Some Questions that I have also

[abarlow17]

I have been looking at this game and it looks very promising. I have done tabletop minatures for a long time (and still have two ancient armies painted). I have played the demo for Alexander as suggested and here are my questions.
1. I noticed in Alexander that I could not march my troops in one line. They always ended up being staggered. Is this different in Caesar ?
2. I noticed that when one of my units got attacked from behind in the second phase that after that attack they did not face there enemy. They were not engaged by any other units at this time. I would be sure that after the first attack that they would turn to the enemy attacking them head on. I have seen this work with AI but not with my own troops. Do I have to waste a complete next turn turning to face the enemy and not being able to attack for another turn.
3. I noticed a fault with the enemy AI's fall back logic. Here is an example.
I had one a friendly stand to the west of the enemy and to the south. The enemy was attacked from the south friendly and it took casulties and retreated. Here is the strange part. It then moves south west. I was like what the hell. It then tied my two units up trying to turn to face it again where as it should have reteated at least directly away from the attack (like north) or preferably north east (away from all enemies). Now obviously it will always take the path of least resistance.

Could someone please let me know if these issues have been delt with in Caesar as I am still interested however these items above have put doubt in my mind. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Austin Barlow

[Deride]

ORIGINAL: abarlow17
1. I noticed in Alexander that I could not march my troops in one line. They always ended up being staggered. Is this different in Caesar ?

The basic game rules are the same, so movement is the same. I don't know the specifics of what you are concerned about here.

ORIGINAL: abarlow17
2. I noticed that when one of my units got attacked from behind in the second phase that after that attack they did not face there enemy. They were not engaged by any other units at this time. I would be sure that after the first attack that they would turn to the enemy attacking them head on. I have seen this work with AI but not with my own troops. Do I have to waste a complete next turn turning to face the enemy and not being able to attack for another turn.

Facing is not automatic -- it is THE most important aspect of the game. If you are attacked from behind, I suggest you change facing, retreat or move out of the way.

ORIGINAL: abarlow17
3. I noticed a fault with the enemy AI's fall back logic. Here is an example.
I had one a friendly stand to the west of the enemy and to the south. The enemy was attacked from the south friendly and it took casulties and retreated. Here is the strange part. It then moves south west. I was like what the hell. It then tied my two units up trying to turn to face it again where as it should have reteated at least directly away from the attack (like north) or preferably north east (away from all enemies). Now obviously it will always take the path of least resistance.

'Fallback' logic really deals with 2 potential issues: being pushed back after a battle loss or choosing to retreat. In the first case (which it sounds like you are describing) the unit will be pushed away from the attacker -- unless it can not move that way, in which case the system follows some simple rules to determine where to put the unit. If you can describe your exact situation in more detail, I can probably describe what exactly happened.

ORIGINAL: abarlow17
Could someone please let me know if these issues have been delt with in Caesar as I am still interested however these items above have put doubt in my mind. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Caesar is very similar to Alexander in many ways -- it has the same movement system, the rules are pretty much the same and the combat engine is very similar. However, there are some substantial differences: 1) the 3D graphics engine is a generation ahead of Alexander, 2) the AI was completely overhauled and 3) changes were made to the battle to accomodate Roman style (vs. Macedonian) fighting.

Deride

[abarlow17]

1. What I was refering to as far as movement is concerned is that I cannot move my troops in a line ( to give an example I cannot line my infantry up left to right closely and move them up to contact the enemy). I always end up with a stagered line (e.g their facing is always 45 degrees to the left or right and never straight up which causes no end of issues. This is what I am trying to clarify.You can have them in a kind of line however they are spaced wider apart and therefore are likely to run into mutiple enemy when moving straight foward so you almost always need to move 45' left or right to get you units in a tight line where they cannot be attack by more than one enemy unit unless on the flanks.
2. Do you really think that if a unit got attacked from the side/rear whilst not being in direct combat would not move and just keep taking hits in the rear. I personally feel this is just not what would happen. I could see three possibilities dependant on morale of the unit. If morale was high then the unit will turn and fight the attacker after that first combat. If morale was low then the unit would immediately try to retreat away from the attack or if morale was really low then it may break the unit and cause a rout. Believe me the solders in the side/back of the unit that got attacked will not stay facing away from the enemy for more than one turn. This is how its always been with other wargaming rules and I cannot understand why it takes a complete turn just to turn. As it so happened in the demo I was playing the unit that did the retreating the wrong way was the unit that ended up attacking one of my other units in the side/rear.
3. I totally agree with your fallback logic however this was not what happened. Example

1 * ___ at the start
__2
1 ___ at the end
* 2
As you can see my units are number 1 and 2 and the * is the enemy unit. Unit # 1 was facing east and had orders to attack the enemy in contact to the east. Unit # 2 was facing north and also had orders to attack the enemy in contact to the north. The enemy unit (*) was facing south. My Unit #2 attacked first and cause the enemy unit to "fallback" I guess however it ended up in the position listed about facing south east. Suddenly my unit to the South and West could no longer attack next round without turning. This is what should have happened in my opinion

____* at the end
1
__2

(I had to Use the lines to get everything to line up correctly)

I hope this clears up what I am talking about. I also dont understand why my unit # 1 did not get an attack. Both units should have been classed as attacking at the same time and therefore I should have done more damage since I have a unit on the enemy units (*) flank but instead he never got to fight at all. It was basically was waste getting him into that position.

Thanks for clearing up the differences and maybe the above has been fixed with the AI for instance however my biggest concern is with the movement and not being able to move my units in a compact line.

I would appreciate your comments. Thanks

Austin

[Deride]

ORIGINAL: abarlow17
1. What I was refering to as far as movement is concerned is that I cannot move my troops in a line ( to give an example I cannot line my infantry up left to right closely and move them up to contact the enemy).

I'm not sure why this is a problem. All infantry, if lined up and facing the same direction, should have the same movement rules. Are you starting with them facing the same way?

ORIGINAL: abarlow17
2. Do you really think that if a unit got attacked from the side/rear whilst not being in direct combat would not move and just keep taking hits in the rear. I personally feel this is just not what would happen.

Typically, if being attacked from the rear, your unit will get routed or at least get pushed back. The idea is that they won't 'sit and take it' but that they will actually flee from being so trounced. If they are trapped, however, they may have no choice.

ORIGINAL: abarlow17
3. I totally agree with your fallback logic however this was not what happened. Example

1 * ___ at the start
__2
1 ___ at the end
* 2

As you can see my units are number 1 and 2 and the * is the enemy unit. Unit # 1 was facing east and had orders to attack the enemy in contact to the east. Unit # 2 was facing north and also had orders to attack the enemy in contact to the north. The enemy unit (*) was facing south. My Unit #2 attacked first and cause the enemy unit to "fallback" I guess however it ended up in the position listed about facing south east. Suddenly my unit to the South and West could no longer attack next round without turning. This is what should have happened in my opinion

____* at the end
1
__2

(I had to Use the lines to get everything to line up correctly)

I hope this clears up what I am talking about. I also dont understand why my unit # 1 did not get an attack. Both units should have been classed as attacking at the same time and therefore I should have done more damage since I have a unit on the enemy units (*) flank but instead he never got to fight at all. It was basically was waste getting him into that position.

I think I understand your example. First, if you get a pushback, you will typically be 'rewarded' with a reaction or reserve order -- giving you a 'free' facing command. In this case, the attacking unit should be able to turn and face the enemy for more pounding. Second, if you attack an empty space, you get a chance at a free reaction or reserve order. This should help alleviate 'wasting' a turn to change facing.

Deride