Initiative ?

[Franciscus]

Up until now I have never changed the default levels of initiative and offensive/defensive behaviors of the units. Now I started to think a bit about them

I assumed that high levels of initiative would mean increased "recklessness", but is it really ?. Another interpretation that the manual implies is an increased "reactivity" of the units versus the enemy.
What does increased reactivity really means, especially in defense, and if the behavior is also defensive ? Could it be an increased level of self-protection (ie, lower threshold to retreat or to call for support) ?

The main reason for my doubts is a continuing in-satisfaction with arty. Huge improvements have been made with the latest 2eRC3 patch, but even so the arty level losses seem always huge, and more often than not unsupported arty units (maybe more the horse arty) do not retreat in time when attacked by arty. Of course, a bit (or a lot  ) of micromanagement can help, but I am trying to see if the intrinsic AI of the units could be made better.

Could it be that putting arty in "high initiative" and "defensive" behavior would increase their level of self-preservation ?

Your thoughts and inputs are welcome ?

[Gunner24]

but even so the arty level losses seem always huge

There was a lot of discussion about this a long time ago, and Hook told us it was all correct, but I agree with you, I have always thought the artillery looses were far to high, but then again it is very hard to find any figures about the amount of cannons lost in Napoleonic battles, so it's far from clear if they are too high or not.

[Hook]

I agree that artillery losses are high.  Probably higher than what was experienced historically.  I suspect this is caused by the aggressiveness of the artillery. 

I recall reading only one historical instance of artillery being as aggressive as it usually is in the game.  The CinC saw a horse artillery unit moving toward enemy lines and at first thought they were deserting to the other side.  Then they set up and began pounding the enemy to very good effect.  This delighted the commander who wished all his artillery was like that.

Well, now we have all artillery like that and we're seeing the results.  Perhaps the artillery should withdraw when threats get too close, perhaps it wants to but can't.  If I had full control over the way my artillery acted, I'd be much more conservative with them.  In that case I'd probably lose to a commander who used his artillery more aggressively. 

The best use of artillery I ever saw was in a replay CBR sent me many months ago.  Each corps had 4 artillery units in front, and he manually halted the corps for artillery fire before attacking.  It was quite effective, and some of his replays looked more like modern tank battles than what we're used to seeing in Napoleonic battles.   

I think the game accurately portrays what happens when both sides use their artillery aggressively.  Are the artillery too aggressive?  They probably are, but you'd probably find they're also much more effective that way, even if the game portrays more artillery losses than would be indicated by the number of cannons destroyed.  The actual permanent losses are less than the game displays.

Hook

[Franciscus]

Ok, but what about the "initiative" parameter ...?

[JMM]

Please, wait for a future short note about the initiative.
This parameter is very important. Without initiative, the unit doesn't take any initiative.
The doctrine is very important too.
The gameplay may be very different with different setup...

JMM

[Franciscus]

Thanks JMM, I will be waiting with much interest !