Unit selection in datailed combat

[carburo]

Any way of at least make an educated guess about which units will be selected for detailed combat and in what order the will reinforcements arrive?
Sometimes I’ve had really stupid unit selection in detailed combat. Several times I’ve had my main army in a province (near full-strenght units, 6+ morale, balanced composition) along with some not so good units, and when I’m attacked what I get to start the combat is the depleted and low morale units, the good ones coming as reinforcement (too late sometimes). Or when you have a balanced army but the selected units are almost all the same type, like yesterday I fought a battle in Switzerland where, although my armies are ½ inf, ¼ arty, ¼ cav, I got almost no inf at the beginning.
I’m OK with the randomness, but it shouldn’t go too far. It’s silly when I have the best and biggest army, but in the actual battle I’m outnumbered and with inferior troops because I got my worst units carefully selected in the starting lot.

[Naomi]

This feature is desirable also in quick battle resoulution.

[ericbabe]

I've thought about this. From a gameplay perspective I don't mind it too much. The battle size limits are partly about giving the underdog (that is, a nation with fewer troops and troops of lower quality) a better chance against larger, higher-quality nations. So, purely from a gameplay consideration, I kind of rather like that there is a chance that the enemy can stumble onto your weaker units if you can force a battle in a province with bad weather or make the enemy cross a river to get to you. What would be nice is to make sure that units from the same corps are always present, so that players can ensure combined arms and a mixture of high/low quality units. I'm more inclined to tweak in this direction....


Eric

[MarcelJV]

I am not sure if I understand this correctly, but I will give it a shot.

At the start of every detailed battle my army, as Prussia, has started in a a little circle with the fasted unit in the middle. Reinforcements arrive at different times, which I do not mide, and then take a turn to figure out how to move, unless the first turn is just a warning and you really have to wait one more turn before you can use them. Not sure if that was the intent.

I do not see a problem with this. In Quick battle, I get frustrated when I can not put all of my forces in to anything but route. I assume some units either do not make it or missed a morale test and just never get to the battle and this is reflected in their staying in Route column, but as I am not sure as to why it is frustrating.

[carnifex]

It does seem like the units chosen for battle are too random. It's as if the game is forcing me to ignore Maxims IV and XI.

Maxim IV. When the conquest of a country is undertaken by two or three armies, which have each their separate line of operation, until they arrive at a point fixed upon for their concentration, it should be laid down as a principle, that the union of these different corps should never take place near the enemy: because the enemy, in uniting his forces, may not only prevent this junction, but may beat the armies in detail.

Maxim XI. ... Let it therefore be held as a principle, that an army should always keep its columns so united as to prevent the enemy from passing between them with impunity.

Also, why bother to construct combined arms Corps if the system is just going to pick several units out of all available in the Army or Armies present?

[carburo]

Eric,
Thanks for the answer. I’ve no problem with the battle size limit or with some randomness. In fact, I like the uncertainty it’s supposed to add, but sometimes it gets ridiculous. My concern is when randomness actually doesn’t look so random, or is plainly ilogical. If I have a 2-1 advantage in numbers in a province, I would expect having more or less the same ratio on the detailed battle. Some randomness around this would be OK to me, even some wild randomness would be fine: say equal numbers on the battlefield; but being outnumbered 2 to 1 is too much. When out of an 18 divisions army you get the same depleted units starting battle after battle (in the same turn, so there’s nothing you can do) you start thinking there’s something not so random about it.
All I want to know is if this is intended this way, or if I’m having very very bad luck. I like the idea of putting whole corps/armies in the battlefield instead of a selection of all the units in the province. The randomness would then be in what corps/armies are selected. That would allow some sort of planning as we can assemble balanced corps, and you would be taking a risk if you put all your best units in one of the corps.
Something general about the random element in the game. I really like the uncertainty it adds, but I think that when randomness is a factor it should be clearly said in the manual. You can never know for sure when randomness is involved in any process, so if you don’t tell me what elements influence a given event and I don’t get the results I expect I usually will assume that I’m overlooking some variable. This can be frustrating if in fact there is nothing I can do and the variability is due to a random factor you added.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: MarcelJV

I am not sure if I understand this correctly, but I will give it a shot.

At the start of every detailed battle my army, as Prussia, has started in a a little circle with the fasted unit in the middle. Reinforcements arrive at different times, which I do not mide, and then take a turn to figure out how to move, unless the first turn is just a warning and you really have to wait one more turn before you can use them. Not sure if that was the intent.

I do not see a problem with this. In Quick battle, I get frustrated when I can not put all of my forces in to anything but route. I assume some units either do not make it or missed a morale test and just never get to the battle and this is reflected in their staying in Route column, but as I am not sure as to why it is frustrating.

What you describe is the design intent, yes.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: carburo

Eric,
Thanks for the answer. I’ve no problem with the battle size limit or with some randomness. In fact, I like the uncertainty it’s supposed to add, but sometimes it gets ridiculous. My concern is when randomness actually doesn’t look so random, or is plainly ilogical. If I have a 2-1 advantage in numbers in a province, I would expect having more or less the same ratio on the detailed battle. Some randomness around this would be OK to me, even some wild randomness would be fine: say equal numbers on the battlefield; but being outnumbered 2 to 1 is too much. When out of an 18 divisions army you get the same depleted units starting battle after battle (in the same turn, so there’s nothing you can do) you start thinking there’s something not so random about it.
All I want to know is if this is intended this way, or if I’m having very very bad luck. I like the idea of putting whole corps/armies in the battlefield instead of a selection of all the units in the province. The randomness would then be in what corps/armies are selected. That would allow some sort of planning as we can assemble balanced corps, and you would be taking a risk if you put all your best units in one of the corps.
Something general about the random element in the game. I really like the uncertainty it adds, but I think that when randomness is a factor it should be clearly said in the manual. You can never know for sure when randomness is involved in any process, so if you don’t tell me what elements influence a given event and I don’t get the results I expect I usually will assume that I’m overlooking some variable. This can be frustrating if in fact there is nothing I can do and the variability is due to a random factor you added.

I'll look into seeing if I can mix-it-up more and keep corps together.


Eric

[Ralegh]

This rule seems really cool, but it makes Turkey very hard to win with.

So I can send swarms of divisions on the strategic map - the enemy usually manage to have equal numbers with me in every battle - and they start every battle rested and at full supply, so "wearing them down" really means shrinking their divisions - which takes a VERY long time when you play Turkey.

I think you should get some sort of benefit in battle from having swarms of extra men if the enemy doesn't - perhaps a bonus 0.5 to your morale if you outnumber the enemy by 2:1 in the area, and a bonus +1.0 if you outnumber them 3:1 or more in the area?

At the same time, I would increase the penalties/costs for large stacks - double the over 20-division thing etc.