Regiments marching through each other

[oho_slith]

...with no penalty. No cohesion loss, no speed loss. I'm talking about unit flags (the center) getting very near to each other and with lines crossing very often. It not only kills immergence visually, it is also not at all correct regarding the outcome of manouvering decisions. That's why the AI can beat you easily, because it doesn't have to care at all about manouvering big masses of troops trying not to create a chaos.
Your AI (enemy and subordinate) is creating a chaos (more often than in Gettysburgh I would say) and it's not being punished for that.
I don't have the hope, that even modding AI with using thighter formations like columns of division, which where established to prevent this chaos, will prevent it in this game.
There must be routine established to stop a unit which is too near to a friendly unit.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: oho

...with no penalty. No cohesion loss, no speed loss. I'm talking about unit flags (the center) getting very near to each other and with lines crossing very often. It not only kills immergence visually, it is also not at all correct regarding the outcome of manouvering decisions. That's why the AI can beat you easily, because it doesn't have to care at all about manouvering big masses of troops trying not to create a chaos.
Your AI (enemy and subordinate) is creating a chaos (more often than in Gettysburgh I would say) and it's not being punished for that.
I don't have the hope, that even modding AI with using thighter formations like columns of division, which where established to prevent this chaos, will prevent it in this game.
There must be routine established to stop a unit which is too near to a friendly unit.

It's been that way since 2nd Manassas. We've learned to accept it. Too many people are looking for a politically correct game here and it's never been that way. Just learn to accept what you got and enjoy the great games Norbsoft makes.

I'm just happy they move at all and thousands of them on the map at the same time. Too many nit pick about this does this or that does that. If the ai beats you because of that then you need some strategic study and tactics school. [:'(]

[oho_slith]

screenshot

[oho_slith]

I think it wasn't THAT bad in the older games. I enjoyed them more.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: oho

I think it wasn't THAT bad in the older games. I enjoyed them more.

Well, this time I believe it's because their are more men in the line than before also. it's going to look bigger and more prominent. I don't have an issue with it myself I've seen it so many times. I love this engine. [:)]

[oho_slith]

The number of men is not the problem. As you see the flags (i.e. the center) are very close together.

[e_barkmann]

if you are micro managing at this level and also worried about a time based visual anomaly can I respectfully suggest this is not the game for you.

What the game does is model command decisions.

You need to assimilate combat outcomes on a scenario level - was the outcome of the scenario realistic for the decisions made?

If yes, then cool!

If OMG then wait for teh Waterloo simulator (TM)

I'd like to see some comments from players who attempt divisional/corps engagements; this is where the game really shines - working out when to Take Charge and when (more realistically) to leave the micro decisions to the officers at the pointy ends (via tac ai) and worry more about the bigger picture. This approach works a treat in multiplayer.



cheers

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant
...if you are micro managing at this level and also worried about a time based visual anomaly...

You've mentioned "visual anomalies" a couple of times now; I don't have the game but I'm not sure that I understand how units walking through each other is a "visual anomaly"?

I'm certainly not an expert on Napoleonic warfare, but I would think that the ability to deploy and direct formations correctly would be sort of a key skill set; if its not relevant in this game, and you can just ram one unit through another willy-nilly with no ill effects, what exactly is this game supposed to reflect?

[aaatoysandmore]

Command decisions 76mm....why do you think they called it TAKE COMMAND in the beginning? It's not about having to be perfect in the maneuvers and the way they look but that the overall outcome is pretty near the same without your input. Have you not ever sat back and took an artillery detachment and just watched the battle unfold? (Not this game but like 2nd Manassas and Gettysburg and civil war series).

You're there only to command....not get upset because your officer doesn't know how to wheel guys left or wheel guys right perfectly. It just never was meant to be that kind of game.

Just learn to send out orders and let the ai do the rest. Even with the funny looks I guarantee you that the results will be close to the same as if they had perfectly maneuvered on your screen.

The combat results are with the facing of your flag not your units. If the flag is facing forward but your units are still in some funny looking wheel or swirl or whathave you. The combat results work on that flag facing. Don't try to microscopic it as it never was meant to be THAT realistic.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant

if you are micro managing at this level and also worried about a time based visual anomaly can I respectfully suggest this is not the game for you.

What the game does is model command decisions.

You need to assimilate combat outcomes on a scenario level - was the outcome of the scenario realistic for the decisions made?

If yes, then cool!

If OMG then wait for teh Waterloo simulator (TM)

I'd like to see some comments from players who attempt divisional/corps engagements; this is where the game really shines - working out when to Take Charge and when (more realistically) to leave the micro decisions to the officers at the pointy ends (via tac ai) and worry more about the bigger picture. This approach works a treat in multiplayer.



cheers

A number of games have succeeded in displaying bodies of troops moving in a reasonably accurate facsimile of ancient and 19th century warfare. Are you arguing that SoW is exempt from any such requirement because it is a strategic simulation and not a tactical representation of battle in that period?

If this is true then:
1. Why does the marketing blurb claim ' Waterloo offers a lot more realism than any similar title on the market, having historical unit names, weapons, formations etc.'. The conga line is NOT a historical formation.
2. Why bother to create uniforms and grass? All that is needed is blue bricks and red bricks to represent the various units - as with Battleplan ACW.

Even the relatively lightweight Ultimate General: Gettysburg does a better job with the unit movements in line and column. Total War does an excellent job with the graphical side as well.

It really baffles me that people are still trying the argue the case for this failure to fix an obvious problem so many years after it first appeared.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant

if you are micro managing at this level and also worried about a time based visual anomaly can I respectfully suggest this is not the game for you.

What the game does is model command decisions.

You need to assimilate combat outcomes on a scenario level - was the outcome of the scenario realistic for the decisions made?

If yes, then cool!

If OMG then wait for teh Waterloo simulator (TM)

I'd like to see some comments from players who attempt divisional/corps engagements; this is where the game really shines - working out when to Take Charge and when (more realistically) to leave the micro decisions to the officers at the pointy ends (via tac ai) and worry more about the bigger picture. This approach works a treat in multiplayer.



cheers

A number of games have succeeded in displaying bodies of troops moving in a reasonably accurate facsimile of ancient and 19th century warfare. Are you arguing that SoW is exempt from any such requirement because it is a strategic simulation and not a tactical representation of battle in that period?

If this is true then:
1. Why does the marketing blurb claim ' Waterloo offers a lot more realism than any similar title on the market, having historical unit names, weapons, formations etc.'. The conga line is NOT a historical formation.
2. Why bother to create uniforms and grass? All that is needed is blue bricks and red bricks to represent the various units - as with Battleplan ACW.

Even the relatively lightweight Ultimate General: Gettysburg does a better job with the unit movements in line and column. Total War does an excellent job with the graphical side as well.

It really baffles me that people are still trying the argue the case for this failure to fix an obvious problem so many years after it first appeared.

How many of them DO IT ON THEIR OWN with no player input whatsoever?

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant

if you are micro managing at this level and also worried about a time based visual anomaly can I respectfully suggest this is not the game for you.

What the game does is model command decisions.

You need to assimilate combat outcomes on a scenario level - was the outcome of the scenario realistic for the decisions made?

If yes, then cool!

If OMG then wait for teh Waterloo simulator (TM)

I'd like to see some comments from players who attempt divisional/corps engagements; this is where the game really shines - working out when to Take Charge and when (more realistically) to leave the micro decisions to the officers at the pointy ends (via tac ai) and worry more about the bigger picture. This approach works a treat in multiplayer.



cheers

A number of games have succeeded in displaying bodies of troops moving in a reasonably accurate facsimile of ancient and 19th century warfare. Are you arguing that SoW is exempt from any such requirement because it is a strategic simulation and not a tactical representation of battle in that period?

If this is true then:
1. Why does the marketing blurb claim ' Waterloo offers a lot more realism than any similar title on the market, having historical unit names, weapons, formations etc.'. The conga line is NOT a historical formation.
2. Why bother to create uniforms and grass? All that is needed is blue bricks and red bricks to represent the various units - as with Battleplan ACW.

Even the relatively lightweight Ultimate General: Gettysburg does a better job with the unit movements in line and column. Total War does an excellent job with the graphical side as well.

It really baffles me that people are still trying the argue the case for this failure to fix an obvious problem so many years after it first appeared.

How many of them DO IT ON THEIR OWN with no player input whatsoever?

They almost all do - on the AI side. Not 100% of the time, but most of the time. Certainly WAY better than SoW:

- Total War for the past decade
- Ultimate General
- Battleplan
- Imperial Glory

I have never seen a conga line or the kind of spider's web we get in SoW in any other game. And I own a lot of games...

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4




A number of games have succeeded in displaying bodies of troops moving in a reasonably accurate facsimile of ancient and 19th century warfare. Are you arguing that SoW is exempt from any such requirement because it is a strategic simulation and not a tactical representation of battle in that period?

If this is true then:
1. Why does the marketing blurb claim ' Waterloo offers a lot more realism than any similar title on the market, having historical unit names, weapons, formations etc.'. The conga line is NOT a historical formation.
2. Why bother to create uniforms and grass? All that is needed is blue bricks and red bricks to represent the various units - as with Battleplan ACW.

Even the relatively lightweight Ultimate General: Gettysburg does a better job with the unit movements in line and column. Total War does an excellent job with the graphical side as well.

It really baffles me that people are still trying the argue the case for this failure to fix an obvious problem so many years after it first appeared.

How many of them DO IT ON THEIR OWN with no player input whatsoever?

They almost all do - on the AI side. Not 100% of the time, but most of the time. Certainly WAY better than SoW:

- Total War for the past decade
- Ultimate General
- Battleplan
- Imperial Glory

I have never seen a conga line or the kind of spider's web we get in SoW in any other game. And I own a lot of games...

I'm talking about BOTH sides....I know the opponent ai has always moved and not always in cohesion. You shouldn't have listed Total War game that's a laugh in and of itself.[:D]

Norb makes the better game of all of them you listed. Always will. [:)]

[Redmarkus5]

I listed games in which the graphical element works well. I'm sure you understand that really, but you clearly prefer point scoring and defending SoW at all costs to any kind of rational discussion.

I'm afraid that you're not doing Norb any favours. He'd be better off fixing the problem.

Total War might be total crap, but it sells the hell out of SoW. I wonder why?

[aaatoysandmore]

Total War might be total crap, but it sells the hell out of SoW. I wonder why?

It's backed by SEGA that's why. [:D] Activision DUMPED CA in case you didn't know. They saw how bad the model was becoming after RTW.

[oho_slith]

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant

if you are micro managing at this level and also worried about a time based visual anomaly can I respectfully suggest this is not the game for you.

What the game does is model command decisions.

You need to assimilate combat outcomes on a scenario level - was the outcome of the scenario realistic for the decisions made?

If yes, then cool!

If OMG then wait for teh Waterloo simulator (TM)

I'd like to see some comments from players who attempt divisional/corps engagements; this is where the game really shines - working out when to Take Charge and when (more realistically) to leave the micro decisions to the officers at the pointy ends (via tac ai) and worry more about the bigger picture. This approach works a treat in multiplayer.



cheers

I'd like to see some comments from players who attempt divisional/corps engagements; this is where the game really shines - working out when to Take Charge and when (more realistically) to leave the micro decisions to the officers at the pointy ends (via tac ai) and worry more about the bigger picture. This approach works a treat in multiplayer.

Very funny: I wasn't micromanaging at all when I took the screenshots. It was only a sandbox game and letting the AI attack and defend.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
It's not about having to be perfect in the maneuvers and the way they look but that the overall outcome is pretty near the same without your input. Have you not ever sat back and took an artillery detachment and just watched the battle unfold?...

You're there only to command....not get upset because your officer doesn't know how to wheel guys left or wheel guys right perfectly. It just never was meant to be that kind of game.

Let's be clear--no one is talking about having "perfect" maneuvers--just not some of the ridiculous formations I've seen posted on this forum. That's great if you like games in which you issue orders and then your units execute some sort of pirouettes and then cut backwards and then voila you win (or lose, or whatever) but it doesn't sound interesting in the least to me.

I'm still hoping to have someone seriously explain why this game is fun, and you're certainly not helping. I searched as Chris Merchant suggested and found exactly zippo pertaining to this game.

[pjsynnott]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
Total War might be total crap, but it sells the hell out of SoW. I wonder why?

That's easy. Sexy graphics, instant gratification, quick battle resolution...

Not so good if you're really looking to model Napoleonic warfare though. The thing is, most people aren't. They're just happy to kid themselves that they are.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: psynnott

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
Total War might be total crap, but it sells the hell out of SoW. I wonder why?

That's easy. Sexy graphics, instant gratification, quick battle resolution...

Not so good if you're really looking to model Napoleonic warfare though. The thing is, most people aren't. They're just happy to kid themselves that they are.

You left out millions of dollars budget too. [:'(]

[thewood1]

I saw someone mention Ultimate general...they had and continue to have issues with units crashing into each other. btw, they also don't represent 1:1 on the battlefield. I love UG, but lets not look at it with rose-colored glasses.