What's your game?

[MarkShot]

Once your AI commanders/units are in contact with the enemy, you can forget about exercising fine control. They will do as they see fit. At best, at the regiment level you can nudge a unit to flank or make contact. When you force AI commanders to have their units engaged, then they pretty much will fight regardless of what their original inclination was.

So, the only way to really get fine control when the enemy is in sight and close is to TC. Of course, too much of that in a big fight can get you blind sided pretty quickly. So, it is usually best in a big fight to use TC to address such issues as setting initial frontages, positioning the axis of attack, timing the commitment of forces, ... And very importantly putting order back into your forces when you have been successful in a round of battle. Without TC, your AI subordinates will take a victory and piss it away by pursuing the enemy in a helter skelter fashion across the map. (Unlike RDOA/HTTR/COTA, engagement mechanics tend to be a lot less location oriented and much more contact/pursuit oriented.) Using TC, you can call your commanders back and force them to regroup and regain cohesion.

Another key observation in terms of OP play is that the AI is maneuverist and not an attritionist. The AI always attempts to flank and pursue an enemy attempting to withdraw. This is how it fights. It does not measure the relative attrition rate and ask: Which end of the stick do I have? Can I sustain contact at the current attrition rate? How much of a force advantage do I need to compensate for my higher attrition rate and how quickly do I have to move against the enemy before that advantage is reduced?

In CWBR, TC control with unit placements in elevated tree lines with close cannon support would completely maul the AI.

Recently I have been experimenting with the following in TC2M in open fields ... Given: Ranged cannon fire lethality has been vastly reduced; close proximity cannon fire lethality has been greatly increased; the AI still positions its cannons for ranged fire. Assemble your cannon on a hill - TC them. Micromanaged (TC) brigades in double line formations below the cannon within a 100yds. You want to achieve small frontage with defense in depth. Small frontage limits the enemy's ability to take advantage of superior numbers, since there are only so many units which he can bring to engage simultaneously due to blocked LOS. Don't let your troops advance. Their only purpose is to fix the enemy (keeping him close) and protect the cannon. The cannon with their cannister and double cannister will totally shred the enemy and achieve a horrifying attrition rate.

Is the above realistic or gamey? Who knows. I just like to explore systems and observe their mechanics.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Wow Mark, have to try what you said. Thanks.

Have a question though. You said:

You want to achieve small frontage with defense in depth. Small frontage limits the enemy's ability to take advantage of superior numbers, since there are only so many units which he can bring to engage simultaneously due to blocked LOS.

Unless there are terrain restrictions on the flanks of my own forces, the AI will try to flank my troops. Could you explain how to achieve this?


Also, I want to add a nugget to the following:

Once your AI commanders/units are in contact with the enemy, you can forget about exercising fine control. They will do as they see fit. At best, at the regiment level you can nudge a unit to flank or make contact. When you force AI commanders to have their units engaged, then they pretty much will fight regardless of what their original inclination was.

Loosing control of your own forces maybe not an unrealistic thing, specially in the age of linear warfare. I know this is a 100 years off mark comment, but the oblique order for battle perfected by Frederick the Great was just a way to avoid commiting all the army to battle at once yet keeping the enemy checked into position.

[MarkShot]

As long as your cannon are elevated relative to 360 degrees, flanking is irrelevant. Just encircle your cannon.

A nice thing about this approach is that with a very small force foot print, micro-management and command influence become much easier to achieve despite the high number of TC'ed units.

If that is not the case, then use your excess force to protect the flanks. But remember that if you are fighting on the flanks and not in front of your cannon, then you have failed to implement this properly.

[MarkShot]

This is a little bit of a martial arts approach. When the master fights 100 attackers, he does not really engage 100 attackers at once ... rather he engages perhaps 3 or 4 simultaneously since that is the limit that may actually approach at any instant. In this scenario, your cannon represent the overwhelming "Chi" that the master wields.

[Crimguy]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

So, the only way to really get fine control when the enemy is in sight and close is to TC. Of course, too much of that in a big fight can get you blind sided pretty quickly. So, it is usually best in a big fight to use TC to address such issues as setting initial frontages, positioning the axis of attack, timing the commitment of forces, ... And very importantly putting order back into your forces when you have been successful in a round of battle. Without TC, your AI subordinates will take a victory and piss it away by pursuing the enemy in a helter skelter fashion across the map. (Unlike RDOA/HTTR/COTA, engagement mechanics tend to be a lot less location oriented and much more contact/pursuit oriented.) Using TC, you can call your commanders back and force them to regroup and regain cohesion.

Very true. Tried AP Hill last night, and Starcke was brought up from reserve to protect my right flank. After getting the opposing Brigade to flee in panic, he blindly pursued them right into the thick of 15 cannon or so, which decimated his troops morale (they then retreated on the verge of breaking).

Another key observation in terms of OP play is that the AI is maneuverist and not an attritionist. The AI always attempts to flank and pursue an enemy attempting to withdraw. This is how it fights. It does not measure the relative attrition rate and ask: Which end of the stick do I have? Can I sustain contact at the current attrition rate? How much of a force advantage do I need to compensate for my higher attrition rate and how quickly do I have to move against the enemy before that advantage is reduced?

Also true. In the same scenario, the Union Army was incapable of figuring out it was lost, and instead of forming a defensive line at high ground, it just kept counter-attacking my flanks piecemeal, where it discovered my flanks were taken care of by my then-superior forces. It seems to be a matter of advancing to a good defensive line and staying put, letting the AI come at you at that point.

There might be a bit of historical accuracy to this though, as the fog of war was a lot higher back then, and a brigade may have orders that are outdated and be operating with no situational awareness.

[MarkShot]

This was quite true in CWBR and I would be surprised if it doesn't work in TC2M. You could fairly easily push forward a small high moral/rested force to make contact with the enemy. Then, rapidly withdraw them towards your well prepared position. The OPFOR would pursue into the kill sac. Once in the kill sac, the OPFOR would rarely withdraw. So, as you said, you could often convert an attack by your troops in to a strong high attrition defensive situation followed by a counter attack when the numbers became weighted in your favor.

Now, I have observed that TC2M AI does a better job than the CWBR AI of rapidly pulling back regiments who look threatened with being flanked. However, I suspect that the same AI will persist to exchange fire when caught in a kill sac if not flanked. Thus, it will happily go toe to toe with regiments reinforced by guns spewing cannister from only a short distance away.

One thing I forgot to point out that you need to be careful of is running out of cannister. The guns will retreat as they feel naked without cannister when approached even if they are well defended. (I am still trying to work out arty resupply in TC2M. Hopefully, the just released patch as have fixed the apparent hesitancy of the guns to take on fresh ammo when the wagon comes around.)

[Crimguy]

In that regard it's a pretty good AI - most real time games are hopeless at any kind of attack (thinking both Close Combat and Combat Mission).

Perhaps they need to tweak when the AI re-evaluates it's position for the worst.

[MarkShot]

Here is an example of putting some of these concepts together in an OP.

(see first screen shot)

I am playing a defend an objective OP in command of a division. The objective is off to right too far forward to be seen.

Ideally, the enemy should have made their approach down the right flank where they only had to fight their way across a creek as opposed to a river. As you can see, I was guarding against that. But when it looked like they might go right, I was able to entice the OPFOR AI to take the hard route by pushing forward a regiment which promised imminent contact. The AI is a sucker for a fight and so you can often guide its actions with some careful orchestration of making contact and then pulling back.

What you see on the near side of the river is my kill sac approach which I was elaborating on before, but further enhanced by putting the river between my guns and the enemy. The defense here is highly static. Every brigade commander is TCed. So, the troops are just standing their ground. If I let the AI take over, it would no doubt rush to dance a ballet of contact and maneuver with the enemy --- but why should I let my troops to bleed when the enemy's AI commanders are so eager to shed their own blood?

(see second screen shot)

Instead I have my troops practically standing in the river. Normally, taking the low ground would be a poor choice. But here it makes a lot of sense, since it leave my guns with clear LOS to the enemy. Also, it is functioning as a reverse slope position and thus limiting the degree of enemy fire which can be focused on this line. At the moment of these screen shots the attrition rate is already 4:1 in my favor and that isn't really telling the true story, since I sacrificed some cavalry to buy time to set up this position. With cannister stocks holding out, there is no reason why such a defense cannot yield anywhere from a 6:1-10:1 attrition rate.

Into this meat grinder, the OPFOR AI will continue to push its troops forward. Ideally, it should mass and go right. Besides avoiding the key terrain obstacle, it could probably displace quicker than I could set up another close support battery to defend the actual objective hill. Thus, it would force me to fight its fight --- maneuver/flank on the open field.

The AI is good, but like every game implementation it is not without its weakness and predictable behavior. Of course, once MP becomes available, this engine will be a strategist's/tactician's dream come true.

[MarkShot]

First ...

[MarkShot]

Second ...

[MarkShot]

One other thing which I should point out about the static kill sac approach ... besides micro-managing being easier without so much spread out maneuvering, your bde commanders are able to be much more flexible. When you don't need them as a locus to give orders, then they can be used mainly for bolstering morale. In that role, any officer will do. Thus, your officers become more flexible and it is quite possible to have all regiments at the points of contact receiving command bonuses.

---

Well, I think I will stop here, since this after all the COTA Forum. I just cannot seem to help myself from analyzing game engines and mechanics.