Longer Detailed battles

[Cyrano~]

Anyone else noticing longer detailed battles (1.2.18) with the new casualty rates?
Battles (haven't timed them) take longer now as units seem to take longer to rout because of the new casualty rates. No big deal, just got used to the 1.2.16 times. But I also noticed that in some battles they can't end. Both sides never rout and battles go on endlessly. Anyone else experience this?

[canuck64]

Cyrano

noticed some of the same thing-esp. for the outset of 1792 campaign on 'normal'. I was getting piles of protectorate troops for all sides, and was able to tweak economies to crazy upgrades and troop levels.

That said, there are two upgrades now crucial to winning battles, the bayonet attack (for infantry) and the cavalry training...these modify your charges for each-respectively.

Also makes getting more artillery in there more crucial than ever. I suspect we've been spoiled a little prior to this patch. Now detailed battles (especially attacker) are hard, hard work to gain the edge.

But I'm not noticing UNENDING battles. Just lengthier ones. And harder ones.

[ericbabe]

I've only played a few battles myself with the new rules and did notice that they do take a bit longer, but haven't had any "unending" battles yet. We could increase the morale damage of attacks to adjust for this -- may also increase damages at range 1. We're very much interested in further feedback on this topic.

[carburo]

I have noticed it too. But I like it better now. Battles were too easy in the previous versions, and results were unrealistically lopsided in favor of the human player. I regularly had battles where I had fewer than 500 casualties, while the AI lost more than 20k. Now I still usually win, but it costs me more, and –I haven’t tried yet– I think it’s going to be harder to win when significantly outnumbered. I like everything that gives the defender and edge; it makes for more balanced and harder games.

I agree with Canuk, we’ll have to re-examine our upgrade priorities. Mobility will become more important too, as now you’ll have more time to maneuver before one of the armies run for the exit.

With the new rules, you can’t anymore win fast by simply putting three arty units in line and blasting everything away with a salvo. It takes more time, but if you maneuver to create local superiority and attack with several units you can still rout them. If you simply form a line and exchange fire attacks one-on- one it’s going to take forever to win or lose, maneuvering is more important now.

[carburo]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I've only played a few battles myself with the new rules and did notice that they do take a bit longer, but haven't had any "unending" battles yet. We could increase the morale damage of attacks to adjust for this -- may also increase damages at range 1. We're very much interested in further feedback on this topic.

Please don't change it. It's a lot more interesting now. Maneuvering has become more important than simply having two more artilleries in the line-up.

[canuck64]

I'm with Carburo on this one. Attacking now requires a LOT of planning and implementation, as well as a decisive outnumbering. Gone are the days of extremely lopsided wins-as it should be.

And I think that Napoleon's greatest virtue was re-implementing maneuver warfare-something the latest 'leveling' of combat results forces us to do.

[Russian Guard]

RL has kept me from being able to test out 1.2.18 as much as I'd prefer, but I did fight my first detailed battle with the new rules, last night.

Indeed, I was at first quite miffed that my usual tactics no longer worked, but as the battle wore on - and yes, it was much longer - I realized that maneuvering to gain superiority over a portion of the enemy line was critical to cuasing a cascade of disordered enemy units.

Also, casualties were much more even, even though I utlimately won the battle.

My early assessment is that the new rules are superior to previous.

[Cyrano~]

I too feel it's better now. I did play two battle that would not end though. It was against opponents with mostly cavalry , after getting hurt they ran to one corner of the map and would not rout even after repeated yet relatively small loses. It was a with the new version but on a previous version saved game. Don't know if it matters.

[carburo]

Cyrano,

I’d recommend trying to pin the enemy units (putting one of yours face-to-face against them) and then fire at/charge them from the flank/rear. As I said before, you need to maneuver and achieve local superiority to do this, but if they are pinned they won’t be able to run before they are disordered/routed.

Battles have gained a lot with the new rules, cheap tactics are not working as they use to.

[Cyrano~]

Carburo,

I didn't feel it necessary to go into the details of these battles. For the record I didn't use "cheap tactics" and I had them cooked and pinned etc...[;)] I let the AI finnish the battles and they never ended.

[carburo]

I wasn't trying to insult you with the cheap tactics thing; I apologize if you felt it that way. I was referring to the "cheap tactics" we all tended to use, simply because they were very effective; like having artillery-dominated armies and luring the AI to parade in front of our static lines.

BTW, I only allow the AI to finish the battles for me once I get the "X have sounded the retreat" message. Otherwise you expose yourself to some "less-than-optimum" results.

[Erik Rutins]

FWIW, I also like the new updated battle system better than the previous one, glad to hear others are enjoying it as well.

[Cyrano~]

No worries Carburo I didn't feel insulted, I just wanted to make it clear that I had the AI on the ropes. I also usually never let the AI take over until I get that message as well. In these two cases I don't remember If I got it or not. I think I got the "waiver" message. I just remember that I couldn't get that cavalry to rout and the battle kept going on and on....even when the AI took over.

[Russian Guard]

Definitely different...and again, better, IMO.

I'm playing Austria 1805 (1.2.18), and although I defeated the French the first time they hit Vienna, I had them out-numbered 3 to 2 and it was a tough fight.

Then, the French stopped attacking Vienna and instead laid siege to surrounding provinces. I did what I would normally do with 1.2.17 - I split up the Austrian Army and hit 2 separate French Armies at slightly less than 1 to 1 odds in each battle...and proceeded to LOSE both battles.

That's new. Normally I just about cannot be beaten by the AI if the numbers are even close.

Much better - much more challenging.