I've figured out how to fix the tactical

[diesel7013]

In my most humble non-computer programing opinion - here is how I'd fix the tactical part ( Not like its 'broken' or anything like that )

1. At Division scale - it is really not neccesary to have Inf, Cav, and Art Divisions - Divisions should be an organic combination of Inf and Arty with maybe seperate Cav Divisions
2. At Divison scale - it is not to scale to 'change formation' from line/column/square, ect...
You could have division facing - to simulate digging in and expected attack - but divisions did not change formation as a unit - at regiment/battalion/brigade level maybe - but not all the way up to Division
3 Yes, you lose the 'flavor' of Naploeonic battles - but you really don't have them right now - and due to the abstractions, the tactical battles may not hold up over time ( replayability wise... )
4. Now you'll move your divisions and operate at an army commander level - this division holds this town, this division covers this hill, ect... That's more realistic at this scale of game I think...

How to imlement this??

1. Change how units are built at stragegic level - instead of Inf, Mil, Cav, Arty, whatever...

a. start out with Light Inf Div - these are heavy on Inf with only light Arty - 10,000 Inf - 10 guns
b. graduate to Heavy Inf Div - 10,000 Inf and maybe 50+ guns
c. now you can incorporate the Jager units, whatever specialty units for nation specific

Now - imagine a corp w/ 6 inf divisions: 1 Militia Div w/ 5000 men, low experience, no arty - a couple of Light Inf Divisions w/ 10,000 men each and maybe 10-20 guns each - more experienced - and a Heavy Divison 10000men/50-100 guns - and a couple in between - then when you go into battle in the tactical - it plays out more realistic

Anyway - great game - and I don't know that these even make sence much less are implementable - but I do think that this would make the tactical battles make more sense...

[diesel7013]

A second thought - the tactical battles remind me of Imperialism I - I loved it too, just a very abstract way to resolve battles - same with COG

[Ralegh]

Interesting idea. Then on the hexmap, you would have a division cover something like 6 hexes - you could choose to make it long and drawn out (over a ridge line or a road), or a compact blob. Hmmm.

On the other hand, hexwar as it stands is FUN - if only we made the AI a little smarter...

[Malagant]

On the other hand, hexwar as it stands is FUN - if only we made the AI a little smarter...

Amen!! Agree 100%!!

[jchastain]

I think what you are describing is essentially a different game. It is obviously far outside the scope of anything that would be considered for a patch and I expect it it is likely more work than would even be considered for a sequel. It really is a different game.

It did get me thinking though - what would be the impact of changing the ZOC of units in this game to 2 hexes to better simulate that the hex represents only the center of a unit that really spread out across a larger area. And what if artillary did damage not only to the target hex but also (to a lesser extent) to all hexes immediately adjacant to the target hex. That would cause units to be more spread out on the map and form a more realistic skirmish line. It would promote more mobility that would give a feel that was distinctly more period appropriate and would make a unit breaking and running have a much more significant impact. It would be possible to mass troops (especially for an attack) but it would subject them to cannon fire that would devastate the concentrated troops to provide a tactical benefit and a tactical risk for generals to consider.

It probably is too late to begin experimenting with such a radical proposal, but it was fun just to consider how that would change the flavor of the hexwars so I thought I'd just go ahead and share the thought.