Wish List

[von Döbeln]

A rewind (as in play backwards) button in replay mode would be nice. If you fast forward past the frame you are looking for you must go back to start and fast forward again as it is now (unles I'm missing something).

LvD

[Gunner24]

A picture of what several people have reported about the second line firing, and not the first line.


After that this Regiment has split into three Battalions, two have gone forward into melee and one remains in reserve....which seems to be correct.



Close up, not much animation of the hand to hand combat happens :


But if you click on the replay to go forward, frame by frame at this stage you will see (or I did anyway) that these three battalions go back and forth all over the place.  Is that a glitch with the replay and nothing to worry about, or is it another indication that the graphics are somehow not keeping pace with the background calculations that resolve the engagements ?

Oh, the middle battalion shows hardly any men, perhaps it's not a battalion, but if not where is the third one ?.

[JMM]

 
I generally work with the 2D view which is a good "image" of the internal process.
I am sure -for the 2 first pictures- the simulation is right.. but it's not the best to watch the second battalion opens the fire.. However, I am no sure this happens a lot... More annoying for the third picture...

The bugs are on the graphical engine... I have to fix that, no other comment.

JMM

[englishoo7]

No that is not a glitch with replay Gunner, thats what I saw happening first time. One battalion further down goes back and forth, back and forth, charging and recharging. This goes on for a long time until it routs? Are these melees actually connecting? They look like they rout just before contact sometimes but maybe that is as designed. Perhaps they charged but refused at the very last moment to cross bayonets!

What concerned me most, was that the defending battalions took very, very few casualties despite having severel columns attack? Maybe I have gone back to look at the casualties for the wong unit but I don't think so. The defenders got tired and I think that may be the reason for the eventual rout. Severel thousand Frenchmen had a go. I know only a percentage are firing in an attack column but even so. Perhaps a beta tester could answer this one?

That second rank firing thing happens a lot for me. Is this the reason for so few casualties?

[lodi57]

I know only a percentage are firing in an attack column but even so

In LG, only infantry in column by division fires before charging, columns by company or platoon don't.

[englishoo7]

In LG, only infantry in column by division fires before charging, columns by company or platoon don't.

I am a bit confused by that  answer... You can see severel columns firing for some time during the video but I don't think they are actually causing casualties? There is an erosion of moral but this might not be caused by the firing at all.

Some columns do appear to charge but 'seem' to miss. (they might connect but I miss it).

Like I said, some of the things I first took to be bugs aren't, so there may be something I am not seeing/understanding. Watch the video.

[Gunner24]

You can see severel columns firing for some time during the video but I don't think they are actually causing casualties

Thery looked to be a long way away from the target, I'm not even sure they were in range, maybe the first Battaion was, but 80-100 yards in the 3d view is very very close....distances can be deceptive on the 3d map, mostly being a LOT futher away than we might forst think.

[englishoo7]

If thats true then why? Idon't remember changing any range setting (if you can) and the attacking battalions were routed by the fire of those defending.
I would love this problem to merely be sorted by range. Perhaps my attack failed because they volled right on the edge of their effective range?

[englishoo7]

I have revisited those casualty figures. There are casualties inflicted on the gefenders, though not as many as I would have thought (or perhaps wanted? ). Some regiments did appear to blaze away for a while without hitting anything. I am learning more. I did not support this attack, with say, horse artillery?

Also that graphic where the all Battalions in a regiment move into a single space persists!

[Gunner24]

I would love this problem to merely be sorted by range

It could be that they were in range for the "game engine" to do the calculations, but the graphics were not in synch with the engine behind the game.....JMM has said there is some grapic problems and IF they were right it might show the two sides a lot close than is displayed......all total guess work on my part but I'm sure something with the graphics and the game engine is not quite working together - at the same time.

[Uxbridge]

Am I right that "unit attacked" means "unit is attacking?"

[Hook]

Am I right that "unit attacked" means "unit is attacking?"

"Unit attacked" actually should be "Unit engaged."  It's a mis-translation.

Hook

[Uxbridge]

But by "engaged" do we mean the unit is engaging on its own initiative or is responding to enemy action?

[Hook]

But by "engaged" do we mean the unit is engaging on its own initiative or is responding to enemy action?

It means it's engaged in combat... whether it's being hit by artillery or marching to an enemy it intends to attack (I think).  It's kind of a catch-all phrase meaning it's in combat.

Hook

[Vorontsov]

These in game terms such a 'unit attacked', 'recoil', 'disclination'(?) need to be replaced for more proper terms ('wavering', 'engaged' etc).