Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
-
Russian Guard
- Posts: 1251
- Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:05 am
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
Wife was away this weekend, so I had a marathon session of COG [:D]
Consequently, I had many detailed battles. Sadly, this problem reared it's most ugly head once again. I had previously decided that it was a "feature" as opposed to a "problem" after a discussion earlier in this thread.
'Fraid I've changed my mind...or else, if it's a feature, it's IMO a poor one. I repeatedly had this issue. Although it is stated above that the placement of supply caissons is random, I believe I'm confused as to what part of the set up process is random.
What is clearly not random, at least as I define "random" is the fact that supply caissons deploy together, in clusters, and are almost (as in 90% of the time) always deployed at either or both ends (wings) of my forces.
When I get to move first it's not a serious problem, as I can usually deploy to protect at least a cpl of them. As the above post describes, however, some of the time I find my strung out supply caissons run over by enemy cavalry and routed, before I even move, whereupon I face a long battle with at times not a single caisson for supply.
Control/Alt/Delete.
It's not a game-breaker for me by any stretch (I can hear the sighs of relief at COG HQ [;)] ) - in my opinion there are other much more serious issues to fix - but it is quite annoying.
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
I like the random set up. 200 years ago armies and battles were disorganized chaos. I actually enjoy trying to figure out how to untangle and deploy onto favorable ground. Sometimes, I have to send 1 or 2 units ahead as a forward guard, in order to buy time to fall back slightly to a more favorable postion at the expence of getting the forward unit(s) shot up severely. The random set up does gives corps units the advantage that they deserve. I have seldom had problems protecting my supply units. However sometimes the battle is all but decided by the time my supply units catch up. If your cav is largely outnumbered (by Spain or Turk for example), then you should have additional problems because it might have been unwise to enter into battle in that situation. I love the detailed battles. The AI aggressiveness is a bit out of balance, however it does greatly speed up game play. Therefore, I vote not to make the AI too defensive because I do not want to see the battles take more than one hour.
-
Russian Guard
- Posts: 1251
- Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:05 am
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
To be clear - I have no problem with random initial deployment per se, except as relates the supply caissons. I also enjoy what can be a tense time getting forces into position to attack/defend, sometimes under fire.
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
I've encountered this frustrating problem with supply caison setup as well. Against cavalry-heavy armies, it's possible to have all your supply caisons routed before your first move. It probably wouldn't bother me if the cavalry was riding around to my rear and attacking it, but sometimes it starts out sitting between the lines.
My other beef with initial setups is fortifications. At first, I would risk exposing some units in dashes for these, but now I rarely bother. As far as I can see, there is no way to expel friendly militia units from them, and the militia tend to be located in the fortification hexes with the best firing arcs. This also means the single-hex forts only come into play if the attacking force targets them. I would rather have the single-hex forts unoccupied and a single central militia in the larger forts. Or better yet, have the province's actual garrison unit(s)initially set up in the fortification.
I'm also bugged by terrain features adjacent fortifications. I often have forts where the battlements are adjacent hills or other natural features that block sight lines and screen enemy units or, in the case of hills, provide them with an advantageous position. As far as I know, engineers of that period usually situated fortifications with a minimal radius of clear, flat ground. I'm pretty sure that the preference was for this radius to be up to 300 yards, though older fortifications might have been built with weaker canon or bows in mind. This could be solved by having the templates for the forts modified to include a 1-3 hex width of clear ground around the fortifications.
My other beef with initial setups is fortifications. At first, I would risk exposing some units in dashes for these, but now I rarely bother. As far as I can see, there is no way to expel friendly militia units from them, and the militia tend to be located in the fortification hexes with the best firing arcs. This also means the single-hex forts only come into play if the attacking force targets them. I would rather have the single-hex forts unoccupied and a single central militia in the larger forts. Or better yet, have the province's actual garrison unit(s)initially set up in the fortification.
I'm also bugged by terrain features adjacent fortifications. I often have forts where the battlements are adjacent hills or other natural features that block sight lines and screen enemy units or, in the case of hills, provide them with an advantageous position. As far as I know, engineers of that period usually situated fortifications with a minimal radius of clear, flat ground. I'm pretty sure that the preference was for this radius to be up to 300 yards, though older fortifications might have been built with weaker canon or bows in mind. This could be solved by having the templates for the forts modified to include a 1-3 hex width of clear ground around the fortifications.
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
Kevan, Left click or hit "e" with the cursor over the militia in the castle or fortification to be able to control them. I usually don't mess with the castles as they don;t really provide much benefit. But I do tend to deploy in proximity of friendly fortifications as the units, militia or other, fire as cannons from the fort. I'll activate the militia in forts and move them so as to have a LOS to an enemy unit and blaze away. Another advantage is that they auto-resupply in the fort.
We're gonna dance with who brung us.
-
sol_invictus
- Posts: 1959
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Kentucky
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
I probably shouldn't voice an opinion on this since I haven't played COG much at all; yes, I'm one of those fanatical history nuts who want their wargames to closely mirror real historical possibilities and have been waiting for COG to get patched up a bit, but I'll mouth off anyway. I can agree with some random disorder in the initial deployment, but the Supply Waggons out in no-mans land almost all of the time should really be changed. This just isn't right. I will now go back under deep cover until the patch is released.[>:]
"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
I'm looking forward to getting my copy of CoG in the next few weeks after it is updated with this new patch. However, I will pipe in as well. Supply trains always followed the army and were kept in a some what secure location behind friendly lines. The fact that supply wagons show up in battle on line with the infantry during movement to contact (especially on the flanks) is obsurd. This really should be fixed.
As for battle setup, that should be determined just prior to the battle. For example, if your army is moving from point A to point C in column formation and your engaged at point B, then you would begin the combat in column formation. Another option would be the player learns the enemy is moving in their direction. They opt for setting up a defense and are given the oppertunity to determine the terrain in which they want to defend and have a specific amount of time in which to set up the defense. If the player runs out of time, the enemy slams into their unprepared forces just like in reality. In other words, there should be a "chit" option as to how you will approach battle that can either give you an advantage or dissadvantage based on your choice.
What the complaints in this forum sound like is the battle begins with the players army in camp during resupply and the enemy army penetrated your picketts in force before your army could be alerted by your scouting calvery or the picketts themselves. Highly unlikely. But, this is the only possibility where supply cassions would be amongst the troops during the initiation of combat. I can see this remaining in the code only if it occurs in this manner where during resupply the players army is caught off guard and vice versa for the computer opponents.
As for battle setup, that should be determined just prior to the battle. For example, if your army is moving from point A to point C in column formation and your engaged at point B, then you would begin the combat in column formation. Another option would be the player learns the enemy is moving in their direction. They opt for setting up a defense and are given the oppertunity to determine the terrain in which they want to defend and have a specific amount of time in which to set up the defense. If the player runs out of time, the enemy slams into their unprepared forces just like in reality. In other words, there should be a "chit" option as to how you will approach battle that can either give you an advantage or dissadvantage based on your choice.
What the complaints in this forum sound like is the battle begins with the players army in camp during resupply and the enemy army penetrated your picketts in force before your army could be alerted by your scouting calvery or the picketts themselves. Highly unlikely. But, this is the only possibility where supply cassions would be amongst the troops during the initiation of combat. I can see this remaining in the code only if it occurs in this manner where during resupply the players army is caught off guard and vice versa for the computer opponents.
Matthew T. Rambo
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
Please let me clarify how the game works: supply don't show up "on the battle line" but between 4-8 hexes behind the line of battle. They can show up on the wings and are thus vulnerable to enemy cavalry early in the battle when the terrain is open. As mentioned, we are planning to add some supply directly with the corps/armies.
Allowing players to choose setup would drastically affect game balance in COG, so we probably won't add support for that unless we make other major changes. We are taking this request into consideration for the sequel product and hope to work some control over setup into the rules for that.
Allowing players to choose setup would drastically affect game balance in COG, so we probably won't add support for that unless we make other major changes. We are taking this request into consideration for the sequel product and hope to work some control over setup into the rules for that.
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
I for one prefer things as they are. The less than ideal setups (theoretically for BOTH sides) put every battle on a "crisis mode" from the get go and makes each combat that much more interesting. Having to make decisions as to whether occupy this key ground, or some exposed area because a wagon or cannon might be in danger, or to go off hunting for the enemies wayword wagons and/or cannons...makes it much more intense.
Now, I don't know if this is just my imagination or not...but I've been somehow under the impression from playing that army commanders play a role in setup. It SEEMS to me that better commanders generate closer, more compact. ie, sensable setups. Poor commanding generals tend to give me spread out setups...as if my army had just been ambushed on its line of march.
Now reading this forum, I realize now this has *probably* all just been my imagination; Eric or anyone else here has not mentioned commanders playing a role, so I'm guessing this is not a feature like I suspected it might be.
But...what a cool feature to add! Maybe base setups on a commanders initiative (ie strategic) rating...and beter generals would give you nicer, more compact setups. Just a suggestion.
Now, I don't know if this is just my imagination or not...but I've been somehow under the impression from playing that army commanders play a role in setup. It SEEMS to me that better commanders generate closer, more compact. ie, sensable setups. Poor commanding generals tend to give me spread out setups...as if my army had just been ambushed on its line of march.
Now reading this forum, I realize now this has *probably* all just been my imagination; Eric or anyone else here has not mentioned commanders playing a role, so I'm guessing this is not a feature like I suspected it might be.
But...what a cool feature to add! Maybe base setups on a commanders initiative (ie strategic) rating...and beter generals would give you nicer, more compact setups. Just a suggestion.
Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
Thanks ericbabe for the reply. It speaks volumes about the quality of development in this game to receive feedback in such a timely manner, and to be open to suggestions.
Matthew T. Rambo
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
Now, I don't know if this is just my imagination or not...but I've been somehow under the impression from playing that army commanders play a role in setup. It SEEMS to me that better commanders generate closer, more compact. ie, sensable setups. Poor commanding generals tend to give me spread out setups...as if my army had just been ambushed on its line of march.
That is exactly how it works. There is a commander vs. commander check at the start of a battle. The side that fails the check is more spread out than the other side. If the check results are close then there's no advantage, or if both fail badly, then both are spread out more.
What we'd like to do in the sequel is give players some control over setup of units when the commander of the unit makes the proper check.
Eric
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
Oh ho! So I was not just dreaming this then!! [:)] Very cool.
Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
No, this needs to be fixed. EVERY time I enter battle the enemy cav moves first and destroys/routs my artillery and supply. THIS IS SO INSANELY STUPID. My guns and 'butter' are always getting deployed up front or way out on the sides.
WHAT COMMANDER IS SO STUPID AS TO MARCH IN SUCH AN ORDER THAT THE HEAD OF HIS COLUMNS ARE ARTILLEY AND SUPPLY WAGONS or his flanks are composed of such?
FIX THIS. This is the absolute WORST thing about this game.
I suggest variable set-ups:
1). The attacker should be set up in column on the edge of the map where he enters along a road in the direction he entered the province and the defender on the other edge in column on a road from the direction he entered if both corps moved to this province this 'pulse'
2). The attacker on the edge if he moved this pulse and the defender in the center randomly deployed if he DID not move THIS pulse but does move THIS turn.
3). The attacker on the edge and the defender ALLOWED his own set-up if he NEVER moved this turn.
A random variable based on leadership initiative that allows the attacker and/or defender to deviate from this to an ALLOWED set-up in a specified area.
WHAT COMMANDER IS SO STUPID AS TO MARCH IN SUCH AN ORDER THAT THE HEAD OF HIS COLUMNS ARE ARTILLEY AND SUPPLY WAGONS or his flanks are composed of such?
FIX THIS. This is the absolute WORST thing about this game.
I suggest variable set-ups:
1). The attacker should be set up in column on the edge of the map where he enters along a road in the direction he entered the province and the defender on the other edge in column on a road from the direction he entered if both corps moved to this province this 'pulse'
2). The attacker on the edge if he moved this pulse and the defender in the center randomly deployed if he DID not move THIS pulse but does move THIS turn.
3). The attacker on the edge and the defender ALLOWED his own set-up if he NEVER moved this turn.
A random variable based on leadership initiative that allows the attacker and/or defender to deviate from this to an ALLOWED set-up in a specified area.
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
gdp, this all been hashed through already if you read this thread from the beginning. It is not a bug. It is the way the game is designed.
If you play enough games and detailed battle the deployments will even out. We have all experienced this frustration. Make sure you have leaders with good strategic ratings with your armies. Make sure you have a balanced corps/army (inf/art/cav). Use your cav to protect your art and sup. Your art and sup cannot be charged if the attacker is also adjacent to an ordered enemy inf or cav unit.
I played for a lengthy time last night with many detailed battles and only had one art charged before I could protect it and I never lost an art or a supply.
If you play enough games and detailed battle the deployments will even out. We have all experienced this frustration. Make sure you have leaders with good strategic ratings with your armies. Make sure you have a balanced corps/army (inf/art/cav). Use your cav to protect your art and sup. Your art and sup cannot be charged if the attacker is also adjacent to an ordered enemy inf or cav unit.
I played for a lengthy time last night with many detailed battles and only had one art charged before I could protect it and I never lost an art or a supply.
We're gonna dance with who brung us.
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
I've not played CoG at all. Not that I don't want to, but having been laid off recently, the budgetary allotment for the game evaporated not long ago. Yet, I've been lurking here in the anticipation of some family member having pity on me during this Christmas season.
So far, my wife has failed to take the initiative in this regard...sigh.
However, I do have some thoughts about this issue, whether or not they happen in this game if something like it goes into a future product.
1) Why not allow the player(s) the option for random or manual set up? When the battle notice pops up and the player elects to fight a detailed battle, the very next question is for random or manual set up. Putting more logical decisions into the players hands allows them to rationalize various factors, not the least of which is how much time they want to spend on the battle.
2) Why not make screening forces a factor in how random the random set up is? If I have zero light cavalry in my corps (hey, it could happen) then should I not be at a disadvantage when forced to battle against an army that has adequate screening and scouting forces?
3) Why not allow the player to create a march order, where the divisions or corps arrived onto the battlefield in a player designated sequence?
I don't agree that battles of this period were all that random ad hoc affairs. Certainly there was an element of "friction" or "chance" that caused delays or allowed an army to react faster than expected. However, aside from these things happening, there still was an expectation of a logical order to the process of entering the combat area. Napoleon expected Davout to arrive along a certain road within a given time frame. It would have been a random event that would have caused Davout to enter the Austerlitz battlefield from the north, but it _could_ have happened. As it is, Davout arrived along the expected axis of advance and his forces that made it in time deployed accordingly.
4) Rather than total randomness within the described area, why not have several weighted options part of the deployment equation based upon choices the player has made as compared to choices his opponent has made?
5) Why not allow the player to tell off some units as escort to the supply wagons and thus are deployed with the supplies and not with the rest of the battle line?
Anyhow, I hope to, in the not too distant future, be able to participate in a PBEM game (or 6) of CoG.
So far, my wife has failed to take the initiative in this regard...sigh.
However, I do have some thoughts about this issue, whether or not they happen in this game if something like it goes into a future product.
1) Why not allow the player(s) the option for random or manual set up? When the battle notice pops up and the player elects to fight a detailed battle, the very next question is for random or manual set up. Putting more logical decisions into the players hands allows them to rationalize various factors, not the least of which is how much time they want to spend on the battle.
2) Why not make screening forces a factor in how random the random set up is? If I have zero light cavalry in my corps (hey, it could happen) then should I not be at a disadvantage when forced to battle against an army that has adequate screening and scouting forces?
3) Why not allow the player to create a march order, where the divisions or corps arrived onto the battlefield in a player designated sequence?
I don't agree that battles of this period were all that random ad hoc affairs. Certainly there was an element of "friction" or "chance" that caused delays or allowed an army to react faster than expected. However, aside from these things happening, there still was an expectation of a logical order to the process of entering the combat area. Napoleon expected Davout to arrive along a certain road within a given time frame. It would have been a random event that would have caused Davout to enter the Austerlitz battlefield from the north, but it _could_ have happened. As it is, Davout arrived along the expected axis of advance and his forces that made it in time deployed accordingly.
4) Rather than total randomness within the described area, why not have several weighted options part of the deployment equation based upon choices the player has made as compared to choices his opponent has made?
5) Why not allow the player to tell off some units as escort to the supply wagons and thus are deployed with the supplies and not with the rest of the battle line?
Anyhow, I hope to, in the not too distant future, be able to participate in a PBEM game (or 6) of CoG.
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
Tex,
By your definition, then all the battles of the Napoleonic era were simply random ad hoc affairs where no commanders followed any basic rules of warfare in the use and disposition of their troops.
I don't mean to sound mean or callous, it's just that the idea that you play enough battles and it will even out is not even close to reality.
BTW, I've played several campaigns over at least 200 hours and I've NEVER had the opportunity to charge his guns and butter at the beggining usually because I can't even see the enemy. Truly, the AI is gifted to always know exactly where and how I am set-up. I know the AI is because his cav troop movements throughout every battle I've ever played are always geared to positioning to charge my guns and butter. When protected, his cav just sits and never moves.
Perhaps the AI is flawed as well because the AI only ever produces massive units of guerillas and irregular cav and cossacks. As mentioned in another post, I've seen armies exceeding 250,000 cossacks roaming Europe and 200,000 Spanish guerillas just in France. Then is battle, all they ever charge is guns and butter or sit still or run to the end of the map.
Back to my point on deployment,
Wellington spent days preparing his battles - was reverse slope depolyment just an accident? Napoleon never sent orders on the disposition of troops? And so on and so forth. Total absurdity.
How many times did it happen in the period or in all of history than most of the battles fought started with the supply wagons and the camp followers getting trashed at the beggining (to quote a famous movie - "you said rape twice" - "but I like rape!").
Did it ever happen? I can't think of a single instance in Napoleonic period history where any battle started with the enemy charging supply wagons but then I can't think of a single incident where anybody ever deployed his supply at the head of his troops.
I don't care how many times this issue has been discussed. I feel very strongly that this is just way too wrong not to complain and hope Eric will change the detailed battle issue. One does not have to eliminate the randomness that might occur by simply allowing a set-up before battle based on the events leading to the battle.
Again, I suggest some kind of variable set-ups:
1). The attacker should be set up in column on the edge of the map where he enters along a road in the direction he entered the province and the defender on the other edge in column on a road from the direction he entered if both corps moved to this province this 'pulse'
2). The attacker on the edge if he moved this pulse and the defender in the center randomly deployed if he DID not move THIS pulse but does move THIS turn.
3). The attacker on the edge and the defender ALLOWED his own set-up if he NEVER moved this turn.
A random variable based on leadership initiative that allows the attacker and/or defender to deviate from this to an ALLOWED set-up in a specified area.
My two cents again as an owner and player.
By your definition, then all the battles of the Napoleonic era were simply random ad hoc affairs where no commanders followed any basic rules of warfare in the use and disposition of their troops.
I don't mean to sound mean or callous, it's just that the idea that you play enough battles and it will even out is not even close to reality.
BTW, I've played several campaigns over at least 200 hours and I've NEVER had the opportunity to charge his guns and butter at the beggining usually because I can't even see the enemy. Truly, the AI is gifted to always know exactly where and how I am set-up. I know the AI is because his cav troop movements throughout every battle I've ever played are always geared to positioning to charge my guns and butter. When protected, his cav just sits and never moves.
Perhaps the AI is flawed as well because the AI only ever produces massive units of guerillas and irregular cav and cossacks. As mentioned in another post, I've seen armies exceeding 250,000 cossacks roaming Europe and 200,000 Spanish guerillas just in France. Then is battle, all they ever charge is guns and butter or sit still or run to the end of the map.
Back to my point on deployment,
Wellington spent days preparing his battles - was reverse slope depolyment just an accident? Napoleon never sent orders on the disposition of troops? And so on and so forth. Total absurdity.
How many times did it happen in the period or in all of history than most of the battles fought started with the supply wagons and the camp followers getting trashed at the beggining (to quote a famous movie - "you said rape twice" - "but I like rape!").
Did it ever happen? I can't think of a single instance in Napoleonic period history where any battle started with the enemy charging supply wagons but then I can't think of a single incident where anybody ever deployed his supply at the head of his troops.
I don't care how many times this issue has been discussed. I feel very strongly that this is just way too wrong not to complain and hope Eric will change the detailed battle issue. One does not have to eliminate the randomness that might occur by simply allowing a set-up before battle based on the events leading to the battle.
Again, I suggest some kind of variable set-ups:
1). The attacker should be set up in column on the edge of the map where he enters along a road in the direction he entered the province and the defender on the other edge in column on a road from the direction he entered if both corps moved to this province this 'pulse'
2). The attacker on the edge if he moved this pulse and the defender in the center randomly deployed if he DID not move THIS pulse but does move THIS turn.
3). The attacker on the edge and the defender ALLOWED his own set-up if he NEVER moved this turn.
A random variable based on leadership initiative that allows the attacker and/or defender to deviate from this to an ALLOWED set-up in a specified area.
My two cents again as an owner and player.
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
gdp,
If you had read previous posts about this exact topic you would know that I agree with you. In fact I began a thread about this very topic awhile back. I was just saying that if you read the previous posts you would have read information, opinions and explanations that had already been posted. That way you don't have to wait on the response to your post. I suggested many of the same things you did. The response was that the way it is now is how the developer wants it. I don't see it changing for COG. It may change in future games using the COG system. We are on the same side on this arguement bud.
If you had read previous posts about this exact topic you would know that I agree with you. In fact I began a thread about this very topic awhile back. I was just saying that if you read the previous posts you would have read information, opinions and explanations that had already been posted. That way you don't have to wait on the response to your post. I suggested many of the same things you did. The response was that the way it is now is how the developer wants it. I don't see it changing for COG. It may change in future games using the COG system. We are on the same side on this arguement bud.
We're gonna dance with who brung us.
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
I totally agree that detailed battle set up is an issue that should be resolved. Probably not by the official release of the current patch, as I will purchase the game soon. However, from all the posts complaining about this issue, it should be part of a 1.3 patch.
Matthew T. Rambo
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
Tex,
I've been on this issue from the begining as well. The squeaky wheel gets the grease or the egg. LOL!
I wouldn't have such a gripe except the game isn't advertised as a fictional game like warcraft or something else but as a representative Napoleonic Era game and as such, should be more 'representative' and not so 'lax' in the battle representations of the time.
I've been on this issue from the begining as well. The squeaky wheel gets the grease or the egg. LOL!
I wouldn't have such a gripe except the game isn't advertised as a fictional game like warcraft or something else but as a representative Napoleonic Era game and as such, should be more 'representative' and not so 'lax' in the battle representations of the time.
-
Russian Guard
- Posts: 1251
- Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:05 am
RE: Detailed Combat Initial Deployment
As the starter of this thread, I obviously agree with your point.
Having said that, there's always Control/Alt/Delete Autosave
I'm not suggesting this is a "preferrable" way of handling this, but it seems to me - from the response we get from the Admin guys here - that this is not something they feel needs to be "fixed", for several reasons. So when I get a completely unacceptable set-up, such as the other night when my forces were strung out in a vertical axis right in front of a horizontal line of French units, I simply C/A/D and hit autosave. I re-run the turn and usually get a better initial deployment, although I have on a few occasions had to do this several times.
For what it's worth, I only do this when the initial deployment is completely ludicrous (from my perspective), and often go ahead and struggle through with a less-than-pleasing initial set-up. In those cases, I accept the notion that I was "out-maneuvered strategically" and just deal with it.
Of course this option only works when playing solo - I doubt an opposing player is going to accept a reset when he has your forces by the throat with a lousy initial deployment [:D]
Admin has made one point about this that I agree with. I am not sure what the answer is, either. That is, if both sides are allowed to pre-set up their forces optimally, using the terrain and etc, then weaker Armies like the Turks or Spanish will have virtually no chance of winning most battles.
My thought - and this is obviously something that's not in the cards for this game - would be to have an EiA-style "chit pull" prior to the battles. The side that "wins the chit pull" would have advantages in set-up options - for example, a larger area to deploy forces, and knowledge of the hexes the enemy can deploy in, whereas the loser would have a more restricted "block" of hexes to initially deploy in, and less intel of enemy deployment options for example.
But the easiest fix would likely just have the opposing armies begin the battles further away from each other. This will, however, increase the time for resolving detailed battles - something they also do not want to have happen, and I agree that could be an issue.