Detailed Combat Initial Deployment

[Russian Guard]

Anyone else have this issue?

Most every detailed battle I choose to fight, my supply caissons are deployed at the far ends of either or both of my flanks. Sometimes even worse (scattered far away from the main force).

I try to protect them by racing cavalry out to screen them, but many times they are whacked by enemy cavalry before I ever get a chance to move anything, let alone move the caissons. I have had to control/alt/delete (start over) numerous times, as the enemy literally over-ran and captured or routed all of my supply caissons before I could even move.

Is there a way to influence where initial deployment of units (or at least caissons) set up?

One other question - maybe I'm reading it wrong but the rules state that cavalry cannot charge Artillery if the Artillery is adjacent to good-order infantry. Yet in my games the enemy cavalry attacks my Artillery like they were magnets, conducting charges repeatedly regardless of the presence of infantry. Am I reading this rule wrong?

[Hard Sarge]

yea, even with the upgraded code, they still seem to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, over all not much help for the supply wagons yet

for the Arty, you need to have the Inf so that the Cav that is attacking is next to both the Arty and Inf when it charges

just having a Inf unit next to the arty is not enough

something like this, it may be HARD to see, as the bad guys color is close to the good guys

but I am facing one way and they are facing the other way

[Russian Guard]

Ahh, I get it (Cavalry/Artillery issue). Thx HS.

I have seen very little mentioning this supply wagon issue - surprising to me. That's why I thought perhaps there was a way to influence the deployment that I was missing.

Strange because it's clearly not random. By that I mean, the darn things are almost ALWAYS on the ends of my flanks (or worse), clustered together. Alas, a later patch perhaps...

[thufir]

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard
I have seen very little mentioning this supply wagon issue - surprising to me. That's why I thought perhaps there was a way to influence the deployment that I was missing.

Strange because it's clearly not random. By that I mean, the darn things are almost ALWAYS on the ends of my flanks (or worse), clustered together. Alas, a later patch perhaps...

I have had this problem as well, although in my experience it has not been a disaster all that often. To be more specific, from what I've seen placement of supply is always random, and usually rather odd. However, so far, I can usually get the supply away from the enemy before he has a chance to attack it, and it has been rather rare that the enemy has been able to actually capture the supply before I can move it. Also, I would say I have used the supply extensively in my detailed combat, and to date I have found it very helpful.

Now I would also have to say that so far, I most of my detailed combat experience is in cases where I have outnumbered the enemy. I could imagine that random supply placement could quickly become more of a problem if the enemy were numerically superior.

[ericbabe]

For what it's worth, placement is random, but is farther back toward your back line than your main setup area.

I personally like the game-play aspects of this variability, as it makes having cavalry to protect and escort your caissons more useful, and it gives the underdog (out-of-supply) player a better chance of intercepting and stealing some supply. However, we have had a few complaints about it and are considering positioning one caisson with each corps/army for units that are in-supply.

[Russian Guard]

My hat's off to your design team. Here's why:

Last night, I was playing (as usual) Russia and tangled with the French in a number of battles, in western Austria. What I noted was "hmm, why am I not having the supply caissons being over-run issue, like I was before?"

Then it hit me, and goes to your point. Previously, I was battling the Turks alot, in mostly open terrain, and their preponderance of cavalry was having a field day with my scattered caissons.

Fighting in western Austria the terrain was cluttered, lots of streams, trees, and hills, and French cavalry - both less numerous and constrained by terrain - was unable to get at my caissons as easily.

While I do think it would be a good idea to have minimal protected supply of some kind (assuming your Army is in supply in the first place), this definitely gives cavalry, and the Turks, a needed element of danger.

In the main, I withdraw my concern.

[TexHorns]

While on this topic of battle set up, I would like to point out the jumbled mess of the divisions. It sometimes takes me 2 turns to get them untangled and in an organized line.

I would like to see them arrive on one end of the map edge in column, with the other side the same on the opposite end. Then a meeting engagement could ensue. Both sides being given an opportunity to select the terrain they want to position themselves. Another option would be for the defender to be established on good defensive terrain and the attacker arriving in column.

I guess my point is that the randomness results in a messy disorganozed initial placement and it would be nice if it were less messy and more ordered.

[ericbabe]

A key design consideration is to make detailed battles short enough so that they don't overwhelm the game. We experimented with many battle setup schemes and map sizes, and the result we found is that even small increases in map size and starting distance cause large increases to game playing time. As it is now, the average playing time for an experienced player playing a moderately sized detailed battle is less than an hour. When we had setup close to the edge of the map and allowed a lot of room for maneuver prior to the engagement, then the battles took closer to four hours to complete.

From a playability perspective, the random setup gives a possible advantage to the underdog in a fight. If players don't have perfect control over their units' setup, then it becomes more likely that a weaker player can move quickly to exploit a larger player's disadvantaged setup. My sense is that if we allowed perfect setup that the results of battles would become more predictable, and that numerical/troop superiority would be more of a determining factor.

Never-the-less, detailed battle setup is something that a lot of players would like to see handled with more player control. For our sequels, we are looking at ways to expand this area of the game engine.

[carnifex]

Personally I think it's fine as it is. During that time era there are numerous examples of armies basically blundering into each other, of massive engagements precipitated by a chance meeting of peripheral formations that escalated as the army commanders more or less blindly fed reinforcements to the sound of the guns.

[Russian Guard]

With the exception of the issue of minimal supply caissons for supplied troops starting within a safer perimeter, I agree. Fine as is.

The initial tension and excitement as you try to construct a cohesive defense/attack with the enemy closing, makes for some good fun. And I definitely do not want 4 hour detail battles.

[TexHorns]

First let me say Eric how much I apprecaite your consistent response to issues brought to the forum.

Second, inspite of the issues brought to your attention, bugs, frustration with intended designs etc, COG has proven to be an excellent game that provides a gastly amount of fun filled hours.

Third, I must be a dull witted general as my detailed battles usually take an hour. I usually form a line along favorable terrain when outnumbered or on the defensive. Since the AI still attacks even when they are on the defense, I usually set up a strong line and let him come to me. As I've grown more comfortable I have begun to be more aggressive in initiating contact early on.

I understand the design idea that you described above. And I definetly can live with it the way it is. I guess even if continuing start within close proximity, I still think it would be better and even quicker to at least have the placement reflect some kind of organization as opposed to the jumbled mess it usually is.

Thanks again for continuing to be involved and I look foraward to future adaptions. [:)]

[ericbabe]

Under normal circumstances, members of a corps or army try to start a detailed battle adjacent to each other. It's the one way to try to organize your units when entering detailed battle.

[carnifex]

Since the AI still attacks even when they are on the defense, I usually set up a strong line and let him come to me.

Yeah, this is something I would like to see changed. The defender doesn't have to attack - if he waits out the attacker then the attackers time-based morale loss will eventually cause him to retreat. I would like to see the AI on defensive more often, just form a nice line in good terrain and wait for me [:)]

[Napi]

I'm afraid I really hate the fact that my supply caissons start so far from my main boddy. In combination with the mess of the initial setup I ussually end up racing towards my supply units to make sure they are not overrun. taking unnecessary and sometimes substantial losses in the process. As France you can usually afford this but when playing on high difficulty this is often fatal.

I'm unpersuaded by the the reasons to deploy them so far. If someone enters a battle unsupplied then that's the fault of that player and the advantage of the guy paying dear bucks for that supply should not be undone by forcing him to put himself in a possition that negates that advantage. So please, drop this "feature".

Also, I agree that setting up your units all the time is probably in most cases a waste of time but in the large and important battles it can be the difference between victory and defeat.

I just played a battle as Russia against France on Bonaparte level and (as you know better then me) those French are bastards to get routed. If you then have to start with your forces being deployed with 2 rivers running between them and very few available fords to get to the other side that _really_ sucks and honestly takes a lot of the fun away from the game for me. I had been preparing a long time for this battle, building up my economy etc... to then have to start the battle with such a disadvantage (and off course with the supply so very far away) is annoying.

[Ursa MAior]

But probably you have fared much better then Napoleon whose marshalls have let him completely down many times either by not obeying or 'over' obeying ( I mean sticking to teh letters of instead of the spirit) his intructions. IMHO the greatest and most typical feature of war (chaos) is not really portrayed in most of teh wargames. I'D like to see a game where I issue orders and they are carried out or not based on teh units commander's skills and/or the chain of command's quality. (Anyone remember when Boney asked Grouchy replacing Berthier how many messengers he has sent with an important message. One he said. Berthier would have sended at least 5 replied sadly Napoleon.)

[thufir]

All in all, I'd have to say I am rather enjoying the random placement of supply, although I admit that this is based on limited play experience.

I did have one detailed battle in which I was facing both Austrian and Russian troops, and it seemed that the Russian troops were coming in from my rear (as defined by the placement of supply). In this case I certainly felt screwed, as I lost 2-3 supply caissons before moving a single unit! But I saw this only one time, and I have not seen it since.

[LeBaron]

I totally agree that initial deployment to often is moronicly stupid. I'd also be happy to see the AI sometimes on smarter defense. I've won to many battles by just waiting for the attack, blowing it to pieces with strong artillery and finishing with my cavalery.

[Napi]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

But probably you have fared much better then Napoleon whose marshalls have let him completely down many times either by not obeying or 'over' obeying ( I mean sticking to teh letters of instead of the spirit) his intructions. IMHO the greatest and most typical feature of war (chaos) is not really portrayed in most of teh wargames. I'D like to see a game where I issue orders and they are carried out or not based on teh units commander's skills and/or the chain of command's quality. (Anyone remember when Boney asked Grouchy replacing Berthier how many messengers he has sent with an important message. One he said. Berthier would have sended at least 5 replied sadly Napoleon.)

IMHO you are mixing 2 things. One is, as you say, getting your orders obeyed but this is depicted in the large map overview where your corps and armies move. As you will have noticed, at times corps and armies move at different impulses. As a result forces taking part in a planned battle are often less then you would have wanted. At times, some corps don't move at all. I think this takes care of what you are asking.

What I am asking is that my supply starts together with my troops, close by and in the rear. I would imagine that any soldier making it to an Army or Corps commander would have the wits to make sure his supply is protected. It does not make any sense to charge big time for supply (money), which is by the way entirely correct, and then put that supply so far it becomes a liability and it takes you, at times, several turns to get it where it is needed. Sorry, but that is frustrating.

Concerning deployement, I would suggest making it optional. Before the battle let players chose to either automatically deploy your troops or manually. This can't be to hard to program and it would take care of that.

[Ursa MAior]

I stand corrected.

[zorlag]

I find this very annoying as well... Just ran into battle with Spain where all my supply wagons are on right wing without protection (4 of them). Also one of my artillery is on front line without protection. On first round they all get ripped apart when spanish cavalry charges them. If I even could just get first move with supplies I might get some of them to safety but no. [:o] I'd really love either little more space between starting armies or way to set up your troops for battle.