Detailed Combat question

[MT Melon]

Hi

I have started 5 or 6 games since P- Day (purchase) always as the CSA and have tried different things and read the manual as necessary. When I go into detailed battle mode (which looks great!!) I have almost always been on the defensive and herein lies my question. I always choose far start and after setting up my defensive line I wait and wait and wait some more until I finally see a couple of the Union's regiments. They sit ten or so hexes away and do nothing. I usually spend the rest of the battle passing my turn until the USA routs. There has been a couple of times that they send a regiment or two to attack which easily get defeated. I have never had a full battle with the enemy's entire forces at one time ( and I am usually outnumbered ) as I had seen in Hard Sarge's AAR.
This leads me to believe that I am missing something here and hope that some one can shed some light on what I am seeing. Could it be a function of their "will to fight" numbers? Although there has been battles that start out with their numbers equal to mine. Or maybe it could be because I have not played above "sargent" level. I should also mention that I play with the advanced rules.
Well , there is my sad little question. I hope that some one can help me here since battle mode is a very big draw for me. The rest of the game is simply outstanding (seige bug excluded) and everyone involved in bringing this game to us has my undying gratitude.

Thanks

[Johnus]

I have had the same problem on the lower difficulty levels. If you go up to Second Lt. level the AI is much more aggressive. I just fought a defensive battle (as CSA) with equal numbers (approximately 30K each) and was just able to pull off a victory.

I also think that the option to start battles closer is helpful in that you don't wait a whole day for something to start. In the battle described above, I was attacked around the third turn.

[MT Melon]

Okay , thanks Johnnie. I thought it might be something simple. I suppose I should have tried going up the scale of difficulty but I assumed that sargent was the level that did not give either side a boost and thus would see the AI attack regardless. In COG , you could always expect the "other side" to attack.

[Gil R.]

What appears to be happening is this. The Union in the standard scenario starts with its morale down (thanks to Bull Run), which helps prevent it from using superior numbers to steamroller over the South in the game's first few turns. You're trying to fight detailed battles on a lower difficulty setting, which means that you have troops who are in no mood to fight. As the war continues, their morale should rise and they'll be much more willing to go on the offensive. The other issue is that you're playing on a lower difficulty setting, so they're not that aggressive. Eric has already responded to a similar report from someone else that he might need to tweak the AI so it's never so unaggressive as to just sit there. In the meantime, just raise the difficulty setting a little, and perhaps use quick combat for the first few months, until the Union starts getting its sea legs again.

[Hard Sarge]

Also, since you are picking far start, it is taking longer for them to find you, also, the AI will try and wait, until it has most of it's forces together before it attacks, so it if it strung our (in swamps, in trees), the first units will get there, but will wait for the other units to catch up

which the AI also has a built in "fear factor ?" in them, they can judge your defence, if they are not totally gung ho and rearing for a fight, and the see what they think is a good HARD defence, they will hold back and wait for reinforcements

which early in the game and depending on the level, they may break before they ever think they are ready

later on, as there morale gets better, and there numbers get better, then they may just go ahead and attack what they see as being a strong defence, as they think they can still break it

hope that makes sense

[MT Melon]

Hey , thanks for the information guys. What you are suggesting makes perfect sense and reveals another level of realism built into the game. While I probably fall more on the playability side of the great Playability / Realism debate , I certainly appreciate a well made historical sim. As I am discovering with this gem , you have taken a great amount of historical fact and coupled it with great playability. The best of both worlds IMO.