Dissapointed of formation, moddable?

[oho_slith]

Amalur: you can't control all units by yourself, but you can give decent comands to at least brigades so they don't mess up with each other when marching towards the enemy for example to use attack column with battalions in column by division behind each other, that looks correct and you don't get too much of these overlapping problems .

[oho_slith]

RebBugler: I really want to like this game believe me, but maybe you see it as a multiplayer - then I believe, it can look different. As a single player it's not good for me unless the formations are tweaked and the wheeling on speed is resolved.

[RebBugler]

ORIGINAL: Amalur

ORIGINAL: jglazier

I keep reading about switching AI on. Can you play this game by controlling all units yourself, or does it become to much to handle? Is it necessary to have the AI control portions of your army? I think I would like to control everything in a game like this, so I'm just curious how it works.

I can truly understand your point of view because I had the same vision when I discovered years ago Take Command Second Manassas and later SoW Getty. The reasons were the ways of playing I had deep with me since the Sid Meier Gettysburg days and why not the old total war.

But believe me, this is another horse and once you understand the differences in ways of play you will enjoy deeply in a different manner. You will discover yourself playing the game accepting some chaos, letting some leaders do their jobs, thinking the big picture (and managing yourself other leaders too) but forgetting be obsessed with micromanaging. Micromanagement that is perfectly possible of course.

Greetings

Excellent Sir!

Furthermore, initially I prefer to TC my officers and move them by brigade into the action, then it's my strategy, and a learning curve is established. Once engaged it's TC OFF time unit by unit, allowing each officer to do his thing by running around and supporting (Officer Support Bonus) units taking the most heat or in trouble of routing. This works much better in WL than GB because the units rarely melee which many times results in the officer getting killed trying to support the meleeing unit.

[Gudadantza]

ORIGINAL: oho

Amalur: you can't control all units by yourself, but you can give decent comands to at least brigades so they don't mess up with each other when marching towards the enemy for example to use attack column with battalions in column by division behind each other, that looks correct and you don't get too much of these overlapping problems .

Well, in fact, if I am in the mood and depending the situation I TC even regiments [:)]. and I have a lot of fun correcting personality defects from incompetent officers [:D]

Greetings

[Gudadantza]

But seriously speaking and to be honest I understand.
It is not the same accepting decissions of the AI according to the officer in charge than looking an overlapping mess, or a regiment being shot innecesarely in colummn or crossed. Gettysburg had those defects occasionaly. Even more TC2M with less sprites.

Greetins.

[Pawsy]

this plus 1

I prefer to TC my officers and move them by brigade into the action, then it's my strategy, and a learning curve is established. Once engaged it's TC OFF time unit by unit, allowing each officer to do his thing by running around and supporting (Officer Support Bonus) units taking the most heat or in trouble of routing.

works well and the AI will use various formations, split skirmishers, send units to resupply (you did move the supply wagons forward too didnt you?) and do a good job. But it requires you the commander to allocate them enough room to carry out the attack on the obective. If the flanking units are too close they will overlap and have problems deploying. Flanking formations attacks require careful sequencing, timing and objectives that support the main attack

As a test I did this uisng the Div commanders to carry out the attack. Worked fine but a Div needs a good frontage.

[FroBodine]

So, it sounds like the game is down to the brigade level. Can you give movement/positioning/attack orders to your division and corps leaders, and hope they carry them out if set to AI control?

I love Attila: Total War. It is a very fun game. Sorry . . . side trip.

Anyway, I also play the Combat Mission games, Normandy and Black Sea. You control many, many units in those bigger scenarios, too. But you can control each and every one of them and it is manageable. I just don't want to buy and play a game where I'm not doing much but watching the AI play for me. Is this game like that?

I guess I need to watch the newest Twitch replay, but I still appreciate comments from the pros here.

[histgamer]

ORIGINAL: jglazier

So, it sounds like the game is down to the brigade level. Can you give movement/positioning/attack orders to your division and corps leaders, and hope they carry them out if set to AI control?

I love Attila: Total War. It is a very fun game. Sorry . . . side trip.

Anyway, I also play the Combat Mission games, Normandy and Black Sea. You control many, many units in those bigger scenarios, too. But you can control each and every one of them and it is manageable. I just don't want to buy and play a game where I'm not doing much but watching the AI play for me. Is this game like that?

I guess I need to watch the newest Twitch replay, but I still appreciate comments from the pros here.

You can literally turn the AI off on all of your units by taking command. The scale goes down to Battalions. The smallest unit with a General is a Brigade but those are made up of Battalions. If you want you can take command of everything but you don't have to. I often take command at the Brigade level, I leave the Battalions because in General a Battalion will not do much without you telling it to. In general it will only make minor tweaks like wheeling a bit or falling back etc.

[Pawsy]

The smallest unit with a General is a Brigade

Not correct, you can use your Div/Corp commanders as well they will then give orders down to Bde commanders etc.

Best is to take command and move your units at Div/Bde level then turn on the AI for the advance/attack etc. Some Bn level work is sometimes needed. If your going to mico manage every Bn you will fail. The AI for example will move the commander to provide command support to wavering units or send units to resupply etc

[histgamer]

ORIGINAL: starbuck310

The smallest unit with a General is a Brigade

Not correct, you can use your Div/Corp commanders as well they will then give orders down to Bde commanders etc.

Best is to take command and move your units at Div/Bde level then turn on the AI for the advance/attack etc. Some Bn level work is sometimes needed. If your going to mico manage every Bn you will fail. The AI for example will move the commander to provide command support to wavering units or send units to resupply etc

There are artillery battery commanders so yes there are commanders below the Brigade commander but Battalions do not have on map commanders though it is simulated. I strictly meant there is no Battalion commander on a horse that rides around. Still you can control them so the scale is at the Battalion/Battery level, though microing that far down is rarely needed.

[JamesLxx]

ORIGINAL: oho

I see almost only line formation when AI controlled troops move around on the battlefield. This results after 10 Minutes of almost each scenario (sandbox or waterloo) in overlapping lines, battalion lines changing forming rings(!), and wheeling when engaged very often. This really kills immersion for me and makes the game not at all enjoyable to play.
Question: Can I change the AI behaviour by modding so that it uses column in division almost all the time, only when very close to the enemy it tries to form a line, can I prevent it from wheeling too?
If so: is there a release date for the modding-tool already. Until then I think I have to put the game on the shelf.
Can you somehow confirm that with the deveoping team?

I totally agree with oho's original post. Its the over reaction of individual regiments which causes the tangled and crossed confusion with regiments wheeling at amazing speed every minute. Ask yourself - Is this a realistic portrayal of a Napoleonic battle? You've got to imagine what it takes to move masses of men: the inertia of large formations - they are not as instantly responsive in real life as they appear to be in this game. The basic SOP of any Napoleonic officer was to maintain formation at every level.

When SDK comes out hopefully this over reactivity can be resolved, because I too cant take it seriously in its present state.

[oho_slith]

Thanks, finally someone sees the major issue of this game like me. There are many very good features, but these overlapping lines should be solved. I tried to take comand and move a battalion manually in column by division into shooting distance, but it automatically moves into line formation and only after it starts firing. This was often not the case on the battle field and staying in column of division perhaps resolves the issue of overlapping lines because there simply is more space to manouver. I will ask if that can be modded in the NSD forum too.

[pjsynnott]

Agreed, formations do seem to have a bit of an ADHD problem when it comes to maintaining their shape, even allowing for the chaos and confusion of the battlefield.

[thewood1]

I agree all the video from the time shows how disciplined the formations were...oh wait...there is no video. I am just curious how anyone can make a judgement on something like formation status. I can understand the sorrow and wailing about uniforms and weapons, and even what a formation looked like, but how does anyone have a basis for complaining about someone else's modeling of how the formation reacts in battle?

[JamesLxx]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I agree all the video from the time shows how disciplined the formations were...oh wait...there is no video. I am just curious how anyone can make a judgement on something like formation status. I can understand the sorrow and wailing about uniforms and weapons, and even what a formation looked like, but how does anyone have a basis for complaining about someone else's modeling of how the formation reacts in battle?

A basis for complaint? Well...simple common sense is my immeadiate reaction!

Ok you mentioned Video. Just watch any video of a large scale reenactment and try to imagine the formations behaving as they do in the game. Prahaps any reenactors here could comment on the actual practicalities of wheeling a regiment large angles every 30 seconds while engaged with the enemy.

[thewood1]

Reenactments are COMPLETELY different than a real battle for fear of life and limb is close at hand. I'm just saying there sure is a lot of gnashing of teeth over an opinion on a game that can be purchased or not about something that no one alive really knows much about.

[oho_slith]

thewood1: do you think battalions could march through each other - in line - while turning - without getting totally in disorder. They are NO marching bands that train a manouvre crossing formations on a football field for many years [;)] Don't you think the officers will try to keep enough space between the battalions to avoid this situation. That's why they created formations like column of division, column of platoon, which makes sense in my eyes.
Here is webside with some explenation and pictures, perhaps that helps:
http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleoni ... tics_4.htm

[zakblood]

great link ty, some good info there and some interesting info on Rifles[&o]

[thewood1]

Still didn't see any video from 1815.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Still didn't see any video from 1815.

You're seriously suggesting that just because we don't have video of something we can't draw any conclusions about how things should have--perhaps must have--worked in days past?

Anyone who has drilled with troops, even in modern day ceremonial drills, can attest that it is not easy to control large bodies of men in formation--in the chaos of combat, I would suspect (notwithstanding the lack of video confirmation) that it would be more difficult, not less.