How are detailed battles improved?

[Tanaka]

Will we finally have an option for bigger battles and more space between armies (and more use for scouts) or will they still start out on top of each other?

[Gil R.]

On the set up screen for the game we give you two options for combat: Near Start or Far Start. So if you want always to begin at the far sides of the battlefield and move into optimal position and send out cavalry units as scouts, you can do that.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

On the set up screen for the game we give you two options for combat: Near Start or Far Start. So if you want always to begin at the far sides of the battlefield and move into optimal position and send out cavalry units as scouts, you can do that.

Fantastic! You guys really are answering a lot of our concerns! Thanks!

[ericbabe]

There are really three options for starting distance... if you select neither near-start nor far-start, then the starting distance is in between the near and far distances.

Some other changes to detailed combat:
- the map is bigger
- option to dig field fortifications
- new rules for command and control: an out-of-command status, and also new zones on the map that make it hard to exercise C&C
- ranging: every time a unit fires on a hex there's a chance it gets "ranging" for that hex.  When a unit has ranging it gets a bonus to damage.  If it moves or fires at a new hex it loses ranging.
- group movement interface: can give movement destinations to military groups, and can give orders to all brigades in a military group (such as, all brigades form a line or all brigades fall back)
- new system of global morale in battle (called will-to-fight)
- new statistics for brigades
- new functions for generals (and somewhat better feedback when generals perform their functions)

[Sonny]

Sounds like it is gonna be fun!

[Tanaka]

Wow! Great news thanks! Cant wait! [:D]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

There are really three options for starting distance... if you select neither near-start nor far-start, then the starting distance is in between the near and far distances.

Some other changes to detailed combat:
- the map is bigger
- option to dig field fortifications
- new rules for command and control: an out-of-command status, and also new zones on the map that make it hard to exercise C&C
- ranging: every time a unit fires on a hex there's a chance it gets "ranging" for that hex.  When a unit has ranging it gets a bonus to damage.  If it moves or fires at a new hex it loses ranging.
- group movement interface: can give movement destinations to military groups, and can give orders to all brigades in a military group (such as, all brigades form a line or all brigades fall back)
- new system of global morale in battle (called will-to-fight)
- new statistics for brigades
- new functions for generals (and somewhat better feedback when generals perform their functions)

[Joram]

Regarding the "ranging", is that for artillery only? I guess it's relevance would depend on the scale which I believe it was mentioned it was brigades? If so, does it make sense to do that for infantry/cavalry?

[jchastain]

In my mind it could make sense due to the scale, though it wouldn't be so much "ranging" in the traditional sense of the word as much as having the entire unit focused on the proper objective.  This is a time period when communications were far from perfect.  After a few "turns" of receiving the same fire order, one might assume you finally have near universal compliance and focus which would result in better concentrations of fire and increased damage.

[ericbabe]

The rifles used in the Civil War had slow muzzle velocities and thus had very parabolic trajectories.  Infantry (and cavalry) were trained to estimate the range of their targets and to adjust their sights accordingly.  This was something that green troops did very poorly during the confusion of battle.

[raydude]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
- group movement interface: can give movement destinations to military groups, and can give orders to all brigades in a military group (such as, all brigades form a line or all brigades fall back)

Is there an advantage to using group movement? Perhaps, by properly utilizing the chain of command the brigades will respond faster than if you moved each one separately and put them in different directions?

[carnifex]

This was something that green troops did very poorly during the confusion of battle.

There was something that green troops did very well however, and that was attack and advance into enemy fire. More experienced troops would go to ground very quickly, because they knew what was in store for them. IMHO veteran troops should lose movement points when fired upon.

[ericbabe]

There isn't any advantage to using group movement now other than ease of command.

Regarding green units' advancing into enemy fire, I was impressed by the accounts of this that Nosworthy relates in Bloody Crucible.  I took this into account when building the results of charge combat -- veteran units are more likely to stand down from a charge.

[carnifex]

Very nice.  It's the little things that matter to us anal retentives.

[ravinhood]

Are there any scenario battles included such as "Gettysburg", "Shilo", "Antietam", etc. that are just the battles without having to play out the strategy game?

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Are there any scenario battles included such as "Gettysburg", "Shilo", "Antietam", etc. that are just the battles without having to play out the strategy game?

No. Our game, like its sister game "Crown of Glory" (both from the same engine), only has randomly drawn detailed battles. HOWEVER, we are very much aware of the demand for historical battles, and are eager to do some as expansion packs for "Forge of Freedom." Our ability to do so will depend on how successful the game is -- if it's a hit then we at WCS and Matrix will have good reason to put such plans into effect.