessarily mean en-masse or all together at the same time, you may also withdraw by echelon (like in Montmirail).
-
Lodi, remember Saski is documenting the early stages of the 1809 campaign which is a very mobile campaign with encounter battles rather than set-piece actions. Many of the combat descriptions are focused on the movement of divisions with attacks made at regimental (or brigade) level. A lot of the material concerns the 3rd Corp which seems to have spent a lot of time on the march or in combat with the occasional rest day. For a battle like Borodino / Moskova or Waterloo where the armies are fully concentrated for battle there is then more a use of pre-planned division level attacks.
For wargaming I take the view that player control ought to go no further than two levels down from the senior commander. For a major battle you have the commander in chief issuing orders to Corp or Column commanders specifying what to do with divisions. You would not bother about what brigades and regiments as the divisional commanders would be expected to manage this lower level. If however the player is only commanding a Corp then he will order divisions and instruct brigades.
In the main battle in the demo we have a large battle with the player having to address many levels of command. If this were multi-player then as Corp commanders each player could concentrate at the lower level.
In its current form the player gives orders to Corps commanders to move the corp to position and deploy as required and the player may then command individual regiments. I can understand the interest in having some interim level command such as division level. Perhaps we will see this with divisional AI at some point in the future.
-
Even though i try to follow, I wish we have some tips from betatesters or JMM about the game that are not involved in the manuals. I try to follow gazfun and VC, thank you both. It would be great if we have some more before the game appear.
-
I don't know if something like this is in place yet with the OOB editor, but being able to assign custom flags (maybe two?, a King's Color and a Regimental Color) or custom marches to a regiment would be on my wish list. I'm not looking to increase JMM's workload (by much :) ) this would be mainly for player modding.
-
Lodi, remember Saski is documenting the early stages of the 1809 campaign which is a very mobile campaign with encounter battles rather than set-piece actions. Many of the combat descriptions are focused on the movement of divisions with attacks made at regimental (or brigade) level. A lot of the material concerns the 3rd Corp which seems to have spent a lot of time on the march or in combat with the occasional rest day. For a battle like Borodino / Moskova or Waterloo where the armies are fully concentrated for battle there is then more a use of pre-planned division level attacks.
Yes, but it greatly helps to understand the mechanisms of fighting and that the basic unit for manoeuvre is the battalion for infantry, squadron for cavalry and company for artillery. It's important to understand that when the 1st division attacks, it's not one entity that does with one moral and force but 10 or 12 entities (battalions, squadrons, etc.) each with their fighting competences and moral. Whether they are battles involving only one or several army corps, mechanisms remain the same.
For wargaming I take the view that player control ought to go no further than two levels down from the senior commander. For a major battle you have the commander in chief issuing orders to Corp or Column commanders specifying what to do with divisions. You would not bother about what brigades and regiments as the divisional commanders would be expected to manage this lower level. If however the player is only commanding a Corp then he will order divisions and instruct brigades.
I agree.
-
I can't seem to find information on the quality and type of a unit in the regiments tab. I only can find those in the unit tab.
It would be nice to see in the regiment tab whether you have a Hussar or Dragoon regiment and whether it's elite or not.
-
Yes, but it greatly helps to understand the mechanisms of fighting and that the basic unit for manoeuvre is the battalion for infantry, squadron for cavalry and company for artillery. It's important to understand that when the 1st division attacks, it's not one entity that does with one moral and force but 10 or 12 entities (battalions, squadrons, etc.) each with their fighting competences and moral. Whether they are battles involving only one or several army corps, mechanisms remain the same.
I agree.
I agree mostly, but I think in the prebattle sections a command in chief should be able to give a detailed battle plan,
Wellington was know to place every single battalion on his battle field before the battle, like at Salamanca, he made the planes for a Brigade in the 3rd division to have it's first battalion in line, with two battalions behind in column, he gave those kinda orders before the tattle.
But I agree that once the battle has started, the commander should just give order to corps or divisons
-
I agree mostly, but I think in the prebattle sections a command in chief should be able to give a detailed battle plan,
Sure, it can be done in LG during the initial order.
-
I guess this has already been said, but I add my voice to this request:
I'd like to have more control over units in the 3D map CM-style (e.g. higher camera and ability to cycle through units pressing "+" or some other key).
I'm pretty sure the next version will be a perfect game.
-
I'd like to have more control over units in the 3D map CM-style (e.g. higher camera and ability to cycle through units pressing "+" or some other key).
Just both for F5 and F6... you can use Page Up/Down to cycle through units.
F3 view : you can put the cursor on the icon of each entity : click right to place the camera on the unit.. Keeping the right button down, you can move the camera on each entity...
JMM
-
:arrow: I have thought a lot about this and I think we really need another order option - The Assault order.
This would be one where a commander could select regiments, form them up on a designated start line and give them a specific assault order, formation and designate support from local batteries, cavalry e.t.c.
These units could be ordered to atatck a certain feature like a redoubt, a town, a hill or a specific part of an enemy defence line. They would move TOGETHER! They would be forced to adavance within a designated 'corridor' of approach. If the attack fails then those units withdraw/rout back to their start line.
Imagine looking out from behind your Corps and seeing the enemy concentrating forces for an assault. We would come to watch for these concentrations and react with rushed reserves! It would be realistic and bring a new dimension, perfectly rounding off what are fantastic other elements of the game.
Most of these features are already there! But of course I am not a programmer. I don't know how hard this would be to implement. Perhaps it would be impossibly time consuming? But what I do know is that at this time the battlefield 'swirls' about without often having any what historians would call, 'phases of battle'. (Just watch some of the saved files of the game in 2d) Regiments rout and rout again, too often for any definate feeling of a specific phase or any particular engagement where the battle was won. At the moment we cannot ever hope to produce D-Erlons attack at Waterloo! Napoleons Imperial Guards final advance on the Allied line later that day! Why? Is this not the simulation that has already gone far beyond what anyone else has ever done before. I feel JMM is so close.
I really do believe that if this extra order feature could be implemented and units were made to rout less often, then this game would truly be a classic!
-
I have thought a lot about this and I think we really need another order option - The Assault order.
"to deploy" is an assault order.
This would be one where a commander could select regiments, form them up on a designated start line and give them a specific assault order, formation and designate support from local batteries, cavalry e.t.c.
You already could do this by detaching units and attaching them to a corps commander without any units. Or by detaching units, giving them a support order to each other and then order to attack. Or you can initially prepare a light corps to do this.
Imagine looking out from behind your Corps and seeing the enemy concentrating forces for an assault. We would come to watch for these concentrations and react with rushed reserves! It would be realistic and bring a new dimension, perfectly rounding off what are fantastic other elements of the game.
No need to have an assault order for that. The ones that participated to LG Austerlitz 2009 could tell you.
At the moment we cannot ever hope to produce D-Erlons attack at Waterloo! Napoleons Imperial Guards final advance on the Allied line later that day! Why?
:shock: . The only thing that LG can't represent is the 1st corps divisions formation.
Is this not the simulation that has already gone far beyond what anyone else has ever done before.
Yes. That's why if you try the same action as the Middle Guard at Waterloo, you will have the same result as in real :mrgreen:.
-
I think the main problem is that the most of us need an explanation about the combination of Deploy and Defence Deploy with the line order and the many things you can achive with it.
We are used to get a idea of what the order means by its "name".
Also we are not used to Play Leader+Regiment actions.
So guys this is not a drop and drag game, we ,me too, have to learn new ways :)
So a clear Excel like sheet that shows the possible action would help to clear up a lot things.
-
We need a Headquater with some ADCs to build a "Task Force". Some free Comanders , historical more for the french less for the allies, would be cool !
-
"to deploy" is an assault order.
You already could do this by detaching units and attaching them to a corps commander without any units. Or by detaching units, giving them a support order to each other and then order to attack. Or you can initially prepare a light corps to do this.
No need to have an assault order for that. The ones that participated to LG Austerlitz 2009 could tell you.
:shock: . The only thing that LG can't represent is the 1st corps divisions formation.
Yes. That's why if you try the same action as the Middle Guard at Waterloo, you will have the same result as in real :mrgreen:.
I appreciate your answers and I can see that some of your reply would address some of my concerns. The point you are missing however is that we cannot reproduce an attack like D-Erlons! Or at least I cannot and I have yet to see anything near that on any video. If someone could I would love to see it as it would put my concerns to rest! You ignored the point I make about units constantly routing and usually hiting the enemy alone? This 'whirl' of units whenever you watch a Battle in 3d mode is frustrating because there does not often appear to be any dicisiveness in any any area. The thing is I can see the brilliance behind all this! JMM has done such a great job. I wonder if I am worried over nothing. Perhaps it will all come to life with the full AI active or a human opponent?
Did almost every unit in a napoleonic Battle Rout at least once?
I am constantly concerned that comments like these will be seen as completely negative. They really are not meant to be. In fact it's because I can see such a great game that I and many others post these comments. I have never posted on any Forum before. I hope they will be taken in the way they were meant. An attempt to make a great game even better.
-
Just both for F5 and F6... you can use Page Up/Down to cycle through units.
F3 view : you can put the cursor on the icon of each entity : click right to place the camera on the unit.. Keeping the right button down, you can move the camera on each entity...
JMM
Thanks JMM. You're always so helpful and patient. I guess I should get rid of my old CM habits!
However, having played about 5 Montebello games, I see that I usually spend about 80% of my time in 2d and only perhaps 20% in the 3D map, which I use just for entertainment, to watch my regiments on the move. I would like to revert that ratio, and replicate the sort of general that rides into the thick of battle with his troops rather than one who sits in a backroom consulting the map.
Perhaps just a few changes could make that beautiful 3D map more practical. For example:
- higher camera view
- moving the mouse to sides of the screen to navigate the map rather than holding down the mouse right button
- highlighting regiments belonging to the corps commander I click on
etc.
Just a wish for a future version as I impatiently await the release!
-
... we cannot reproduce an attack like D-Erlons!
The following quote is from a document named Army Level Kriegsspiel:
... a study of detailed battle accounts, and the statements of senior Napoleonic commanders, who commented that they had rarely seen more than half a dozen battalions (or squadrons) engaged at one time. Sometimes where battle accounts mention attacks by a division or corps, it is evident that only one or two brigades were actually involved – the remainder being held in reserve for exploitation (or recovering from previous attacks).
They're saying here that everyone didn't attack at once.
Earlier we had someone complaining that the regiment was the smallest level in the game, and that it would march together, fight together, and even rout together, when he thought it should have been battalions.
Now we've got someone who is complaining that the corps doesn't act like a single regiment, fighting together and routing together.
Do you play miniatures, and if you do, how do you handle one line of battalions or whatever attacking another? What happens if one battalion in the middle wins its fight and the enemy in front of it runs off, and there are no enemy reserves? Do they stand politely around waiting for the units on either side to either win or lose, or do they add their firepower to an adjacent attack? What happens when more enemy retreat? Do they keep their lines or does the whole line break down into individual attacks?
Hook
-
The point you are missing however is that we cannot reproduce an attack like D-Erlons! Or at least I cannot and I have yet to see anything near that on any video
I'm not 100% sure yet, but I think we may be seeing it in most battles, but it's not like we expect it to be. Waterloo was a very small battlefield compared to other major Nap battles and the troops were very packed together. I don't remember how many Battalions there wer in total, but if I re-call they attacked in four large Divisional Columns, I bet there is a way to re-produce that in LG, but I don't know how - yet.
and the statements of senior Napoleonic commanders, who commented that they had rarely seen more than half a dozen battalions (or squadrons) engaged at one time
I agree with this, it's the same in any period of warfare, if you read about Normady it might say the x and y divisions attacked between a and b....but in reality it was only perhaps a few battalions from each division in the front line leading the attack. With others behind to take over and other further behind in reserve, not EVERY battalion in the Division all went charging off from the start line at the same time. Same thing at Kursk, the German Panzer divisions never had every last man and tank in the front line all attacking ay once.
A Divisional Command would be a good addition in the future - perhaps, but by then we might all have gotten used to the Corps Command and worked out how to use it correctly, so it might never be needed anyway.
There will also be a big difference in the full game when the Corps could be a LOT bigger, in the demo some of the Corps are not that large. How about putting two large Corps one behind the other and giving them a deploy order behind the enemy, what would happen then I wonder ?.
-
Woa... Hold the press! I listened to advice, punched a hole in the enemy artillery and put in a fair sized infantry assault. IT LOOKED FANTASTIC!
The regiments rolled in right onto their defence line. There were problems... yes, only the second battalion on the attacking columns appeared to fire, (not the first?) and a couple of bayonet charges seemed to miss their intended target? But do you know what, it didn't matter. It looked great. It should of rolled through but didn't. But the main thing was that for the first time it felt right! The above posts came true, regiments were not all firing, some were coming on, others deploying, others being repulsed, the defender tiring from constant volleys.
I wish I could post it. I think it was Gunner who said in another thread, that we didn't quite understand the game and thought some things we did not expect were bugs and others, that part we had not mastered, sometimes frustrates us. I am begining to believe that is true.
I wonder if those 'bugs' I found were indeed 'bugs'. Has anyone else come accross them?
I will re-create D-Erlons attack one day, I just have to wait for the British expansion! ;)
-
JMM I have e-mailed you the above file with details. :mrgreen:
-
Can you post it here, I'd like to see this one if possible.
How did you form up the troops attacking and what order's did you use ?.
It's these kind of things we all need to post when they work, to learn from each other how to get the best from it.
-
(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/8925/histwar002.png)
A very small thing and perhaps of no importance, but "unit attacked" covers anything at the moment, it would be so much better if it said "unit under artillery fire" when it is.
-
I would post it if I could. I can find the file but wouldn't know how to place it here on the forum. :?:
I was able to pull off a co-ordinated infantry attack by placing a Corps with Mortier's artillery Corps to its right, both in defensive line in the open North area of the Montebello Map. Once Mortiers strong Artillery had pretty much silenced the enemy artillery (except I think for the rather large Russian Guards batterie) I deployed another two corps of almost entirely infantry in front of the previous defence line a little closer to the enemy. This was my 'start line' for my planned attack. I did give the order for one Corps to be to the right of the other but this did not happen, the Corps commander deciding that slightly to the rear of the front Corps was better for defence? These two Corps moved through the first defence line (it is interseting and realistic that it takes a while for one Corps to wind their way through another) and once my new defence line was in place I gave a deployment order along part of the enemy defence line. (this was a very short deplyment line). My Regiments came on winding their way up the slope into the waiting enemy defence line and a large firefight grew. There were problems with the attacks (bugs?) as I have mentioned in my previous but I had proved to myself that this 'swirl' of units I often see in video's does not need to happen all the time if we are more exact and thoughtful with our orders. I don't know but hope that playing a human opponent would be even better?
-
I could be wrong but didn't JMM or a beta tester write somewhere that the regiments card should read 'attacking' or something along those lines and that it will be changed in the future.
Sorry to be so vague :roll:
-
You can upload the file to a free file sharing site like www.filefront.com (http://www.filefront.com) or www.mediafire.com (http://www.mediafire.com) and then post the link here.
LvD
-
I could be wrong but didn't JMM or a beta tester write somewhere that the regiments card should read 'attacking' or something along those lines and that it will be changed in the future.
'Twas me. The proper translation is "Unit engaged." It's obvious from looking at the French version.
I'm wondering if "Unit disinclination" should be "Unit wavering" as well.
Hook
-
English is not my mother tongue but IMO "wavering" reads better than "disinclination".
LvD
-
You can upload the file to a free file sharing site like www.filefront.com (http://www.filefront.com) or www.mediafire.com (http://www.mediafire.com) and then post the link here.
LvD
Thanks Von Doebeln... I will try! ;)
-
http://www.filefront.com/15088291/Montebello-091207-20H07.sav
I doubt I have done it right but there you go. :oops:
Look to the north after about 1 o'clock. The attack goes in there and should also show the problems (bugs?) with some of those attacks I have mentioned before.
-
Download link works fine. ;)
LvD
-
Cna't get it to run on mine using that link but whatever I have it on my saved battlefiles! ;)
-
A rewind (as in play backwards) button in replay mode would be nice. If you fast forward past the frame you are looking for you must go back to start and fast forward again as it is now (unles I'm missing something).
LvD
-
A picture of what several people have reported about the second line firing, and not the first line.
(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/5348/histwar001.png)
After that this Regiment has split into three Battalions, two have gone forward into melee and one remains in reserve....which seems to be correct.
(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/7946/histwar002z.png)
Close up, not much animation of the hand to hand combat happens :
(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/7705/histwar003z.png)
But if you click on the replay to go forward, frame by frame at this stage you will see (or I did anyway) that these three battalions go back and forth all over the place. Is that a glitch with the replay and nothing to worry about, or is it another indication that the graphics are somehow not keeping pace with the background calculations that resolve the engagements ?
Oh, the middle battalion shows hardly any men, perhaps it's not a battalion, but if not where is the third one ?.
-
:shock: :|
I generally work with the 2D view which is a good "image" of the internal process.
I am sure -for the 2 first pictures- the simulation is right.. but it's not the best to watch the second battalion opens the fire.. However, I am no sure this happens a lot... More annoying for the third picture...
The bugs are on the graphical engine... I have to fix that, no other comment.
JMM
-
No that is not a glitch with replay Gunner, thats what I saw happening first time. One battalion further down goes back and forth, back and forth, charging and recharging. This goes on for a long time until it routs? Are these melees actually connecting? They look like they rout just before contact sometimes but maybe that is as designed. Perhaps they charged but refused at the very last moment to cross bayonets!
What concerned me most, was that the defending battalions took very, very few casualties despite having severel columns attack? Maybe I have gone back to look at the casualties for the wong unit but I don't think so. The defenders got tired and I think that may be the reason for the eventual rout. Severel thousand Frenchmen had a go. I know only a percentage are firing in an attack column but even so. Perhaps a beta tester could answer this one?
That second rank firing thing happens a lot for me. Is this the reason for so few casualties?
-
I know only a percentage are firing in an attack column but even so
In LG, only infantry in column by division fires before charging, columns by company or platoon don't.
-
In LG, only infantry in column by division fires before charging, columns by company or platoon don't.
I am a bit confused by that answer... You can see severel columns firing for some time during the video but I don't think they are actually causing casualties? There is an erosion of moral but this might not be caused by the firing at all.
Some columns do appear to charge but 'seem' to miss. (they might connect but I miss it).
Like I said, some of the things I first took to be bugs aren't, so there may be something I am not seeing/understanding. Watch the video.
-
You can see severel columns firing for some time during the video but I don't think they are actually causing casualties
Thery looked to be a long way away from the target, I'm not even sure they were in range, maybe the first Battaion was, but 80-100 yards in the 3d view is very very close....distances can be deceptive on the 3d map, mostly being a LOT futher away than we might forst think.
-
If thats true then why? Idon't remember changing any range setting (if you can) and the attacking battalions were routed by the fire of those defending.
I would love this problem to merely be sorted by range. Perhaps my attack failed because they volled right on the edge of their effective range?
-
I have revisited those casualty figures. There are casualties inflicted on the gefenders, though not as many as I would have thought (or perhaps wanted? ;)). Some regiments did appear to blaze away for a while without hitting anything. I am learning more. I did not support this attack, with say, horse artillery?
Also that graphic where the all Battalions in a regiment move into a single space persists!
-
I would love this problem to merely be sorted by range
It could be that they were in range for the "game engine" to do the calculations, but the graphics were not in synch with the engine behind the game.....JMM has said there is some grapic problems and IF they were right it might show the two sides a lot close than is displayed......all total guess work on my part but I'm sure something with the graphics and the game engine is not quite working together - at the same time.
-
Am I right that "unit attacked" means "unit is attacking?"
-
Am I right that "unit attacked" means "unit is attacking?"
"Unit attacked" actually should be "Unit engaged." It's a mis-translation.
Hook
-
But by "engaged" do we mean the unit is engaging on its own initiative or is responding to enemy action?
-
But by "engaged" do we mean the unit is engaging on its own initiative or is responding to enemy action?
It means it's engaged in combat... whether it's being hit by artillery or marching to an enemy it intends to attack (I think). It's kind of a catch-all phrase meaning it's in combat.
Hook
-
These in game terms such a 'unit attacked', 'recoil', 'disclination'(?) need to be replaced for more proper terms ('wavering', 'engaged' etc).
-
Agreed - there is a fundamental difference between a unit marching off to attack the enemy, not itself being under attack, and a unit that is under fire. Presumably LG applies a morale test in both cases but I assume that in the first case, it would be unusual for a unit to fail unless it had already taken casualties or was facing bad odds. Whereas once a unit is actually being attacked, then its morale might change more quickly and you might wish to keep a careful eye on it (assuming there is time for that sort of micro-management).
-
Whereas once a unit is actually being attacked, then its morale might change more quickly
Moral calculation is not based on "attacking" or "being attacked unit" but on several events in which a unit is involved or not so a unit that attacked can broke faster than a defending one and the contrary is right, all depends on what happen to this unit and around it. That's why the term "engaged" is more appropriate.
-
That's why the term "engaged" is more appropriate.
The French version is "Unité engagée". Even though I don't speak French, I'd think that word was "engaged".
The morale engine appears to be quite sophisticated. I haven't seen any behavior that I'd consider wrong. The only question I had was the first time I saw a unit rout for no apparent reason, and in that case it was isolated, far from friendly forces. I believe this is correct behavior.
Hook
-
I'd think that word was "engaged".
Right ;).
-
English is not my mother tongue but IMO "wavering" reads better than "disinclination".
LvD
"Disinclination" suggests that the unit just can't be bothered.
"Shall we attack?"
"Nah...it's nice here...let's stay put."
"Fair enough, so anyway, I says to him..."
:)
Holdit
-
Time for a slightly more off-the-wall suggestion:
Instead of French and Allies vs whoever + allies, simply have Side 1 and Side 2. That way, players would have the option to explore some of the hypothetical possibilities that could have arisen had the Allies been unable to sort out their differences at the congress of Vienna e.g. Britain vs. Prussia over Saxony.
Certainly not a high priority for me, but it would be nice to have the option, although I'd say it would be a pretty big change.
I'd also like to echo the calls for divisions (and brigades!).
Holdit
-
It seems that you can play a coalition member vs another coalition member like Russia vs Austria etc.
-
It seems that you can play a coalition member vs another coalition member like Russia vs Austria etc.
Excellent!
Holdit
-
But you cannot fight against Austria playing Prussia, for instance.
It's because Russia used to be « allied » with France after the Treaties of Tilsit when Prussia has nerver been an ally of France. ;)
-
Well perhaps JMM should remove this limitation to have a total "what if" battle.
-
There isn't any limitation...
France is within camp A, never camp B...
All other choices are possible.
JMM
-
According to the Duke of Montebello (http://www.histwar.com/forum/index.php/topic,2584.msg26430.html#msg26430), the Grande Armée is in camp A and the others in camp B. But he said by default each nation is assigned by HW:LG to its historical camp (depending on the year), but « all's open ».
So, can Prussia fight against Austria, as none of them were on French side ?
-
So, can Prussia fight against Austria, as none of them were on French side ?
If JMM says all other choices are possible, I'll believe him.
From the manual, book 2:
Please note that it is also possible to play with armies containing neither French nor
Coalition units. However these 2 terms are always used in order to distinguish both
sides.
- page 22
1 BLACK indicates a Neutral country,
2 DARK BLUE is associated with the French side,
3 GREEN shows a country belonging to the Coalition.
Colours are assigned to countries depending on the year of battle previously selected
in the OB.
NOTE
Please note that the colour code is simply there to guide
players and is not a constraint. It is therefore possible to
compose non-historical OB’s.
- page 24
Hook
-
Thank you, Hook. ;)
-
I wish that infantry were not so easily broken! Did every regiment that was involved in a battle run away at least ONCE? That is what hapens in Les Grognards!
-
I wish Corps would keep their troops closer together and not find any reason not to do what they have been told to? They take an age moving regiments onto an enemy defence line! ('waiting for artillery preparation' or 'concentrating' or 'Corps in dissaray' for a few seconds before 'Corps concentrataing' again, time and again.)
Is there a setting in the full game where Corps commanders will just get on and do what you tell them to?
If infnatry continue to rout as much as they do, how can we have a Corps that is not in 'dissaray' or 'concentrating' all the time?
-
I wish there were more casualties during firefights! Both sides fire several volleys at each other often hitting nothing or just causing five or so casualties! With all those men firing surely they would hit more?
-
Englishoo7, I'm not sure what you're asking about units routing so much. Any time two regiments face off against each other one or both will retreat. SOMEONE has to retreat or they'll be locked in combat forever or until one unit totally vanishes, and fighting to the last man was not normal. I've read a number of reports from soldiers in the field who said their unit was forced back from an assault, then went back in. Units wouldn't all be forced back from combat at the same time which would lead to the broken nature of the battle lines that you've been seeing.
Your corps commanders generally know what they're doing. Some corps commanders will wait for all their units to form up when "concentrating" while others will advance before they have everyone in formation. One thing you need to watch for is when a corps is retreating, if it has any units near the friendly map edge, they may march off and be lost. Give those guys movement orders to keep them on the battlefield, and eventually reattach them to the corps.
Casualties from firefights were typically very low. Soldiers would fire too high most of the time.
Hook
-
I am finding that I am becoming frustrated! This is because I can make no headway on positions decisively. Artillery stops everything in its tracks and Infantry are fragile. As I have said many times, in previous video's we see 'swirls' of combat without ground taken by either side on the whole. This is because troops rout at the first opportunity, then come back and rout again and again! I seriously wonder if your average buyer will be happy to draw deploy lines and watch while units go back and forth like this?
I know this just sounds like frustration, and some of it is! There is so much that is good about Les Grognards. An amazing amount! The thing is there are ways to fix the few things that are wrong! And I really believe that there are things wrong. Listen to the forum.
1. Troops rout all the time. They should rout less but stay routed for longer or nothing gets done.
2. Artillery kills the game by making everything else in front of it rout. It should stop 'some' and weaken a lot more, but 'whole Corps'?
3. Corps could perhaps just reach a point where their regiments have taken enough casualties/loss of moral, that they go into retreat for a time, falling back some distance onto their supply lines. This way features would be taken and I would feel like I had achieved something.
Though I realize that many will not agree I think that these points would solve most of the problems that are leading me to feel a frustration with a game I want to like.
-
Englishoo7, I'm not sure what you're asking about units routing so much. Any time two regiments face off against each other one or both will retreat. SOMEONE has to retreat or they'll be locked in combat forever or until one unit totally vanishes, and fighting to the last man was not normal. I've read a number of reports from soldiers in the field who said their unit was forced back from an assault, then went back in. Units wouldn't all be forced back from combat at the same time which would lead to the broken nature of the battle lines that you've been seeing.
Your corps commanders generally know what they're doing. Some corps commanders will wait for all their units to form up when "concentrating" while others will advance before they have everyone in formation. One thing you need to watch for is when a corps is retreating, if it has any units near the friendly map edge, they may march off and be lost. Give those guys movement orders to keep them on the battlefield, and eventually reattach them to the corps.
Casualties from firefights were typically very low. Soldiers would fire too high most of the time.
Hook
I understand this. I don't want my regiments to fight to the last man total war style! In a firefight someone has to win. But what I don't want is regiments rarely getting into any kind of firefight because they have routed several times before getting there, or their Corps commander has told them to stop or go after an artillery battery far away or whatever else. I have read quite a bit on Napoleonic warfare. I know that casualties were lower than anyone would have dreamed possible. But a regiment firing at another severel times and hitting nothing?
-
I can see the problem, it will be very hard to overcome a well placed defender, with the real game, when there are more cannons on the battlefield. Deploy in defensive line, allow the attacker to rout in front of the cannons, then couter attack, it seems like that will work, but if that's right, who will attack ?.
-
3. Corps could perhaps just reach a point where their regiments have taken enough casualties/loss of moral, that they go into retreat for a time, falling back some distance onto their supply lines. This way features would be taken and I would feel like I had achieved something.
This is already happening. Whole corps will fall back and form defensive lines. They don't go all the way back to their supply lines, but they do fall back 1000 to 1500 yards. I've seen both my corps do it and enemy corps as well.
But a regiment firing at another severel times and hitting nothing?
There are reports of units firing at each other for 15 minutes and neither side taking any casualties.
Hook
-
I wish that infantry were not so easily broken! Did every regiment that was involved in a battle run away at least ONCE? That is what hapens in Les Grognards!
Of every two regiments that were involved in a firefight/charge, usually one routed (there are records of prolonged firefights with no consequences, but these happen also in LG). Obviously, you should consider two things:
- usually it was a single batallion running, not the entire regiment (but batallions are not depicted in LG, apart from a graphical point of view).
- it was often a retreat, with a fast regrouping when far enough from the enemy.
So it's accurate from an historical point of view: my only concern is that it happens a bit too fast in the game, and too often regiments advance lonely against the enemy line encountering an obvious defeat.
PS: sorry, I dind't notice that there was another page of discussion after your message :oops:
-
usually it was a single batallion running, not the entire regiment (but batallions are not depicted in LG, apart from a graphical point of view).
Is this a part of the problem, a Battalion gets into serious problems, which makes the whole Regiment rout.
-
Is this a part of the problem, a Battalion gets into serious problems, which makes the whole Regiment rout.
I don't so much mind the whole regiment routing as what causes it to rout. I'm used to miniatures rules with the brigade as the manoeuvre unit - either the whole brigade stays put, or the whole brigade retreats - and it's not really a problem because this doesn't tend to happen unless the brigade has been in close combat (i.e. trading volleys) with an enemy brigade. In HLG, however, there is lots of routing before the infantry gets anywhere near musket range.
Holdit
-
usually it was a single batallion running, not the entire regiment (but batallions are not depicted in LG, apart from a graphical point of view).
Is this a part of the problem, a Battalion gets into serious problems, which makes the whole Regiment rout.
hummmmm... just a short remark...
There are some difference:
a) flanker : a regiment with 3 battalions can protect one flank... and the 2 ones with 4 battalions en more...
b) defensive line : the length of the front line increase with the number of battalions...
The rate of casualties is calculated from the strength regiment, not only the strength engaged.
So, the number of battalion modifies the results... BTW, it's really important for the hand to hand fighting.
JMM
In HLG, however, there is lots of routing before the infantry gets anywhere near musket range.
We have to check these behaviours again to be sure...
Beta Test Team made a lot of tests for this kind of combat to validate the model...
That said, tests were one unit vs one, two, three ENI ones. The idea was to be sure for simple fighting...
I have to check this combat again, before modifying the parameters if need.
-
Yes Hook, I too have seen whole Corps retreating! This is just another reason my Corps give for not getting any of it Regiments up to the enemy line! This retreating Corps usually reforms, concentrates, comes forward again, perhaps stopping for artillery preperation and then another regiment routs, shows Corps is in dissaray, reforms e.t.c.... e.t.c until one or maybe two regiments actually get into a firefight. But they are usually isolated so those lone regiments rout. And so it begins again.
All the commands, like 'concentrate', 'disarray', 'march' and deploy and many others are great as of themselves. JMM has gone to great lengths to put in all that is left out so many other game designers. The problem is that somewhere amongst all this the 'crunch' has been lost! There is no point where I think 'YES'! There is no real breakout. I have never said yes I have broken that Corps or punched through that defence line, it all happens in dribs and drabs. Do you get a 'rush' when an attack goes in Hook? Honestly? Or do you just look up and find the enemy has no forces left because one after another they have left? I am often watching a screen with a constant trickle of routing and re-routing units until another Corps turns up and so it continues.
As for saying that in history sometimes regiments shot at each other for long periods without hitting anything, very often they hit too.
JMM has come so close. But I and I am sure many 'average guys' just looking for gripping play need a 'turning point'. I need an order. One that gives me a chance that a Corps will go up that hill and meet the enemy 'together!' At the moment if the enemy has any artillery at all then that will that will not happen. Someting is wrong? Maybe its the demo? Perhaps the settings we do not yet have access to yet will help. I doubt it though. It is all there in the game and more but without that all-important 'moment' when all your plans come to fruition, then it becames just a battle of attrition. A slugging match.
-
Two opposing corps both advancing into contact are going to be a little disorganized no matter what you do.
One corps advancing to attack a defensive line should give you plenty of rush. It does me. If the defending corps has artillery, then some of my regiments just aren't going to make it to the opposing infantry. If the defending corps also has cavalry, then that's going to break up my attack even worse. That's what these guys are for.
I think the only time you'll see what you want is if the defending line is nothing but infantry, and even then your corps won't all hit at the same moment. If you lose, your corps won't retreat all at once, and if you win, the defending line isn't likely to retreat at the same time either.
I've seen two opposing regiments get into a firefight, and both sides take casualties until one retreats. At the time I thought the casualties were a little high. But at least it was my regiment that won.
If you can find it, read Ardant du Picq's "Battle Studies". It certainly dispelled a lot of my illusions. It's in the book "Roots of Strategy" volume 2 along with Clausewitz's "Principles of War" and Jomini's "Art of War" so it's a worthwhile purchase.
Hook
-
If you can find it, read Ardant du Picq's "Battle Studies". It certainly dispelled a lot of my illusions. It's in the book "Roots of Strategy" volume 2 along with Clausewitz's "Principles of War" and Jomini's "Art of War" so it's a worthwhile purchase.
Can you provide some relevant quotes?
Holdit
-
If what you say happens happened then I would be fine with that. I do not want many regiments hitting all at the same time. I am saying that in one's and two's Regiments hit after waiting for an age for the Corps commander to get them there! iIf you put a Corps against a Corps now then one Corps artillery would stop any infantry attack in its tracks. So first we must destroy almost all artillery and then think about an advance. Is that how Napoleonic battles were fought?
You must be seeing pretty much the same as me? Prhaps we want a diferent game Hook. I want one where I can organise and carry out something like D-Erlons atack at Waterloo. If I did this with the demo then I would get nowhere near the enemy's lines. I would bumble about in between my own and his. I certainly wouldn't crash through the first defence line and then go on to batter the second line. The thing is that the cavalry would respond because of JMM! So the difficult bit has already been done. Units think and react because of the deep thought JMM has put into the game, its fantastic what I see them do! But maybe sometimes they think too much? Maybe we should be able to put parameters on those thoughts. I don't want them to go after enemy artillery sometimes. I don't want them to move apart or wait for artillery preperation. I don't want them to set off at all different times. Sometimes I want them to go up that hill and take it! I want a nail biting assault, one that results in one side or the other retreating. It happened. Why can't I recreate it with the troops I have?
-
I don't know, English. I'm winning my battles. And mostly I'm finding it not particularly difficult. That will probably change with reactive AI.
As for the "artillery is too strong" argument, I'm done with it. Hell, you could remove the artillery and put a company of skirmishers where the artillery used to be and get the same effect. The attacks are going to bog down.
In an idealized attack, there would be no chaos, the attackers would move up to the defenders, and someone would retreat. That probably happens about as often in the game as it did in real life. And I have seen it happen in the game. Usually regiments from both sides will retreat, and the winner is the side with the last regiments standing. D'Erlon undoubtedly had single battalions retreat before they got to the ridge, but we don't have that granularity in the game.
Artillery can be overwhelmed. It can only fire at one unit at a time. And I suspect by the time we have British troops and the battle of Waterloo, artillery crews will be able to retreat from their guns to safety and return later when there's no threat.
Hook
-
HI
I agree with you about troops moving of at different times .I was play the allies in one game and gave them a order to defend on line ,once they got their, I could not get them to form a battle line .
Some unit just started to march of in random directions; I have noticed as well that sometimes units just launch an attack on their own, even thou I have ordered then to defend an area?
I have even ordered then to defend only a few meters from where they started and still find them walking all over the place , and when you do get them their they never stay put, but seem to get it into their heads they would be better over their .
Also how can you stop the cavalry from charging off all the time, as I have lost most of my cavalry doing mad charges at enemy artillery that are miles away, as I have tried to use my cavalry as a threat, to push the enemy into squires, put every time my cavalry just go’s off it’s head and charges and then routs it self!.
The way the game runs it makes it very hard to from a battle line, as you end up with big gaps between divisions, I have tried all the orders to get them to link up, but nothing seems to work.
Any help would be most grateful.
All the best
Darren
-
The way the game runs it makes it very hard to from a battle line
ehm.. a line? This is Napoleonic Warfare, not Marlborough's one :D
You form "a line" when your corps are advancing together, not when your regiments are holding hands one with the other.
The only line that you can easily do (and it always works in the game, at least for me) is the defensive one for a single corp: the corp will stay put, in line, with the artillery in front (as it should be) and the cavalry on the flanks/behind. The only wandering unit that I see from a defensive line are the ones hardly hit by artillery: in the doctrine of the demo, it seems that the order is to silence the enemy artillery, with your own or charging ahead (one of the first things that I will change in the doctrine for me, I hate counter-battery fire).
For the charging cavalry, I suspect that we have to blame again the doctrine: they tend to charge the artillery or hunt other cavalry unit a bit too much.
-
Hook I'm winning all my battles too. They get there in the end. A bit here and a bit there, I win. I watch while a regiment delays and delays getting up to the enemy line. Sometimes he shuffles in front of the enemy for no apparent reason, trying to sort out his formation and then fires once, the second line battalion fires and often they are misaligned and then usually he routs. I wait for another regiment to come up, after a long delay he does e.t.c. e.t.c.
(I have no problem with second battalion firing or misaligned units. These are just bugs. But the general public will).
You ignore the points I make about D-erlon's attack. You say artillery can only fire at one unit at a time, but the point I was making was that units hang around for so long within range that the artillery has plenty of time to fire on them all and is devastating when it does. You don't address the fact that units just take off after something like an artillery unit away to the left or right or that regiments rout and head for the supply lines one at a time. Sometimes 'reasons' are given that just talks around real issues some have with the game.
I am glad you like the game Hook. I don't mean that sarcastically either :). Because I am in awe of 90% of it! All the fantastic order processes, the diffeent troops and multiplayer option is far better and more complete any war game of any period I have ever seen. The trouble is the 10% that is wrong is the most important part. The combat! Even this I have seen work beautifully (when I set up an unrealistic engagement with no artillery). The firefight is the part that most other buyers want to see the most because everything else builds to this 10% of the game. For me, LG is so close to being a classic it hurts! But alas, I think it will not became a Napoleonic 'Combat mission' because of the lack of 'Grand Firefights' and 'Grand Assaults'!.
JMM, of all games developers' deserves success and lots and lots of money! On a selfish note, I would like more 'excitement', not 'homework' and many, many more expansions that will bring!
-
I wonder if people have been too conditioned by playing tabletop games and previous computer games to appreciate what Histwar offers. I have been dabbling in wargaming ever since taking part in one at Donald Featherstone's many years, ago and to me Histwar seems a huge leap ahead of anything that has gone before. People argue that the artillery is too powerful, that attacks go in in penny packets and so on,but perhaps they are conditioned by their previous gaming experiences, or of reading accounts of battles which seem to have gone like clockwork, and expect unrealistic progression of battles as the norm. Sergeant Bourgogne, who was in the Imperial Guard and fought at Borodino and many other battles including Jena, Friedland, Pultusk, Eylau, Essling, Wagram, Lutzen and Bautzen,wrote that Borodino, "like all our great battles, was won by the artillery". Presumably it will be possible to make some adjustment via the doctrine editor , but to me the important thing is that it is realistic, and that is what makes it so far advanced.
-
On that note, it will be interesting to play some earlier battles where there aren't so many guns then. Batteries of 4 of this or that.
-
I'm stuck in the middle about all this, I see both sides being correct !
For me (as Gunner24) I want to see loads of artillery, as it was in big battles, but I don't want single Regiments advancing (or standing still) into mass artillery fire and routing after losing 5 men.
We do need the real game to see if attacks are done in a different way to the demo, I do not believe the way attacks are handled in the demo are correct, if they are correct, well, I don't know then.
-
If I get the option to turn down the affects of artillery, then perhaps both myself and Hook will be happy. :smile: (I would also like the option of stopping Corps commanders stopping for artillery preparation too :twisted:).
-
You ignore the points I make about D-erlon's attack.
I'm saying that D'Erlon's attack may not have been as clockwork as you think.
... regiments rout and head for the supply lines one at a time.
How could it be otherwise?? Once a unit routs, it's not going to wait politely for everyone else to decide to leave. It's going to leave. Right then! Units on either side may still be effective. Do you want them to rout too, just because another unit routed? Do you think you, as a commander, have that much control over them? In any advance at least one regiment will be weaker or come under more pressure, and rout early. Do you want the entire rest of your corps to be only as strong as that one unit, and rout when it does?
If we take it to the individual company level, some men will leave formation and run away while the rest will stay and fight. Until some of them run away too. Eventually the entire group runs. It's not like they're all chained together and have to stay or flee at the same time. Same with regiments in a corps.
If you're finding that your corps are just wandering back and forth in front of an enemy you've ordered them to attack, and not closing with the enemy, then you aren't sending in enough troops.
I recently watched replays of an entire corps getting destroyed, twice in different battles, because I gave the wrong order. I've described this in my "Remembering my first battle" thread. Earlier today I watched an enemy corps form a defensive line and sent two corps to attack, one frontally, one flanking, and watched both corps advance and attack in proper lines. It happens that way if you do it right. The enemy line didn't exist in a vacuum either; there were other enemy units in the area that had to be pushed out of the way first. My corps still maintained their lines.
If I never saw a corps keep some kind of cohesion, I'd have to wonder why. But I see it fairly often. A corps getting disordered must be intentional, or we wouldn't have a unit status for it.
Hook
-
(I would also like the option of stopping Corps commanders stopping for artillery preparation too :twisted:).
If you take away their artillery, they can't very well stop for artillery preparation. Detach regimental guns and transfer all artillery to another corps commander.
I don't think you'll like the effect. Artillery preparation was doctrine for armies of the time.
If it happens that they request artillery support from another corps for their preparation, you can disallow support in the doctrine editor. This will disallow ALL support, so you might want to consider it very carefully.
Hook
-
Wish list:
Keyboard command to move all units of a corps with the commander, such as hold down a key when you right click the commander to move him.
Regiment AI to calculate chance of winning; in a game yesterday, one regiment of Austrians advanced against two whole French corps. They marched into 3 or 4 batteries alone. There should be something to limit suicide charges by individual units.
A new status for the AI to use, maybe "In close support of a battery" (?) to assign to an infantry or cavalry unit in reserve behind the artillery company. Thus assigned, the Regimental AI of the unit "In close support" will select, as its primary target, any enemy infantry or cavalry threatening the artillery company.
Regiment AI of infantry to work with Regiment AI of other friendly infantry units close by. An infantry regiment under attack by infantry should be able to ask a friendly infantry regiment (close by) to please flank the attackers. The AI makes a check to see if it would be safe to do, etc.
-
Wish list:
Regiment AI to calculate chance of winning; in a game yesterday, one regiment of Austrians advanced against two whole French corps.
Ballsy lads, those Austrians. :)
Holdit
-
Keyboard command to move all units of a corps with the commander, such as hold down a key when you right click the commander to move him.
That would be the control key. It's mentioned in the tutorial.
Regiment AI to calculate chance of winning; in a game yesterday, one regiment of Austrians advanced against two whole French corps. They marched into 3 or 4 batteries alone. There should be something to limit suicide charges by individual units.
Some of this is already being done, but I don't know to what extent. Some corps commanders might refuse the order while others will do whatever you request.
A new status for the AI to use, maybe "In close support of a battery"
Does "Support a unit" not do what you want?
Regiment AI of infantry to work with Regiment AI of other friendly infantry units close by. An infantry regiment under attack by infantry should be able to ask a friendly infantry regiment (close by) to please flank the attackers. The AI makes a check to see if it would be safe to do, etc.
I think this is already being done automatically. You wouldn't see it often because the other regiment is either already busy or too far away. We'll need confirmation from JMM or the testers.
Hook
-
I agree with you about troops moving of at different times .I was play the allies in one game and gave them a order to defend on line ,once they got their, I could not get them to form a battle line .
Some unit just started to march of in random directions; I have noticed as well that sometimes units just launch an attack on their own, even thou I have ordered then to defend an area?
I have even ordered then to defend only a few meters from where they started and still find them walking all over the place , and when you do get them their they never stay put, but seem to get it into their heads they would be better over their .
All this happens when you try to form a defensive line too close to enemy troops. The regimental AI takes precedence and your units will move around or attack. If you form the defensive line further back you won't have these problems.
Also how can you stop the cavalry from charging off all the time, as I have lost most of my cavalry doing mad charges at enemy artillery that are miles away, as I have tried to use my cavalry as a threat, to push the enemy into squires, put every time my cavalry just go’s off it’s head and charges and then routs it self!.
The doctrine for the demo is quite aggressive. The full game will allow you to keep better control over your cavalry.
The way the game runs it makes it very hard to from a battle line, as you end up with big gaps between divisions, I have tried all the orders to get them to link up, but nothing seems to work.
I've intentionally left 1000 meter gaps between two corps defending in line and the few enemy units that do get through are easily dealt with by my reserves 1000 meters behind the line. They're like free victory points.
If you're getting large gaps within a corps, it may be that your defensive line was drawn too long. I've also had it happen when the corps had lots of cavalry or artillery, and there would occasionally be gaps where these units originally were. It may help to use 25% reserves for a defensive line.
Hook
-
I'm saying that D'Erlon's attack may not have been as clockwork as you think.
I must not be explaining myself very well but I will have one last try. I do not want a 'clockwork' attack, far from it. I am happy for troops to rout. I am happy for the whole corps to rout if what I have asked them to do is too much. The essence of my point is that I can never get a corps to a defence line as a co-ordinated force like D-Erlon did if there are enemy cannon. I would be happpy to lose a regiment or two on the approach, or have the whole lot shot up and retreat, but that is not what happens. A few go on, then rout. The others behind stop routing and come on again. Then the Corps commander stops, calls for artillery preperation. Another unit routs. And so it goes on. Every regiment going back and forth doing there own thing. (Bt the way I have no problem with Corps conducting their own Artillery preperation as long as they do not stop to do it and then rout. I always have Mortiers' £12 firing them in.)
How could it be otherwise?? Once a unit routs, it's not going to wait politely for everyone else to decide to leave. It's going to leave. Right then! Units on either side may still be effective. Do you want them to rout too, just because another unit routed?
If we take it to the individual company level, some men will leave formation and run away while the rest will stay and fight. Until some of them run away too. Eventually the entire group runs. It's not like they're all chained together and have to stay or flee at the same time. Same with regiments in a corps.
That is not what I am saying. I am trying to make the point that when a Corps commander saw that his command had fallen apart, his line broken and many troops running he would order a withdrawl and save those troops he could, unless his position or time he was buying the army was vital perhaps. Corps sometimes do a short retreat in the game but I have never seen one make the decision that their lines are broken, their men routing and it is time to pull back some distance. If this were to happen then we could actually take ground. (JMM did say that the AI was not the best so perhaps this will happen in the full game? I really hope it does, then we won't just keep fighting over the same ground.)
I feel like we are looking at different games. I hope I am wrong and that you are right. I hope this game is huge success. I hope that many of my concerns will be ironed out in the full game.
-
Ok that all sounds good. :)
I've seen both friendly and enemy corps pull back and form defensive lines, so I know it happens.
Once the corps is in contact, the regimental AI takes precedence over the corps commander's orders. This is correct behavior, as once you send troops forward you lose control over them. It makes it difficult to disengage unless you have another corps helping.
If your own corps are having problems forming a defensive line, it may be that you're trying it too close to the enemy. I haven't had any problems doing it farther back. It's probably that thing with the regimental AI again.
Hook
-
Just had a great fight. Some of the problems I see are still there but really enjoyed it! I can see I am going to have a love/hate relationship with this game! ;)
-
The essence of my point is that I can never get a corps to a defence line as a co-ordinated force like D-Erlon did if there are enemy cannon.
How did you plan your attack? In the manual, it's written clearly that you must try to first deploy in line (far enough from the enemy) and than give "attack" order, to keep the corp together.
Corps sometimes do a short retreat in the game but I have never seen one make the decision that their lines are broken, their men routing and it is time to pull back some distance.
They do. When you see an entire corp moving backward, it's usually a controlled retreat.
-
Wish list:
Keyboard command to move all units of a corps with the commander, such as hold down a key when you right click the commander to move him.
Regiment AI to calculate chance of winning; in a game yesterday, one regiment of Austrians advanced against two whole French corps. They marched into 3 or 4 batteries alone. There should be something to limit suicide charges by individual units.
A new status for the AI to use, maybe "In close support of a battery" (?) to assign to an infantry or cavalry unit in reserve behind the artillery company. Thus assigned, the Regimental AI of the unit "In close support" will select, as its primary target, any enemy infantry or cavalry threatening the artillery company.
Regiment AI of infantry to work with Regiment AI of other friendly infantry units close by. An infantry regiment under attack by infantry should be able to ask a friendly infantry regiment (close by) to please flank the attackers. The AI makes a check to see if it would be safe to do, etc.
All of this is already existing in tacticat and regimental AI and can be partly modified via the doctrine editor.
-
Just had a great fight. Some of the problems I see are still there but really enjoyed it! I can see I am going to have a love/hate relationship with this game! ;)
I can understand... I believe a lot of code is right (99.9xxx%) but I must fix some issues...
That said, with the 3 tools and the last adjustments, it will be possible to play and have a love(99%) / hate(1%) relationship with the release ;)
I am going to continue my activity on the game to fix the last problems after releasing Les Grognards.. Just one week for rest after several years :p
My intention is to improve both the Great Tactical AI and the graphic render ;)
JMM
-
Thanks JMM!
Don't fix everything, you will have nothing to do! ;)
-
Never Moded a 3d game with .dds files but I thought I would tinker around with this one. Getting around the alpha layer may be some trouble. Voltigeurs with no cords.
(http://i46.tinypic.com/24zizab.jpg)
-
Never Moded a 3d game with .dds files but I thought I would tinker around with this one. Getting around the alpha layer may be some trouble. Voltigeurs with no cords.
(http://i46.tinypic.com/24zizab.jpg)
Excellent!
Give pompons for fusieleurs also.
I'll try to mod russian army after release. A lot of things need to change :)
-
Two more for the pot:
Ability to change the direction in which a unit is facing.
Ability to have a unit advance to a location in its current formation without having to commit to attacking an enemy unit or having it do so in march column.
Holdit
-
Two more for the pot:
Ability to change the direction in which a unit is facing.
Ability to have a unit advance to a location in its current formation without having to commit to attacking an enemy unit or having it do so in march column.
Holdit
imho, this is too much micromanagement for the scope of the game. I fear that it could become a risk in mp battles...
-
imho, this is too much micromanagement for the scope of the game.
I think that would depend on the size of scenario you're playing. If I end up buying HLG, I'll be using it to play (and design) small battles as well as large ones.
Holdit
-
Some of this is already being done, but I don't know to what extent. Some corps commanders might refuse the order while others will do whatever you request.
Does "Support a unit" not do what you want?
I think this is already being done automatically. You wouldn't see it often because the other regiment is either already busy or too far away. We'll need confirmation from JMM or the testers.
Hook
No, I have regiments very close to each other, and they don't do anything other than lend oblique fire. Regiment AI should know how to left-wheel or right-wheel a battalion to deliver flanking fire.
-
Agreed.
Chaning the facing of a line or lines is critical in battle.
-
I wish to see the imperial music guard to be added even if it s a non combatant unit. May be it can give some positive moral of all the troops nearby. All the orchestral musics should be play (for the french side) by the Imperial music band. For the other troops just fifers and drums. It can give more immersion.
-
In the game, please ensure that when LG is minimized, it AUTOMATICALLY PAUSES. The demo runs on to completion of the current action, it seems. Very annoying. ;)
-
Hey JMM, I am pretty new here and I was curious as to the idea of removing or adding some new features to the UI to increase user friendliness?
Also, regarding the situation about dead, wounded, and missing units in battle. Is it going to be possible to mod the engine slightly to show all dead sprites on the battlefield, the wounded disappear, and the missing remain hidden? I just love me some carnage in the morning. :twisted:
-
Improvement of the 2d map display to include the Regiment's formation, something like this :
(http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/4314/2dmap.th.png) (http://img97.imageshack.us/i/2dmap.png/)
1. Infantry in Line
2. Infantry in Column
3. Infantry in Square
4. Cavalry in Line
5. Caavalry in Column
6. Artillery LIMBERED
7. Artillery UNlimbered
-
Improvement of the 2d map display to include the Regiment's formation, something like this :
isn't there the other view to see those kind of things?
-
Gunner24, your new display for the 2D is a real improvement for the playability.
-
isn't there the other view to see those kind of things?
Yes, your right, there is another 2d view that shows the Battalions, I find that a bit hard to use, the formations are so tiny....my suggestion is to have the Regiments shown as per the pictures.
If it were possible it would still fit on the 2d map if the "square" were the same size as the 2d Regiments are now, the lines/columns would be wider, and more narrow, with the little line marking the direction they face so you know it's a line or column.
Just a thought.
-
Gunner24, your new display for the 2D is a real improvement for the playability.
True but i would use them only on the easyest level, because then we change this game from a napoleonic simulation into something different. uncertainty was the base of every napoleonic commander and his decisions...
-
This seems to be a great game, but the learning curve is very steep. Which is actually no problem, I have been playing all day, and am beginning to get a feel of the game. The UI is a bit awkward, though.
I really like the idea of selecting units and menus by just hovering the mouse over them (no click!), good thinking!!! But it was very, very difficult for me to learn to use the right mouse button to select units in the various list views, and then give orders with the left button, contrary to all other games. But in conjunction with the no click selection method it seems to be logically consistent, and I am beginning to get used to it, even like it.
I found out the hard way that the most important view for controlling the action is the 2d screen. Maybe you should tell the gamers this? I almost gave up on the game after trying for several hours to make things happen in the 3d view. In the tutorial and the manual you focus a lot on all the different possibilities the player has, which is okay in a manual, but not in a tutorial. The information in the manual convinced me that this game will last for a very long time, because of all these possibilities. In a tutorial I think it is more important to show me just one way of playing a simple game, then I can study the manual to get the full depth of the game.
But I still have one serious problem: The camera controls. I simply do not like to hold the right mouse button (or any mouse button) down continuously, I will just end up as a onearmed cripple. I know I can use the arrow buttons or the numpad, but they are kind of jerky on my computer. What happened to just pushing your mouse at the screen borders with no clicking, like every other game nowadays?
A minor problem is the zoom function, imho rolling the wheel backwards should take your helicopter up (like zoom out), while rolling it forwards should take it down (like zoom in). Please implement an option to customize this.
I am playing on a 1680x1050 display, so all my soldiers look like fat dwarves, not to mention the horses. But I see that this is a problem only in the demo.
I am looking very much forward to the release of the final game. Keep up the good work, JMM, and don't let any suggestions delay you. Get a working game out, and fix the problems and implement the suggestions with patches.
-
But I still have one serious problem: The camera controls. I simply do not like to hold the right mouse button (or any mouse button) down continuously, I will just end up as a onearmed cripple. I know I can use the arrow buttons or the numpad, but they are kind of jerky on my computer. What happened to just pushing your mouse at the screen borders with no clicking, like every other game nowadays?
Every time I've ever used screen edge scrolling the camera has moved when I don't want it to. I've tried to get used to it, but in the end I always end up turning it off.
The movement would be as jerky with screen edge scrolling as it is with the arrow keys. You can press the V key to toggle a smoother movement, but this is not well implemented... it's like there's too much inertia in the camera.
I'd have done some things differently myself, but it's going to be the same problem with any game. Every time I switch to another game I have to get used to the camera controls all over again.
Hook
-
Every time I switch to another game I have to get used to the camera controls all over again.
Hook
Yeah, I guess you are right, I may get used to this also, if I have to. But on the other hand, you might get used to screen edge scrolling, if you really had to. I just hope that one day game developers will agree on some kind of loose standard, hopefully the one I prefer. But it is JMMs decision, and what he decides is what we get. I sure would like screen edge scrolling as a customizable option. My brain is very versatile and tolerant, my right arm is not.
-
More of a request than a question however can we please get the 1812 Overture in the game (a version with the real cannons firing). I love this piece of music and it always seems to fit in well with this period (I have Crown of Glory Emperors Edition and its in that game and its really stirring ;). Thanks.
[EDIT by DoE] merged from seperate topic
-
Just another thought I would like to see some Track IR support for the commander view - would be very much fun with a Track IR (and would definately entice me buy the system. I know it will be way down low on the list of priorities however this would be nice one day :-)
-
Just thought of another wish - on the 2D map (on the French side) - on the default view (not the more detailed view) would it be possible to change to main command flag to show the country it represents (e.g Polish/Warsaw etc..). It will show these on individual units when deployed on a defensive line however normally it just shows all Corps showing French (and Josef Poniatowski was actually born in Venice but was summoned by his uncle to Poland so he is not in the true sense French) and makes it hard to know which Corps are French and which ones are their allies. I would appreciate your consideration. Thanks.
-
My wish for simple UI improvement to assist orientation/navigation in 3d modes:
Whenever the corps card has a tick (in the central part of the UI in 3d mode) the associated corps flag in the UI minimap identifies itself somehow (gets larger or flashes etc).
second wish (slightly less important) an x appears in the minimap in the location of the individual unit which has a tick in the units card on the Ui. (Thus the minimap would show corps flag and unit location at a glance and you would see how far seperated the unit is from its commander on the minimap).
[EDIT JMM] done
Why?:
In the 3d view if you place the cursor over the flag of a corps commander in the UI minimap the info panel tells us which corps it is. The cursor can then be moved to the appropriate corps card (helpfully aranged in numerical order) to display its component units Thus it is easy to answer the question 'What corps is in this position?' without having to move the camera to the corps location.
However,
if you want to know 'Where is corps x?' without moving the camera to its location you have to search the minimap with the cursor. It would be better if placing the cursor on the corps card caused the associated flag on the minimap to identify itself.
-
It would be nice to be able to press a single key to get an overview of your orders in all map views (instead of having to go back to the F7 menu).
I also would like to have the "Nato" style icons available for the 2D map, as below (I thought I remembered seeing these in a HW demo video a while back?):
Improvement of the 2d map display to include the Regiment's formation, something like this :
(http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/4314/2dmap.th.png) (http://img97.imageshack.us/i/2dmap.png/)
1. Infantry in Line
2. Infantry in Column
3. Infantry in Square
4. Cavalry in Line
5. Caavalry in Column
6. Artillery LIMBERED
7. Artillery UNlimbered
-
It would be nice to be able to press a single key to get an overview of your orders in all map views (instead of having to go back to the F7 menu).
F8, hover the mouse over the double chevron in the orders section of the menu. This only shows orders that have been received. Might be nice to have an additional display that shows all orders, no matter what the status. This display shows in all map views and in the 3D view as well.
I also would like to have the "Nato" style icons available for the 2D map, as below (I thought I remembered seeing these in a HW demo video a while back?)
Nato symbols are what you see in the default F2 view. Did you have something different in mind?
Gunner24's symbols to show formation would be good, but would probably need unit facing as well, and you'd lose some ability to show additional information by changing the symbol in the unit box. If you want the size and shape of the unit in formation, and the facing, press F2 a second time to get the alternate view with that information. Toggle back and forth as necessary.
When I was doing this kind of stuff for real in a brigade headquarters, we had maps with plastic covers and would either tape plastic unit symbols on the map in the correct location or mark them in grease pencil using the same symbols. No facings, no formations, just the location.
Hook
-
Right, F8- I mistyped. If a single keyboard button to quickly view could be added, it would be nice. No big deal if not.
I do see the Nato symbols in F2, but they only denote unit type, not formation. It would be nice to get an idea of what formations the corps commander is using in the intermediate FoW. I'm going to have to hunt that video down, maybe it was the Austerlitz one?
-
http://www.histwar.com/dl/videos/HW26.wmv
This video shows what I mentioned about seeing the above formation symbols in past videos. I find these far preferable to the present blocks. It seems that JMM had programed the facings in, so it would be good to have them added back at some point.
-
They are still in, just press F2 twice.
-
Pressing F2 twice yields the small icons. Different than those of the video I linked above.
-
Pressing F2 twice yields the small icons. Different than those of the video I linked above.
I think I know what you mean (that little cavalry engagement and the relations of austerlitz..) have tried everything and didn''t find it...though I seem to remember to have done it once a while ago :oops: :cry:
-
My wish for all RT type games is that they would have an option/toggle to report significant combat results similar to that in turn based games. I think if it even reported only very significant results (heavy casualties to one regiment, another regiment changes its morale level etc) it would attract many more players (players of turn based games), and could even be used for miniature gaming. Im sure the program makes a note of these things internally, but only expresses them graphically now. For extra credit, make the text go into a written history of the battle
To be clear, I am suggesting that if the option is used, a box would appear to report very significant events, and would remain visible until a key or mouse click was pressed. Im assuming the game already allows a pause and a map walk in 2d view at present. I am not suggesting that minor events (moves, formation changes, firing that results in minor casualties) in the game be included.
If it was available for HW, or if a second distinct game could be developed later, Im sure this would increase sales of the basic engine.
I started a thread called Solo miniatures? which several people have responded to, but this is actually a bigger idea than that, more like "Optional stop and tell me what the heck just happened"
-
This video shows what I mentioned about seeing the above formation symbols in past videos. I find these far preferable to the present blocks. It seems that JMM had programed the facings in, so it would be good to have them added back at some point.
Those look good. I hadn't seen that video before.
Hook
-
Those look good. I hadn't seen that video before.
Hook
Bonjour Messieurs,
Yes, I also agree .... they are more like the old LGAA regiment symbology .... ;)
Much more preferable to me than the current level 2 - F2 symbology (which shows individual squadrons & battallions, that I cannot give orders too) ..... :(
And .... it is more consistent with the current level 1 - F4 symbology .... ;)
Cordialement, DoE
-
http://www.histwar.com/dl/videos/HW26.wmv
This video shows what I mentioned about seeing the above formation symbols in past videos. I find these far preferable to the present blocks. It seems that JMM had programed the facings in, so it would be good to have them added back at some point.
I can add this last type of display... so it will be possible to get 3 modes : NATO, the old and the new pictures.
After the release.. Please, don't forget to send a message if I'll not remember :!:
JMM
-
That is a really sexy display. I don't know if it can be modified to show all the information that the NATO symbol display shows, but it should handle most of it, and if it's not replacing the NATO display, then we aren't losing anything, and we're gaining a lot.
Don't worry JMM... we'll remind you. :D
Hook
-
I remember that video now, I had forgotten it.....but that is like the "idea" I posted about having the 2d formations better shown on the 2d map.
I can add this last type of display... so it will be possible to get 3 modes
That will be a very good improvement, well worth while speeding time on.
-
Thanks, JMM. They are too good to not be in.
-
It's just occurred to me that it'd be good to be able to print off maps of battlefields from LG.
The context of that idea is that I'm just finishing Gills' Thunder on the Danube about the Eggmuhl part of the 1809 campaign. The combats are quite spread out. You'd probably used the 30 x 22km maps for the Battle of Eggmuhl, for example. Several LG maps could cover the area from Regensburg to Landschut to Abensburg but you'd run into trouble with maps edges in clumsy spots, etc etc.
Anyway, the point is, if I were mixing LG with a little of mini-campaign kriegspieling, it'd be great to be able to print off LG maps. Great materials to use when the despatches start arriving (though I suppose LG sort of does this on screen already....)
-
The 3d map shows all the units on the battlefield, even with full FoW turned on.
As it stands you can have the camera LOCKED to the CiC with full FoW turned on and see a tiny fraction of what happens on the 3d battlefield - fine if that's what you want.
The other option SHOULD be to have full FoW turned on but a full view of units your men can see, the same as on the 2d map.......this is not possible as you see all the units on the battlefield.
1
(http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/708/view1.png) (http://img706.imageshack.us/i/view1.png/)
In pic one I can not see any enemy units
2
(http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/5845/view2.png) (http://img696.imageshack.us/i/view2.png/)
The Cav move forward on recce and I can now see a few enemy units on pic 2.......but on the 3d map I can see everything. If I view the 3d map I should only be able to see the enemy units in pic 2.
Is this be design, an oversight, or a bug ?.
EDIT : What we need is a FIXED to ANY friendy unit camera, so you can only see what your friendy troops can see, with no helicopter view, but a view from ANY of your friendy units, just like the fixed to ciC view.
This way you can move from unit to unit along the fromt line a SEE what is happening.
-
Sorry, but if you could move from unit to unit to see with your own eyes what's happening in 3D, it would violate the entire design of a game like LG. Because that would be like having instand radio communication with all your units sending back 100% accurate reports on what they see. The way it is (and should be), in full FoW you see what your CinC sees. If you want more info, you have to send an aide and wait for a report, or move to that area and take a look for yourself. The time delay and movements involved in this are integral to making an accurate game here, so that the "decision cycle" is has an authentic lag to it and you're always having to make decisions now, based on information that is somewhat inaccurate and/or out of date. That's what the commanders of the era had to do.
-
Sorry, but if you could move from unit to unit to see with your own eyes what's happening in 3D, it would violate the entire design of a game like LG.
On the 2d map you will see units that your CiC can not see even when you have the camera locked onto the CiC. I'm saying you should be able to see those same units on the 3d map as well as the 2d map.
The way it is (and should be), in full FoW you see what your CinC sees.
OK, that's fine if that's what you want, but as of now that does not happen, on the 2d map you see more units than your CiC can see.
If you want more info, you have to send an aide and wait for a report, or move to that area and take a look for yourself.
You can see on the 2d map, any unit that your men can see, that's why you send out Cav on scouting missions - to spot the enemy, which will then be shown on the 2d map.
Look at the two pics above, the Russian units on pic2 are spotted by the scouting Cav, not the CiC, but you get to see them on the 2d map, so why should you not be able to see them on the 3d map ?.
If we go with what you say the ONLY units shown on the 2d map will be those DIRECTLY seen by the CiC, again, that's fine if that's what you want, but it is not the case now.
-
Can't see the pics, but when I've played full fow on patched demo2, the nme units displayed on 2d map are "non-reliable" spottings..(sort of greyed-out in colour).
I have then checked in 3d, by changing my options, and the units spotted on the 2d map are rarely in the place they appear to be.
-
units displayed on 2d map are "non-reliable" spottings
But who spotted them ?, the CiC ?, or scouting Cav ?, or advancing Inf ?.
The point is that units marked on the 2d map are not seen ONLY by the CiC when the locked camera is on him. If they were there would be no need for sending out scouts, you would have to use the CiC to scout, IF he was the only unit to be able to see anything.
In the pictures you can not see (don't know why) the first one shows NO spotted enemy units, pic 2 shows a few Russians who were spotted by scouting Cav moving forward, the CiC never moved.
-
Gunner,
I think we're actually in agreement. I agree that in 3D, one should see only what the CinC sees (not every unit in the game). But on 2D, one should see any units spotted, whether by the CinC directly or by reports from friendly units. FOW settings should make these markers more or less reliable, depending on one's preference.
-
But who spotted them ?, the CiC ?, or scouting Cav ?, or advancing Inf ?.
The point is that units marked on the 2d map are not seen ONLY by the CiC when the locked camera is on him. If they were there would be no need for sending out scouts, you would have to use the CiC to scout, IF he was the only unit to be able to see anything.
In the pictures you can not see (don't know why) the first one shows NO spotted enemy units, pic 2 shows a few Russians who were spotted by scouting Cav moving forward, the CiC never moved.
In your example you have to consider this as a drawing report. I explain : your CinC can't see over the hill, he sends a cav recon, the cav comes back with information (instead of writting or telling : we saw this or that there, they draw what they saw). Now tell me if after looking at the draw your CinC is more able to see over or through the hill ? I don't think so. He has just been told that at the indicate place the cav saw a certain amount of troops.
So, except the case of recon, all the units (friendly or ennemy) that are represented on 2D or 3D map are the one that the CinC can see (locked or unlocked).
Remember that the player is the CinC even if he is locked or not. So, if the CinC wants to see what happened in a sector, out of his sight, where some of his corps are engaged with ennemy, he must move himself to a position he can do.
Now, if the CinC see some units in 2D map and not in 3D map (or vice versa), that's abnormal.
-
Should't the 2D view show unite reported to the CinC? Surely the whole point of FOW is that CinC has to await sighting reports?
If this is not happening it is a bug in IMHO.
Those who wish to play with the kind of all encompassing views other games have is not for HSLW.
-
Now, if the CinC see some units in 2D map and not in 3D map (or vice versa), that's abnormal.
This is the problem, if you DON'T lock the view to the CiC, you can see every unit on the 3d map, but not on the 2d map.
Is this a fault, a bug, or designed and correct as intended, I don't know.
-
This is the problem, if you DON'T lock the view to the CiC, you can see every unit on the 3d map, but not on the 2d map.
Is this a fault, a bug, or designed and correct as intended, I don't know.
If we have fog of war set to display only the last known locations of friendly units on the 2D map, where should we display them on the 3D map? We can either display them where they actually are, as is currently being done, or display them in their last known locations, in which case the 3D view is a lie.
Hook
-
Good question......this is not a simple concept !.
As far as I can tell the 3d map should SHOW all formations that can be seen by the other side, in their REAL positions......so if French A can see Russian B then they are shown on the 2d map and the 3d map......the last reported position (on the 2d map) need show nothing on the 3d map, as all the 3d map should show is REAL positions of troops that can be seen by the other side.
-
Here's a crazy idea, only thinking out loud, I don't know if it's good or bad, I'm sure someone will tell me :
A split screen, the top showing the 2d map and the bottom showing the CiC 3d view !.
Or it could be a little window with the CiC 3d view in it !.....I said it was crazy.
-
Here's a crazy idea, only thinking out loud, I don't know if it's good or bad, I'm sure someone will tell me :
A split screen, the top showing the 2d map and the bottom showing the CiC 3d view !.
Or it could be a little window with the CiC 3d view in it !.....I said it was crazy.
like in Silent Hunter III the event camera?
-
One area that could be an exploit in MP is the ability to move the HQ around it's deployment area and see what the enemy dispositions are. To reproduce what I'm talking about, open any scenario, go to 2D view, drag the CinC HQ unit forward as far as possible and along that axis. You should be able to see most of the enemy placements.
If possible, it would be good to have full FoW during the setup phase. If this is too much time to code, a simple blackout of the enemy area would work. This could be a simple black jpeg that covers the opposing area until the "W" key is hit.
-
One area that could be an exploit in MP is the ability to move the HQ around it's deployment area and see what the enemy dispositions are. To reproduce what I'm talking about, open any scenario, go to 2D view, drag the CinC HQ unit forward as far as possible and along that axis. You should be able to see most of the enemy placements.
If possible, it would be good to have full FoW during the setup phase. If this is too much time to code, a simple blackout of the enemy area would work. This could be a simple black jpeg that covers the opposing area until the "W" key is hit.
I've used that a lot, because you should have a vague idea of what the enemy dispositions are, before deploying your own corps accordingly, I mean you won't see their reserves anyway as the stay far behind the line...wouldn't you say?
-
I haven't found this "recon by commander" during the setup phase to be very useful. After all, we know those guys are there already. If they've already deployed for movement, I might see which direction they're going. Full fog of war is in effect during that period, it's just that the CinC has a really long sight range.
Count von Csollich, if you've used this a lot, can you tell if the AI does their final deployment before you start the battle? I'm still trying to figure out if they deploy the moment you start the battle or if they wait until you deploy to choose their battle plan.
Hook
-
Count von Csollich, if you've used this a lot, can you tell if the AI does their final deployment before you start the battle? I'm still trying to figure out if they deploy the moment you start the battle or if they wait until you deploy to choose their battle plan.
Hook
Yeah...they were already deployed when I made this "CinC marching up and down the square :mrgreen: " I think that this is most helpfull if you play with an historical OOB because if you make out a Corps Commander during this face, or some special unit, you willl know where the hammer stroke will fall hardest and can deploy accordingly...and this doesn't change the realism because i.e. at Friedland Napoleon, after having arrived at the scene, deployed his upcoming corps very carefully in order to not give the Russians any chance to get out of this mess they had manouvered into...and he could only do this because he knew the Russians had overseen in their deployment that there was a stream running through the field cutting their army in half...
-
As far as I can tell the 3d map should SHOW all formations that can be seen by the other side, in their REAL positions......so if French A can see Russian B then they are shown on the 2d map and the 3d map......the last reported position (on the 2d map) need show nothing on the 3d map, as all the 3d map should show is REAL positions of troops that can be seen by the other side.
This a First person commander game, you are the CinC so you see what he can. If you are in a room A and someone called x in room B says to you that he sees y person in his room (case French A can see Russian B). Can you see y person ? No and if you want to, you must go to room B. It is not because a regiment or a corp commander see the ennemy that the CinC sees it too. In your example the CinC figure has no reason to exist because you can positionned him in a village behind the fifth line, you will always know the system of the ennemy as soon as one unit sees him.
-
This a First person commander game, you are the CinC so you see what he can
Yes. I get it. The 2d map is for plotted reports of seen troops, plus those the CiC can see.....the 3d view is for atucal troops seen by the CiC.
-
I embarrass myself by asking for iTunes while gaming... of course, it's there already. *rolls eyes* :)
-
The new demo is very, very good. The graphics appear cripser and much more 'rugged'. The movements look great when my forces are advancing. All in all a real improvement on the last demo.
BUT...(and this is a big but), when regiments come into contact with the enemy all the above improvements become almost wasted. Almost never is there just a simple 'firefight'. Units 'jiggle', they change formation, often more than once, they stand and watch while they are shot to pieces? In short they do just about everything not to take on the enemy. I cannot be the only one having these problems? These issues need to be spoken about, they are at the heart of the game. After all, is the assault and firefight phase not the exciting part, for most of us at least, the bit where we find out if all the hours we have spent setting up the attack has worked?
I have already bought this game, I bought it in order to support JMM and all the hard work he and his team have put in. But these firefight sequences are now so bad that I am worried if I will ever play this game! It is chaotic. All sorts of messages come up on units card like, 'marching towards the enemy' when they are backing away, or 'concentrataing', when they are entering a firefight and appear at least to have nothing to do with what is actually happening. Mis-aligned units are often hopelessly facing the wrong way while firing? The unit behavour I am seeing when in firefights are so bad that I could see an 'average' gamer actually asking for his money back!
Maybe the regimental AI is thinking too much? Perhaps regiments would be better to just line up on the nearest enemy unit and attack?
It is very important that I make it very clear that in every other way this game is fantastic! It really is. Way, way beyond anything else ever released out there (and I have played them all). But this part of the game HAS to be right! Bugs or poor gameplay anywhere else could easily be overlooked, but not here! As I said, this is at the very 'heart of the game', the bit where we zoom in and watch'.
Please JMM, sort this out. Take longer if you have to. But I really do believe that despite all the 90% which is so right, so good, this part of the game that is wrong will wreck it and sales will plumet.
-
It seems that the movements have been improved but the firefights are beginning more confusing and illogical in the demo II.
-
Doctrine editor - how about being able to select several armies at one time and make the same changes to all of these rather than one army at a time
-
Another couple of wishes. They might be already in the release version (I don't know), or have already been mentioned by someone else (I add my vote to them, if so):
- an introductory text to set the battle in context, whether historical or not; giving indications as to the theater of ops, the supposed enemy forces, the goals to reach, which terrain features to hold at all costs or to capture, etc. It would add a lot to the immersion in the game.
- an option to disable access to "options" after battle has been joined, not just for multiplayer, but also against the AI. I know myself :oops:. It would be too much of a temptation to be able to check exactly where the enemy is with just a few clicks.
-
Mentioned in another topic : Battalion Squares !.
-
Another wish : when examining the meteorological situations, I came to the conclusion that something was missing - if I am right.
In winter, it's everything or nothing
When there is snow, the rivers are frozen and are no longer an obstacle.
Because of that, it is impossible to simulate the situation at La Rothière or at the Berezina : snow but without frozen rivers (otherwise, the french engineers wouldn't have had to bother building bridges).
So we need another situation : snow without frozen rivers.
-
So we need another situation : snow without frozen rivers.
It would also be nice if it wouldn't snow the whole day in winter. You could have snow covering the ground and making movement more difficult but without it actually snowing on that day.
-
Give us the ability to select a "winter" season for terrain (which shows snow-covered ground, bare trees, etc.), and a separate selection for the weather (sun, rain, snow, fog, etc.). Than way, you could have sunny winter days, rainy ones, or foggy ones, all with snow on the ground. Also, the weather condition would determine if the lakes/rivers are frozen or not. So a map that has "winter" terrain but "fog" as the weather would have free-flowing lakes and rivers. A "winter" map with "snow" weather would have snow falling and rivers frozen.
-
I agree, Broadsword.
Excellent suggestion.
-
What I miss is a quick link (by mouse) to F8 - tactical orders. perhaps we could initiate that by moving the mouse to the top of the screen. Just a little enhancement.
-
I really wish that the battle would last as long as I want it to (in SP). Yes I know, I have already adjusted the total "possible" time on the various maps.
But still the AI is "interrupting" my battles when it is satisfied that I have "done enough".
And yes, I know there is a "CONTINUE" button. But this does not seem to work most of the time. And even when it does, it never seems to give you much extra battle time before the AI "interrupts" you again, saying you have won, to various degrees.
These "interruptions" always occur way before I have achieved the objectives that I would like to. Such as actually getting one of my Corps to that village right behind enemy lines!
Even when the enemy is in general retreat, I still want to be able to reach that far village, or run down those last few routing infantry.
It really makes me very frustrated when the AI stops the battle way before I am ready to finish!
I respectfully hope that JMM will eventually look into this.
-
It's already exist. Columns advance in open ground, deploy when close to ennemy, deliver fire, stand or not enemy fire then reform to chase or retreat or when everybody stands fire, the one who have an offensive mission try and close the range to have melee (in column or in line if too close to reform column) then the ennemy stand or not the charge and so on....
what is the program that is used to bulid this game...
-
I am a new poster to the forum.
What I would like to see in updates of the game:
1. A random map and scenario generator all rolled into one. The player could choose a timeframe, a map size, combatants (or random option based on year selected), and an option to limit the map size to a battlefield, where forces of the size of an echelon selected would dictate the map size, or a campaign option, which would simulate maneuvering over a series of days. The map terrain should be representative of the theater/opposing forces selected (e.g., Germany, Austria, Russia, etc.). I love the challenge of randomly created scenarios and I really don't have the time or inclination to design scenarios. Also, include some geographic objectives for the player (i.e., take this town, defend this area, etc.).
2. Include full British, Spanish and Prussian rosters.
I think this would make the game complete.
-
Hi swl295,
I don't know if this could interest you, but if you would life to play some new battles, here is a link to a file depot with different scenarios to download and created by some gamers (among which 2 of mine) :
http://www.guggs.de/hwlg/category.php?id=1&session=c76d7bf3bf4e7eea641826c0b0162046
Hope you'll envoy !
Regards,
:D
Théo
-
Besides the Division AI and improved GT AI a good idea would be the option to change the unit quality using the oob editor.
-
1. A random map and scenario generator all rolled into one. The player could choose a timeframe, a map size, combatants (or random option based on year selected), and an option to limit the map size to a battlefield, where forces of the size of an echelon selected would dictate the map size, or a campaign option, which would simulate maneuvering over a series of days. The map terrain should be representative of the theater/opposing forces selected (e.g., Germany, Austria, Russia, etc.). I love the challenge of randomly created scenarios and I really don't have the time or inclination to design scenarios. Also, include some geographic objectives for the player (i.e., take this town, defend this area, etc.).
(...)
+1 ! :smile: That and the option to choose different CEH for the two opponents without the need to go and delete units or corps.
Regards
-
I would like to see a full campaiign option allowing you to gane entire historical campaigns like 1805, 1809, 1812, 1813 etc. Also of course the ability to set up your own campaigns eg an 1809 campaign in which the Archduke Charles attacks north of the Danube rather than south or an 1815 war between the victorius coalition powers over Saxony, possibly dragging in the French as well,
Such a campaign system would include supply and strategic attrition. When a battle situation arises the situation could either be reselved by the campaign system or transferred to the game battlefield generated by the campaign map. I think this would give a whole new perspective on the game.
Also a future expansion to cover the French Revolutionary Wars would be nice to see eventaully.
-
As I've already stated in another thread (but my wish is so strong that I repeat it here :mrgreen:), I'd like the Regiment database to be completely editable and not hardwired in the game. Player should be able to:
- Create/edit nations
- Create/edit commanders
- Create/edit Regiments
Some "professional" wargames allow this. For example the modern naval warfare simulator Harpoon makes use of an MS Access platform and weapon Database. Modern land warfare simulators ATF and AATF also let you create/edit the available platforms.
The logical question that arises from this model is: but then how does the developer get the return on investment? There are several ways:
- Selling well-made and well-researched databases as official game extensions (most users will prefer to have an already made consistent database as the basis rather than to start editing a new one from scratch - specially the graphics).
- Engine improvements sold as new versions of the game.
Regards,
A. Grilo
-
Guns are gathered in 3 groups : 4 pounds, 8 pounds, 12 pounds.
Yes but how do you tell which is which?
-
It would be great to have more options in the first-person, locked view mode, like changing speed and interacting with aides. i guess this would mean a different movement system, just for the Leader, but it would make for a grand experience. I imagine being able to watch the dispatch riders leave and arrive. I could be dreaming. :roll:
-
I'd love the French to be able to fight the French, and Russians Russians, and so on. I know, I'm just mean.
-
Any chance of a model upgrade, slightly improve all unit models in a patch, round them off, add more polies, so they are less 'squarish' and use this textures mod (here: http://www.histwar.org/mods/file.php?id=77 (http://www.histwar.org/mods/file.php?id=77)) in the next patch if it is alright with the creator of the mod, as it is very historically accurate and professional, and I believe i make the game look so much better without slowing the game down at all and it should be used by everone as a standard part of the game.
Cheers, MB
-
I would love a withdraw from battle command which could be used by a player that admits defeat but wants to save as much of his army as he can.
-
I would love a withdraw from battle command which could be used by a player that admits defeat but wants to save as much of his army as he can.
Agreed. Currently your corps will all go into retreat mode, at which point the losing player might as well stop playing. This isn't good for multiplayer battles. I'm not sure how to handle this one.
Another useful thing would be a command to have a corps leave the field. This would be by command rather than the AI deciding it. It could also be used to pursue a fleeing enemy.
Hook
-
I would love a withdraw from battle command which could be used by a player that admits defeat but wants to save as much of his army as he can.
Yes, this is something that is needed, suggested here some time ago :
http://www.histwar.org/forum/index.php/topic,4427.0.html
-
I am just curious what plans there are....if any for an expansion. I remember hearing that a "Prussian" expansion was being considered...but talk was long ago.
-
I am just curious what plans there are....if any for an expansion. I remember hearing that a "Prussian" expansion was being considered...but talk was long ago.
Agreed. Its virtually impossible to cover 1813-15 without the Prussians.
I would also like the ability of the c-in-c to order specific formations for corps, eg MacDonald's 'hollow' square at Wagram, etc.
-
Planning:
First of all : the interface because a lot of people say that they don't like the present one..
After that, a new demo...
and next step, an add-on for the game with English (specific AI), Prussian and other countries..
During these steps, improvement of AI and graphics, implementation of last functions (Player + AI vs AI, Division AI, Brigade AI...)
JMM
-
Wow! Great planning JMM!!! Keep on your great work!!! :mrgreen:
-
Planning:
First of all : the interface because a lot of people say that they don't like the present one..
After that, a new demo...
and next step, an add-on for the game with English (specific AI), Prussian and other countries..
During these steps, improvement of AI and graphics, implementation of last functions (Player + AI vs AI, Division AI, Brigade AI...)
JMM
Seems like good planning to me :D
-
Great !
I'm looking for the Brits expansion,
May I ask JMM if you can give an approximate release date for the new expansion?
thanks a lot
Andrea
-
First of all : the interface because a lot of people say that they don't like the present one..
I like it, a lot.
After that, a new demo...
Yes, we need a new demo that shows the progress that has been made since the first one.
and next step, an add-on for the game with English (specific AI), Prussian and other countries..
Excellent, is this not more important than a new interface ?.
During these steps, improvement of AI and graphics, implementation of last functions (Player + AI vs AI, Division AI, Brigade AI...)
What a game this will be when that is all completed.
-
No date..
JMM's New Doctrine...
Never give a date ;)
JMM
-
Hmm... Not that this matters, but after the Prussians and British join there'll have to be ANOTHER new demo. Why not call them as reinforcements first. It's when they turn up at the anglophone and deutsch players will look up from their miniatures, surely...
-
I agree with Gunner24 - I would place the British and Prussians ahead of a re-vamped interface.
-
Sounds like a great expansion. I will happily buy it.
-
Sounds great! I have no problem with the interface and I would rather see the arrival of British and Prussian forces come first, but however you do it I look forward to the result.
-
I will happily buy it.
My CC is loaded and waiting to fire !.
-
and next step, an add-on for the game with English (specific AI), Prussian and other countries..
JMM
I think that you should prepare the game to be more flexible, which would open endless possibilities for the future:
1) Brigades/Regiments DB for OOB development
Make the DB open and not hardwired. The players will be then able to contribute and exchange their own OOBs.
For example the naval simulator harpoon uses MS Access as the format for the weapons and platforms DB. It is very easy to add a new vessel or weapon.
Some will say: HW-LG is an historicam sim, so why letting the player build their own DBs. I have some good arguments:
- Some battles are better modeled based on Brigades rather than Regiments as the basic unit. With an open army DB, players could easily model their armies based on Brigades.
- I'm pretty sure that not all armies and conflicts of the period in question will deserve the effort of the HW-LG team. For example the Portuguese civil war (1831-1834) saw the employment of Napoleonic tactics and weapons, and can be suitably modeled with HW-LG. I would like to be able to develop Portuguese DBs for this conflict.
- Players sometimes like to design "what if scenarios".
2) The OOB editor should be more flexible, allowing the user to copy/paste units between different OOBs. Random generation of corps should allow the user to define approximate percentages for cavalry, infantry and artillery. Finally, if option 1) above is implemented, the OOB editor should allow the user to pick-up any unit defined in any available DB file.
3) The specific tactics for each nation/army should not be hardwired. The doctrine editor should allow access to all relevant parameters, and these customizable doctrine parameters should be the mechanism to make AI behavior different.
-
Planning:
First of all : the interface because a lot of people say that they don't like the present one..
After that, a new demo...
JMM
I would recommend caution here. People initially dislike the UI simply because it is different but personally I have found that very quickly it becomes second nature and is quite powerful. Another point is that this game does not play like any other that I have seen (which is one of it's true strengths) therefore a more common UI may not work as well.
Hence it may actually be a waste of time changing the UI based upon peoples initial response upon release of the game. Maybe you should run a survey before starting any work on the UI.
What would be good is looking at the actual ease of linking orders (ie you order a corps to do A then upon completion it is to do B).
cheers
Cavalier
-
A new demo is a real priority. I have had a number of mates baulk at buying the game because they cannot get the present demo to play properly.
-
What would be good is looking at the actual ease of linking orders (ie you order a corps to do A then upon completion it is to do B).
Cavalier, this works pretty easilly already. Just give your Corp an immediate order then give it a second order with an order delay and hey presto. I usually give a 10 minute delay and it works well.
-
Cavalier, this works pretty easilly already. Just give your Corp an immediate order then give it a second order with an order delay and hey presto. I usually give a 10 minute delay and it works well.
I have no issues doing it but it is not intuitive for the new player and nor is it flexible. For example say I give an order to a corps to advance from point A to B. I work out that it takes 20 minutes for that Corps to receive and react to my order and an additional 40 minutes to move to B. Now a place a second order to get it to advance from B to C with a delay of 60 minutes so it carries out that order at the completion of my first order. Simple, yes.
Now lets say half way during the move from A to B my Corps encounters an enemy unit which it must attack and push out of the way and this takes 30 minutes. The present system is not complex enough to really take that into account and I really have to resend my orders.
-
I have no issues doing it but it is not intuitive for the new player and nor is it flexible. For example say I give an order to a corps to advance from point A to B. I work out that it takes 20 minutes for that Corps to receive and react to my order and an additional 40 minutes to move to B. Now a place a second order to get it to advance from B to C with a delay of 60 minutes so it carries out that order at the completion of my first order. Simple, yes.
Now lets say half way during the move from A to B my Corps encounters an enemy unit which it must attack and push out of the way and this takes 30 minutes. The present system is not complex enough to really take that into account and I really have to resend my orders.
That makes senses... I'll take a look to the system to change it! That said, I am no sure it will always be the good answer to the player request, but probably a best answer. Clear?
JMM
-
I would recommend caution here. People initially dislike the UI simply because it is different but personally I have found that very quickly it becomes second nature and is quite powerful.
Hence it may actually be a waste of time changing the UI based upon peoples initial response upon release of the game. Maybe you should run a survey before starting any work on the UI.
I agree with Cavalier on the UI. It needs some esthetic changes (relooking).
But not sure it needs a complete transformation.
JMM will you keep this work secret or will you make a probe on the player's opinion?
-
That makes senses... I'll take a look to the system to change it! That said, I am no sure it will always be the good answer to the player request, but probably a best answer. Clear?
JMM
The present options to have an order comence immediately, at a specific time or after a specific period of time are all excellent and IMO required. The addition of a "at completion of the previous order" option may be worth considering.
PS. The surrender option included in patch 2e(RC1) is excellent. My only comment is mayber adding a "are you sure you want to surrender - Yes or No?" message after it to reduce the chance that people do not accidentally surrender.
-
I agree with Cavalier on the UI. It needs some esthetic changes (relooking).
But not sure it needs a complete transformation.
JMM will you keep this work secret or will you make a probe on the player's opinion?
Probably there will be a test with some dozens of players.
Probably the graphics (icon, texture) will be not the final ones.
Probably a lot of players will like this new UI; it seems very efficient but I'll hear your opinion.
The present options to have an order comence immediately, at a specific time or after a specific period of time are all excellent and IMO required. The addition of a "at completion of the previous order" option may be worth considering.
The specific period of time begins after completion of the previous order...
but I understand the request...
Order A immediately begins; its duration is around 50 minutes (delay +duration to finish the order A)
Order B begins 30 minutes after completion of the previous order.
The order A spends a few time in more, for example 20 minutes...
In this case, the Order B has to begin 10 minutes after the completion of order A.
Clear?
And I can modify the rules to get this kind of control.
PS. The surrender option included in patch 2e(RC1) is excellent. My only comment is mayber adding a "are you sure you want to surrender - Yes or No?" message after it to reduce the chance that people do not accidentally surrender.
Yes...
JMM
-
Maybe it is not necessary,a history orders of CiC.
example:
10.20 send AdC to Lannes for order deploy on line
10.30 send AdC to Murat for order defend on line
11.20 go back AdC (Langeron)
etc
with this it is clear the flow of orders (at least for me).
-
I have no issues doing it but it is not intuitive for the new player and nor is it flexible. For example say I give an order to a corps to advance from point A to B. I work out that it takes 20 minutes for that Corps to receive and react to my order and an additional 40 minutes to move to B. Now place a second order to get it to advance from B to C with a delay of 60 minutes so it carries out that order at the completion of my first order. Simple, yes.
Cavalier mate, it doesn't work like that, it actually works how you want it to. When you give the initial immediate order, the Corps will act and advance, it will form defense if attacked etc.. if and when it reaches it's objective, no matter how long it takes (you don't have to work it out), it will rest for 10 minutes (I selected 10 min Order Delay) and then carry out the second order. This way it will always carry out the second Order after the first order is completed no matter how long the first order takes to execute, or what turns up on the way. Basically, 10 minute Delay means, "execute the second Order 10 minutes after you have completed the first Order, exactly what you are suggesting. :p
See my screens below 8)
-
I agree with Cavalier on the UI. It needs some esthetic changes (relooking).
But not sure it needs a complete transformation.
Have to agree with that, I would have it at the bottom of the list of things to do !!!,
AJ is the "expert" at orders linked together, I think he is right, although I don't use that feature myself - yet.
-
Cavalier mate, it doesn't work like that, it actually works how you want it to. When you give the initial immediate order, the Corps will act and advance, it will form defense if attacked etc.. if and when it reaches it's objective, no matter how long it takes (you don't have to work it out), it will rest for 10 minutes (I selected 10 min Order Delay) and then carry out the second order. This way it will always carry out the second Order after the first order is completed no matter how long the first order takes to execute, or what turns up on the way. Basically, 10 minute Delay means, "execute the second Order 10 minutes after you have completed the first Order, exactly what you are suggesting. :p
I suggest this is what some of the players want to modify as JMM said in the previous post.
If you want several corps to be synchronized, for example to arrive together on the same line after the end of the second order, you may wish to take into account the time spend for the first order.
Rather than giving the duration after reaching the first objective, you may wish to give a specific time for a corps to arrive at a place at the end of the second order. In this case, the AI will adapt the delay between the two orders depending of what your corps have encountered on the way.
Not sure to be very clear.... ;)
-
Thilio, you may need to give a specific time for an order to execute, not a delay between orders. You never know how long an order will take... the enemy makes sure of that.
Hook
-
Please add a ZOOM IN/OUT feature for the 2D map.
Especially when you are playing the larger maps the unit symbols can be way too close together and on top of each other making it difficult to virtually impossible to give orders using the 2D map. The 2D map can become near unusable at the Campaign map scale.
-
Thilio, you may need to give a specific time for an order to execute, not a delay between orders.
You're right. Back to the manual, I see that I was a bit lost with the orders linked together ;)
However, it will be interesting to have the option to adapt the delay depending on what the corps encountered.
-
Please add a ZOOM IN/OUT feature for the 2D map.
Especially when you are playing the larger maps the unit symbols can be way too close together and on top of each other making it difficult to virtually impossible to give orders using the 2D map. The 2D map can become near unusable at the Campaign map scale.
++ 1 !
-
+2
-
Thilio, you may need to give a specific time for an order to execute, not a delay between orders.
You're right. Back to the manual, I see that I was a bit lost with the orders linked together ;)
However, it will be interesting to have the option to adapt the delay depending on what the corps encountered.
How can you adapt the delay of one corps to synchronize with another corps if you can't possibly know what the delays will be for the second corps? Either give a start time for the orders (which may or may not work properly) or do a halt progression on whichever corps is too far ahead, which take effect immediately. Then give a resume progression when you're ready for them to move.
This kind of thing is no easier in the game than it would be in real life.
Hook
-
Yes, I agree. What I proposed was too complicated...
The halt/resume progression is a good option for the second corps.
-
Well, now that the arty bug is apparently solved (thanks, JMM (http://forum.thescubasite.com/happy/happy0065.gif) (http://www.thescubasite.com))... let's improve the game even more ! ;)
My present wishlist:
1. UI: A zoomable 2d map !
2. Graphics: Eradicate the "disco-dancing" officers; and improve textures (the ATI (flag ?) bug is nasty, although rare). Madrussian seems to be a genius in graphic modding. IMHO his work should be incorporated in-game.
3. Division/brigade working orders (a must, IMHO)
4. Ability to play as a Corps commander under AI orders (also a SUPER must, at least to me - and it was supposed to be in-game from the start, like the divisional orders...)
Regards
(PS: Do not misinterpret me, JMM. I LOVE this game. If I did not, I would not be constantly nagging you to make it better :mrgreen:)
(Edit: And I would not mind that the Esc key menus were fixed - another misterious bug, that aparently only I have - in 2 different computers :roll:)
-
2d zoomable map would be useful for me too
just one more thing about the "support" order, now with the last 3RC patch it clearly works fine,
I think it would be good to recognize the units that are involved in a support link... if I see that a unit
is supporting another I also want to know which one is supported
thanks JMM
-
just one more thing about the "support" order, now with the last 3RC patch it clearly works fine,
I think it would be good to recognize the units that are involved in a support link... if I see that a unit
is supporting another I also want to know which one is supported
You can see the blue link between the two units with F8 and then orders to units ;)
-
Thank you very much Thilio
-
I would love the ability to:
1. Save your army in the condition it is in at the end of a battle including lost troops (KIA/WIA and prisoners) without over-writing the original OOB.
2. A reinforce command in the OOB editior that can replace a percentage of lost troops from an army saved from a previous battle (would not put units over strength).
3. The ability to combine two saved OOBs into one.
4. The ability to split one OOB into 2 or more OOBs.
The above tools would be fatastic for those that want to run a campaign or a series of linked battles.
-
I would love the ability to:
1. Save your army in the condition it is in at the end of a battle including lost troops (KIA/WIA and prisoners) without over-writing the original OOB.
2. A reinforce command in the OOB editior that can replace a percentage of lost troops from an army saved from a previous battle (would not put units over strength).
3. The ability to combine two saved OOBs into one.
4. The ability to split one OOB into 2 or more OOBs.
The above tools would be fatastic for those that want to run a campaign or a series of linked battles.
pfiuooooooooooooooooooo... very very hard... but I understand the objective ;)
JMM
-
LOL, ok ... just that zoom in/out function on the 2D map then ;)
-
[[[before I make my wish , I have to make it clear that despite several MP games, I and many of those with whome I play are still getting our heads around the mechanics of the present game.
I also know that MP visibility is being worked on as we speak by JMM.
What isnt yet clear to me is what each of the MP players see on their screens at any one time when playing the various Fog of War settings. Further play testing is therefore required on my part and I appologise for any misunderstandings I have. Please correct me if needed]]]
I would like a new level of command for MP players who command more than one single Corps.
In effect, a new tier of command. I'll call him a Wing Commander (WC) but he could equally command the Centre or Reserve, depending on the MP Corps allocation.
This WC would, ideally, also be represented Graphically on 3D and 2D screens as well as the OOB and GIU.
All Fog of War unit Visibility and Order Delays would be related to him.
His view and command of the area of the battlefield in his zone would be more immediate but still have FOW with appropriate time delays coming from his Corp Commanders (when Conditionl and Delay settings are selected)
The Wing Commander could detatch units for souting, who would report to him first. The CiC would also retain this function and have the right to use any unit for his needs.
Unlike the present MP system, the WC's view might bear very little to that of the CiC, especially if they are on the opposite sides of the battlefield to one and other.
Players would have a more realistic picture of their part of the battlefield and be able to respond quicker, locally. On the down side, their picture of the other side of the battlefield would be much restricted, depending on the distances and terrain.
The CiC role as commander and coordinator would be elevated. He would not need to run around 'scouting' and if his presence is required on one side, the other side does not go blind.
Grog
-
Hello Grog, I like the sound of that, your right, it would fit in well for MP games, if it were a 2v2 there should be two "wing" Commanders, and 3 for a 3v3, so each player becomes more than a single Corps Commander, because he is in fact Commanding 2,3 or 4 Corps, not the one.
-
Your idea sounds like a good one for MP play. Not sure how much work it would be fore JM to implement, but it would be nice to have.
-
Fog of War settings and visibility when playing multi-player with more than one player on a side is an interesting problem. I would recommend setting FoW settings so that the information you have on friendly forces is unconditional and precise to overcome any of the weirdness outlined above.
-
I would recommend setting FoW settings so that the information you have on friendly forces is unconditional and precise to overcome any of the weirdness outlined above
I will try that today, the FOW does seem a bit strange recently, but not at all sure when it changed - if it ever did ?????.
-
I want add this to wish list, with low priority.
Let assume that french have A,B,C,D units and russians F,G,H,i
during the battle with FOW french spotted F and G and russians A and B
Is not possible to have on menu -units spotted from both in map F2? only A and B (french) and F and G for russians
This would to take a scerenshot, during battle in progress, to post on forum without danger that opponent discover important informations.
Will be more useful in future , when will be playing campaigns in progress.
-
1)Is there graphics mod like incresed batlefield smoke mod like in ntw and better musket sound? the ingame grapcics and audio is verry good just a little bit more jest would make it epic
2) Is there ai mod which makes it attack more? im playing on grognard dificulty and i seem to be able to push and win agisnt almost easily
3) MORE MAPS SCENARIo
Im very happy with this game is going would love to see further pacthes
-
1)Is there graphics mod like incresed batlefield smoke mod like in ntw and better musket sound? the ingame grapcics and audio is verry good just a little bit more jest would make it epic
2) Is there ai mod which makes it attack more? im playing on grognard dificulty and i seem to be able to push and win agisnt almost easily
3) MORE MAPS SCENARIo
Im very happy with this game is going would love to see further pacthes
Try the depot, see here: http://www.histwar.org/mods/
1)For the graphical mods, I suggest the MadRussion mods (terrain and soldiers textures) and Jacquinot mods (explosion mod)
2) The AI will be optimised in the next patch but I suggest also to try the muliplayer for the best experience
3) see the depot there are many maps scenario
-
Thanyou :shock: :shock: :shock: how can i add the scenarios its confusing some of them have save files and such
-
Thanyou :shock: :shock: :shock: how can i add the scenarios its confusing some of them have save files and such
On your histwar folder ( c:/HistWarGames/Histwar)
- Put the oob files in the "army" folder
- put the map directory in the "map" folder
- put the .sav file in the "save" folder
- put the .txt scenario in the "scenari" folder
run histwar, load a game, select your scenario and have fun ;)
-
Thankyou darsh for the help in enjoying this game!!
To Jmm thankyou so much for your hardwork keep it up mate!
maybe add a little icon or a square like the regiments in game for aides decamp so you know where they are when you send one to the CC or make a little line that shows the planned route of aides de camp so we know if it has a chance of getting captured or it will take hours or so to get their and back
I saw one thread about telescope function - I think its good idea but it is tedious but its really nice feature (thinking of that napoleon documentdrama the 2002 one clavier or sometihng seeing through a circle with balck bacground!)
aggressive ai? like hardmode ( it is already hard being in the general staff) I meant was having the ai to only calculate the loss but not the risk of being overwhlemd (if that makes sense) so the Ai will just attack and say Heheee my army was destroyed but so was his :twisted: :twisted: ( it is hard already but I get the feeling that the ai is holding back sometimes when im losing 1 or 2 corps to thier 3 and their guard just stay back) or like a murat style (not sure) eylau charge of all cavalry corps to demolish my center and then proceeds todestroy one flankis or both lol. Maybe have an event liek having all the artilry to the front but insted make ai mass all cavalry an charge!!!!
There is also an distrubing thing If you ride with the general hq sometimes napolone just go round and round and round lol :shock: I felt dizzy about 10 or so turns this also happen with arilerry and cav regiments I know that theres 2 engine at work but is there like a way somewhow make it more streamlined (sorry cant find any other word and not being too demanding so sorry)
-
Would it help if the ranks of the soldier tighter as well as the brigade formation tighter to improve the ai patfinding? such the
----____---- maybe --__--? or -------
------
to --------
--------- ?
-
:?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:
-
you know when the regiments make attack column theirs a space in between the regiments and when they walk some times it takes them ages to go forward or they keep reshuflling until the enemy is firing at them
-
Would there be a posible implementing of changable camera views whilst in battle? (solo mode) I hate missing grand Ai attack or my cunning plan executed due to general staff not moving for hours and hours in one place! they get stuck on bridges most ofthe time they stand there on the bridge or just 5 meteres near the bridge
-
Before releasing the game, a wish list ;)
JMM
I have a Christmas wish for JMM a dozen good programmers on his Team ...the ones with the green cap under his tree at Christmas !!
-
I often play the game using the 3d symbolic view, I find it very useful in order to have an immediate idea
of what's happening on the battlefield. I like the 3d symbolic view with 3d unit animation and also with "boxes"representation. I kindly ask JMM if it's possible to improve the way buldings, bridges,woods are represented in this 3d symbolic view. Is it possible to substitute this object with small 3d symbols? I would be very happy to have the 3d symblic view looking like a miniature wargaming table:
- possibly change the terrain colour to green
- introduce little 3d buildings representing hamlet, farms,bridges,
- have 3d woods
I've already worked on buidings in 3d view using 3ds max and photoshop, hope to do a similar work with the 3d symbolic view
JMM please tell me that it is possible :mrgreen:
thanks
Andrea
-
Hi I just wanted to add to the wish list.
Would like to see the ability to save an OOB at the end and have its losses calculated in the new OOB Right now the beginning scn OOB and the final OOB show no losses unless the unit was wiped out ie an artillery bat that losses all its ordinance is accounted for in the saved OOB
This would be great for a campaign game where one could use the new armies potential CEH to play another subsequent battle or a "what if" battle after an historical one.
-
Reinforcement arrival times
Although this is an exxcellan feature, there should be a more random factor in this, becaue not many times reinforcement arrived exactly on time, because of weather leader admin ete etc. And the other reason is that you know when the reinforcements arrive only in hindsight.
Leaders didnt always know
-
To carry on from Gazfuns reinforcement request, could it be possible to have reinforcements enter a battle at any point other than the lops?
ie, nbc play a GaW campaign using hexes, sometimes reinforcements could enter the battle from north, south, east or west to reflect the position of the reinforcing corp on the campaign map, this would be a very interesting addition to our campaign battles.
-
Add to the wish list in the OOB editor program taking in EiA export data. I have tested this enough now to get the right balance of troops