Do you often lose battles?

[Mus]

Man that sans-serif font is icky.  Is that the new universal font or is that optional?

[Adraeth]

Even on beta testing i found that tactical AI was really better than the first edition of COG. In my opinion in balanced battles the human player can beat the AI, but in unbalanced ones the AI can give a real (REAL) challenge.
 
For example i always lose in the 1792 being France against Austria and Prussia on Flanders. In addition you have to consider the difficulty level, i play strategic and tactical at Kutuzov level; and more i often play divisional level and not brigade level (this can affect my freedom of movement in terms of units).
 
Even more, playing with minor countries and being at war with some major ones like France or Russia can be a REAL tough test for everyone (see examples above for Turkey and Spain.... i have to try Poland in balanced)
 
Overall i really like the AI in tactical land battles (i love the AI at strategic level, very often it surprise me) and i am pleased to being part (just a tiny one) in this good product

[morganbj]

I agree, the AI can make a decent go of it in close battles, but I can usually win, unless I'm in enemy territory.  The new WTF rules tend to skew the battles in favor of the "defender" in even battles.  So, I have to move quickly, even if it means at night, to sacrifice some fatigue levels for more troops ready to fight the next morning.
 
The naval battles seem to be harder for me, but that's probably because I don't fight that many of them.  Besides, I've seen far too many small British fleets hammer my more numerous swabbies out of complete disrespect.  [:D]
 

[Russian Guard]

Another thing relating to how well the AI plays is whether you try to recreate "historical" type battles or not, in terms of how you move and deploy your units.

In my experience if you deploy your troops like a traditional Napoleonic battle (center, flanks, etc), then the AI can give you a real good whipping sometimes, especially if you do not play France.

Alternatively, if you "take advantage" of the AI by knowing things it will fall for and moving units around in a fashion that isn't necessarily "Napoleonic", then its easier to beat the AI.

No criticism intended or inferred either way; players play as they will, which is as it should be.

[Adraeth]

Just started tonight the 1792 Campaign being Bavaria and i lost a snow battle against Hesse (i was attacker)... now i am even at war against France and i think the AI could test me really hard [:)]

[ShaiHulud]

ORIGINAL: Adraeth Montecuccoli

Even on beta testing i found that tactical AI was really better than the first edition of COG. In my opinion in balanced battles the human player can beat the AI, but in unbalanced ones the AI can give a real (REAL) challenge.

For example i always lose in the 1792 being France against Austria and Prussia on Flanders. In addition you have to consider the difficulty level, i play strategic and tactical at Kutuzov level; and more i often play divisional level and not brigade level (this can affect my freedom of movement in terms of units).

Even more, playing with minor countries and being at war with some major ones like France or Russia can be a REAL tough test for everyone (see examples above for Turkey and Spain.... i have to try Poland in balanced)

Overall i really like the AI in tactical land battles (i love the AI at strategic level, very often it surprise me) and i am pleased to being part (just a tiny one) in this good product

The key to 1792 is not to fight Austria in Flanders, but, in Luxembourg. With judicial troop movements you can have a slight numerical advantage in Flanders against the Prussians alone and near parity in Luxembourg against Austria. Further, Lux should fall just as the Austrians arrive, giving you the advantage of defense there. Often, I've beaten Austria so badly there that the war ended immediately after that battle, before I even get Flanders to fall to siege.

I disagree that the CoG AI was inferior to CoG:EE. In Cog, cavalry were more effective because they didn't get pounded by reaction shots. The battles often were heavily influenced by the success or failure to form squares. In EE, I can go through several battles without seeing a cav successfully charge and force my unit into square. It's about 50-50 that my units will NOT form square and will stand an attack to their rear. My guys have not yet been so attacked in column and, in line, they've never been disordered.

Further, in EE, units rarely get disordered, so, I never use infantry to charge. My charges are solely by cav, to the rear areas. Thus, it appears pointless to get the Mixed Order advance, and only moderately useful to get the +33% to Form Square advance.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: ShaiHulud

Further, in EE, units rarely get disordered, so, I never use infantry to charge. My charges are solely by cav, to the rear areas. Thus, it appears pointless to get the Mixed Order advance, and only moderately useful to get the +33% to Form Square advance.

Same here. The fact that fire combat with infantry is way more dominant than bayonet charges makes me wonder if it isnt TOO hard for infantry to become disordered by fire combat in EE. Everything I read indicates that the bayonet was the dominant infantry weapon of the period.

[Adraeth]

Well, regarding the dominant weapon i have to disagree, being in my opinion, the volley fire and then the bayonet. Columns charghes were effective only sometimes and only when the charge came from well drilled troops, battles like Wagram or Borodino and Waterloo prove that France mass columns caused a bloody mess and Pyrrhus victories or (in the worst) historical defeats.
 
Back on main topic i find really interesting the Will to fight rule and the vicotry locations, even more the AI do not disorder its troops too much and sometimes try outflaknking (i see it many times).
 
The player being unable to dislodge AI units by mere charges need to time his attacks and so this give AI a better chance to give a test to him (considering a human opponent is always the best)

[Randomizer]

First of all I suppose I should apologize to the Forum Members and Moderators in advance for the following opinionated rant and just to be clear, it is not aimed at any particular member of the Forum.

All Internet arguments relating to computer game realism resemble in no small way, the classic theological discussion about how many angels can swim in the head of a beer, or whatever. There can be no right or wrong answer in the big picture but I would submit that at the individual level, gamers themselves can and should take more responsibility for imposing “realism” upon themselves. That is provided they wish to do more than whine or nit-pick the game designer’s compromises based upon their own (highly) subjective viewpoints.

Russian Guard hit the nail on the head nicely with this observation that is not only applicable to all games and simulations but a blinding glimpse of the obvious that many gamers ignore:

In my experience if you deploy your troops like a traditional Napoleonic battle (center, flanks, etc), then the AI can give you a real good whipping sometimes, especially if you do not play France.

Many vociferous game critics sneer at so-called ‘House Rules” but the latter are really sincere attempts to impose a gaming methodology that is appropriate for the particular situation being gamed out. Such efforts should be commended and not condemned.

When one makes the effort to learn enough about an era to play in a manner consistent with the doctrines, dogmas and politics and cultural mores of the times, CoG-EE can really and (I believe) fairly accurately reproduce events and situations that are entirely reasonable for the period. Note that there is no mention of historical accuracy since gaming should not slavishly reproduce history, rather it can recreate it in a new and unique form. Provided of course that restrictions and conditions that where applicable for the period be imposed by the gamer on their game play.

On another forum that I used to belong to, realism fanboys think that one could attain greater “realism” by graphical re-creation of broken, shipwrecked merchant crew survivors but when one suggested to them that their U-Boats be required to make frequent radio position reports (thus giving away their positions to the AI), the idea was rejected out of hand as ‘stupid’ and ‘suicidal’. Nevertheless that restriction was a reality faced by real U-Boat captains that can be accurately reproduced in a game setting but is rejected because it is ‘not fun’. Showing off bleeding bodies are somehow realistic; self-imposed adherence to period doctrines and tactics is apparently not.

I think that the CoG-EE designers did an overall outstanding job of recreating the Napoleonic era as I have been given to understand it. That is an entirely subjective observation and so may well be wrong but the game continues, in my view, to reproduce historically reasonable situations given what I believe to be historically reasonable inputs by me, the player.

Whether one wants to add panzers or magic pixies to their wargaming experience is an entirely personal choice: enjoy. But if you decide to treat your Napoleonic cavalry as M1 tanks or recreate Inchon on the Adriatic and find that CoG-EE does not behave like you think it should, consider that, in the gaming world, Garbage In = Garbage Out before you start complaining about a lack of ‘realism’.

Any player(s) can command the highest possible levels of historically reasonable re-creation provided they are not too lazy to expect the game designers to do all the work for them and are willing to take some responsibility for imposing historically reasonable conditions upon themselves.

Best Regards.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Bravo Randomiser, Bravo.

Needed saying, loved the bit about uboats radioing etc, sadly you may well get jumped on by some indignate soul who thinks you are picking on him directly as happened when I put up a "Give the Guys a brake" post.

All the Best
Kingmaker

[IronWarrior]

I agree with Adraeth re: volley fire. Seldom did bayonet charges actually happen, usually one side broke and ran.
 
That said, I can't tell one way or another about how it's represented in COG (re: disorder), as I am used to playing miniatures battles on battalion level scale and this is brigade or division level. I do know that in the Tiller's series there was way too much melee, and cavalry was unable to be used historically and pretty much useless.
 
Not trying to be over-critical or offend WCS... in fact if I didn't like this game so much I wouldn't bother giving any feedback at all. [:D]

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard

Another thing relating to how well the AI plays is whether you try to recreate "historical" type battles or not, in terms of how you move and deploy your units.

In my experience if you deploy your troops like a traditional Napoleonic battle (center, flanks, etc), then the AI can give you a real good whipping sometimes, especially if you do not play France.

Alternatively, if you "take advantage" of the AI by knowing things it will fall for and moving units around in a fashion that isn't necessarily "Napoleonic", then its easier to beat the AI.

No criticism intended or inferred either way; players play as they will, which is as it should be.

That right there, says it ALL.

I have found the AI in War in the Pacific, which is an utterly brilliant game, to be sorely lacking. I started a thread with title "Helping the AI to Challenge Me" and some guys proposed some 'self-rules' or rules of restraint to make the AI a more challenging opponent. THEY WORK!

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

I agree with Adraeth re: volley fire. Seldom did bayonet charges actually happen, usually one side broke and ran.

I have been reading a lot of descriptions of people breaking and running in the face of a bayonet charge. After being hit with a few volleys of fire to soften them up. In the game Im not seeing that kind of thing in game because the other troops are always well formed, in good order, etc. Infantry fire attacks dont seem to be "big enough" to cause disorder anymore.

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

That said, I can't tell one way or another about how it's represented in COG (re: disorder), as I am used to playing miniatures battles on battalion level scale and this is brigade or division level.

It was toned down from COG to COG EE and it doesnt seem to happen often enough as a result of fire combat anymore IMO.

About the only time I see a unit get disorganized from fire combat its from artillery.

[Anthropoid]

Charging is just about as suicidal in COGEE as it is/was in FoF. Not worth it, unless enemy is utterly disordered wreck already . . . which case very much worth it.
 
not sure if that is realistic or not.

[Randomizer]

There is evidence out there that even during the Napoleonic era, the legendary bayonet charge had been largely superceded by the close-range firefight and that few soldiers were actually bayoneted from their front.  Anecdotally this is supported by the Line vs. Column argument since the success of shock combat had always been predicated on concentration in width and depth, both characteristics of infantry column formations.  On the other hand firepower was enhanced when in line solely because more muskets could be brought to bear against any particular target.  The short range firefight theory goes a long way towards explaining why steady infantry in line could so often defeat superior numbers in column.
 
If one believes that any of the above is accurate then CoG-EE models contemporary tactical combat pretty well; with creating disorder against well motivated troops requiring some time, effort and firepower superiority while shock charges against all but broken troops are ill-advised and probably disasterous for the attacker.
 
Best Regards

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

There is evidence out there that even during the Napoleonic era, the legendary bayonet charge had been largely superceded by the close-range firefight and that few soldiers were actually bayoneted from their front.

Because units frequently broke and ran when facing a bayonet charge. It was a moral weapon.

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

If one believes that any of the above is accurate then CoG-EE models contemporary tactical combat pretty well; with creating disorder against well motivated troops requiring some time, effort and firepower superiority while shock charges against all but broken troops are ill-advised and probably disasterous for the attacker.

I dont know that it does in this respect, again mainly because of how difficult it now is to disorder an infantry unit with another infantry units fire attack. Even after delivering several lopsided volleys (which I believe represent many minutes of constant engagement each) I see opposing infantry "in good order" with terrible morale scores. I see divisions routing before they become disordered by infantry fire attacks. When I do see units disordered they have negative morale, its from an artillery attack and they route next turn.

Im not sure what exactly the values are, or how exactly they have been changed from original COG, only that the chances of disordering in the face of a fire attack was reduced and that it now so rarely happens that you dont see many "Mixed Order" followup bayonet charges.

This is a far cry from contemporary accounts where bayonet charges are a frequent occurence in the final phases of an engagement. Bayonet counter charges are also fairly common, with the defender softening up an attack with a few volleys as it comes in and then countercharging with the bayonet driving the broken attackers in front of them.

Understand Im not advocating the bayonet become some kind of super weapon, only that its use should be frequent and fairly effective given the right circumstance. If its the changes to disorder by fire combat that have made bayonet charges rare and ineffective than some tweaking there is in order.

PS IF you own COG load it up and observe how common it is for a unit to become disordered as a result of fire combat. Compare that to what you see in COG EE. Now I dont know that it should be as common as in original, but I do think its too difficult in COG EE. In fact I dont remember ever seeing it occur as a result of fire combat except from an Artillery attack.

[Randomizer]

I am not convinced that there is direct and automatic corelation between loss of morale and disorder although in board wargames the rule was combat losses=morale loss=increasing disorder.  Indeed, it is entirely reasonable that one could have a disordered unit with high morale and a demoralized formed unit that needs just one little push to send it to the rear in panic.  Disorder caused by artillery fire makes some sense, a single roundshot could easily take out two or three files of soldiers to a depth of several ranks so a battery might tear huge holes in a formation and putting these to rights under fire could prove difficult particularly if the junior officer and senior NCO casualties were significant.  Likewise cannister would gouge large chunks of soldiers out of a formed body whereas musketry was less penetrating and would tend to cause casualties one rank at a time and so not require major alterations within the formation to make up the damage.
 
As always though, there would be exceptional circumstances and unique situations so generalizing is a bit dangerous.  Also some armies were doctrinally committed to the bayonet and there is the Bayonet Practice upgrade that improves the effectiveness of the charge.
 
It seems to me that the biggest cause of disorder is attempting formation changes while under effective fire and that is entirely reasonable from what I can see.
 
So I still note not too much wrong with much of the detailed combat model in EE.  However, I do not own the original CoG and so must defer to your observations there.
 
Hand to hand combat certainly occured and the bayonet could still be effective in particular situations but am skeptical of the typical classic accounts of this kind of fighting being the norm.  Rather, in the smoke and confusion a close-ranged firefight and hand to hand melee would probably be indistinguishable from any distance and carrying a position at the point of a bayonet makes better copy than does merely occupying after winning a savage musketry exchange.
 
Even at this stage, General Suvarov's dictum that "The bayonet is a brave fellow but the bullet's a fool" was a quaint anachronism.
 
Best Regards

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

Hand to hand combat certainly occured and the bayonet could still be effective in particular situations but am skeptical of the typical classic accounts of this kind of fighting being the norm.

Rather than "hand to hand combat" taking place as a result of a bayonet charge I read about the advantaged side charging and the disadvantaged side running more often than not.

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

Rather, in the smoke and confusion a close-ranged firefight and hand to hand melee would probably be indistinguishable from any distance and carrying a position at the point of a bayonet makes better copy than does merely occupying after winning a savage musketry exchange.

Im not prepared to mark down the bulk of contemporary accounts basically as propaganda. Even if the bulk of casualties in a "bayonet charge" can be shown to have been caused by close range musket fire the act of physically marching on to the position to be seized is distinguishable from staying in place and exchanging volley after volley. In my limited study I see more accounts of the former happening than the later. Once one side had an advantage I have every reason to believe it would be pressed.

The infantry combat in COG EE is less dynamic than in COG, reminding me more of FOF. In FOF it makes sense because of the common use of rifles. In COG EE not so much.

[Anthropoid]

Very well said Randomizer, but just one question: does this mean that I cannot have my sharkes withe lazers on their heads stationed in the Med?

[Randomizer]

I would think that laser-armed sharks should be able to freely transit the Straights in both directions provided the orcas with the ballistic missiles are not set to blockade but the manual is strangely silent on this topic.  Also have to wonder if a can-opener equipped 3rd Rate gets an opening advantage over the Chicken of the Sea?  Enquiring minds want to know...
 
Best Regards