Artillery deployment

[Holdit]

c) visibility becomes low, so the cannon must halt the fire

Now that's a nice touch.

Holdit

[Regiment 0]

Here is a pic of the situation the frame before they vanish.

Is it possible that this is a line-of-site issue? It's difficult to see exactly, but the battery looks to be behind a crest in front of it as well as deployed along a slope dipping from right to left. It's possible that the 3D engine does not perfectly represent what the units can actually see. I assume the AI positions batteries in optimal places, but did you set the deployment line yourself?

[von Döbeln]

There should be no problem with LOS, and particularly the rightmost two gun crews are within spitting distance (almost) of the enemy with nothing between them.

LvD

[Gunner24]

but I think the model is not very bad

I would say it's very good, the reason I say this is if you look at the FINAL battle stats, all the numbers there look very reasonable for this size of battle, there is nothing there that looks "silly", it all makes a lot of sense, so I'm sure the battle calculations are very very good......the "problem" seems to be with the graphics not matching these behind the sceen calculations.

JMM from another topic :

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

From what I've seen I would say this is correct, it's nothing to do with the game engine that resolves the combats, it's the graphics not matching the combats that are a little out of sequence.

[JCM101]

Had my first experience with arty running off waaay ahead.  First time I've decided to play in snow with low visibility.

I had tasked an infantry unit to support the arty (as per the tutorial) because I had sent the corps cavalry off on a raid.  The rest of the corps was deploying en ligne & the arty happily wandered forward to be met by marauding enemy cavarly.

I actually took advantage of the enemys' arty doing exactly the same at the same moment - whilst they were about 1500m ahead of their corps my cavalry slaughtered them as my arty were likewise cut down. 

I think in this instance the AI had decided to play it's own game of 'how crazy can I make arty units?' 

Given the historical importance of guns, not to mention the cost, it would seem illgocial to deliberately advance well into unknown territory especially in snow with low visibility.  Additionally, why did the infantry decide to stop instead of being in close support as they were in the tutorial?
I therefore think a tweak is needed as this seems abnormal AI behaviour.

[Hook]

We might need to support our artillery with cavalry if they're going to advance that far.  I wouldn't trust that job to infantry alone.

I haven't thought too much about fighting in extremely low visibility.  Anyone else have any ideas on how we'll need to do things differently?  Not necessarily a change to the game logic, but what we need to do.  Logic changes can come later if it's not possible for us to handle the problems.

Hook

[LNDavout]

Low visibility means stay close together.

Maybe use arty only in the second line cause they can´t hit anything anyway.but if you retreat the first line the arty finishes the work

[Hook]

I'm thinking maybe not sending out cavalry to recon, but doing a recon in force with a small corps, possibly with a diversion order.  At least the units in the corps will be able to support each other.  Link a second corps in support of the first if you're worried about them getting overwhelmed.  Or expect your first corps to expend themselves breaking up the enemy advance and send in a second corps after about an hour and a half.  I've had good luck with this.

Half my battles I haven't sent out any cavalry scouts at the beginning, and things work out.  Only send out cavalry scouts if you want to start an artillery bombardment early. 

You can always advance one corps and send out the recon after it's in position, so the artillery won't be so far forward.

Hook

[Pariente]

Because of corps' inertia, your cavalry corps on reconnaissance may have difficulty in going back. Moreover, sending an entire corps takes more time (about thirty minutes for an eight units cavalry corps to start moving) than sending a single regiment of hussars.

As reconnaissance is used to prevent your corps from jumping into the lion's den, I think sending an entire calvary corps - even a small one - may be counterproductive :
- it might come across a great battery.
- it might show your red-hot desire to take a position.

The battle in the demo is a quick battle as the two armies are not so far from each other. But on a larger battlefield, cavalry scouts may be very important to correctly deploy your forces. But I agree, in half my battles in the demo I have not sent any cavalry on reconnaissance too.

Friendly,
Pariente.

[Hook]

I agree that on a larger map we're going to have to do some recon with cavalry.  And the possibility of running into a grand battery would be pretty bad.

I wasn't talking about sending forward a cavalry corps, but a mixed corps of all arms.  I think the only reason I'd form a cavalry corps is to keep a reserve, while attaching cavalry units to the other corps.

If you give an order to a corps before you start the clock, it does not suffer from order delays, but starts immediately unless you give it a delay or a time to execute.  Calling them back would be difficult, so be prepared to support them or possibly lose them.  If I lose them I figure they've already done their job, breaking up or weakening an attack, or weakening a defensive line.

Good info there, thanks.

Hook

[Pariente]

I wasn't talking about sending forward a cavalry corps, but a mixed corps of all arms.  I think the only reason I'd form a cavalry corps is to keep a reserve, while attaching cavalry units to the other corps.

If you give an order to a corps before you start the clock, it does not suffer from order delays, but starts immediately unless you give it a delay or a time to execute.  Calling them back would be difficult, so be prepared to support them or possibly lose them.  If I lose them I figure they've already done their job, breaking up or weakening an attack, or weakening a defensive line.

Good info there, thanks.

Hook

I fully agree with you : a cavalry corps is a reserve.

You said it : calling back a corps is difficult because of inertia and movement initiating delays.

Well, I would not send a small mixed corps on reconnaissance because :
- it is too slow to be really efficient.
- scouting cavalry can see further than infantry and artillery, and as far as a corps commander, so why would you risk infantry, artillery and cavalry rather than just few hussars regiments ?
- creating a small corps implies other corps are bigger and slower (inertia).
- you « lose » a corps commander as he is not used elsewhere.

Actually, I prefer sending two cavalry regiments on reconnaissance - which is quick and unrisky - than a corps as a corps commander and scouting cavalry have the same field of vision.

If you send a small corps, it is like you have not scouted the field before.

Then, you send either cavalry or a corps commander. But sending an entire corps, in my opinion, gathers all disadvantages and has no assets.

Fiendly,
Pariente.

P.S. : In my opinion, the three purposes of cavalry are in order :

1) Reconnaissance.
2) Rupture.
3) Pursuit.

Therefore, I always preserve my cavalry at the outset - lighting the most important places - and order few charges so that in the aftermath cavalry reveals its real power : indefatigable and merciless pursuit.

[Hook]

Pariente, I haven't had a discussion this good about tactics in many years.  Thanks!

The original problem was how to deal with low visibility and assumed that we already know that our army on the field isn't facing a much larger force, but an equal or smaller one. 

If I don't know my enemy's strength or the composition of his forces, I'll send enough cavalry to find out before I commit myself to battle.  In a campaign situation I may decide I don't want to do battle with that enemy in that location.  Or I may decide I want to tease him into attacking my smaller force while I defend and wait for reinforcements.  If I send my smaller force directly against his larger one, without knowing he's larger, he has achieved the element of surprise.  The only reason I'd want to attack a larger force like this is if the enemy is trying to avoid battle and I want to fix him in place while I send a larger force to destroy him.

If I know my forces are at least equal to the enemy and that the enemy intends to give battle, which is the situation in the Montebello scenario, then I have no problem with opening the battle by sending one corps forward without initial recon.  I have probably already given a second corps orders to advance an hour and a half after the first, and will commit additional reserves as necessary. 

It is my intent to keep the initiative and force the enemy to react to my movements.  I hope to force him to commit his reserves before I have committed mine.  If my two corps meet the enemy's main thrust, then they have at least spoiled his attack, disrupted his formations, and if he continues he will meet a fresh defensive line with his weakened and scattered forces.  Meanwhile I've sent another corps from my reserve to flank him.

One complaint I keep hearing about the Montebello battle is that there are too many forces on a map that's too small.  I find that the concentration of forces is just right.  You can't make a wide sweeping flanking movement, but at some point the enemy will advance beyond one of my corps who can attack the enemy's flank as they pass, or some of my forces will advance beyond the enemy's main lines and can flank his forces from there.

This will be very interesting in multiplayer against a human opponent.  I will be adjusting my tactics as necessary.  But if my opponent prefers to wait for a cavalry recon before he orders an advance while my corps starts moving immediately, with or without recon, I have at least stolen an hour's march on him and given myself more room to maneuver the rest of my forces.  That initial corps isn't there to do recon, he's there to fight.  The fact that he's also gathering intelligence is a bonus.  If I find myself surprised too often, you may assume I'll be changing my tactics.

Hook

[Gunner24]

This will be very interesting in multiplayer against a human opponent

Much more so than against the AI in SP mode.

All the grand planning can sometimes go horribly wrong, because the other "human" player has the same grand plans you have - or better ones !.

[Pariente]

Pariente, I haven't had a discussion this good about tactics in many years.  Thanks!

You're welcome, I enjoy talking about tactics too.

If I don't know my enemy's strength or the composition of his forces, I'll send enough cavalry to find out before I commit myself to battle.

So I will.

If I know my forces are at least equal to the enemy and that the enemy intends to give battle, which is the situation in the Montebello scenario, then I have no problem with opening the battle by sending one corps forward without initial recon.  I have probably already given a second corps orders to advance an hour and a half after the first, and will commit additional reserves as necessary.

It is my intent to keep the initiative and force the enemy to react to my movements.  I hope to force him to commit his reserves before I have committed mine.  If my two corps meet the enemy's main thrust, then they have at least spoiled his attack, disrupted his formations, and if he continues he will meet a fresh defensive line with his weakened and scattered forces.  Meanwhile I've sent another corps from my reserve to flank him.

Absolutely. My « rupture mass » - about four corps - has always been sent without reconnaissance as I know my forces are stronger.
I would be very cautious with the « keeping initiative » doctrine. Indeed, this strategy might lead you to a systematic offensive while leading the ennemy army into a « trap » - feigning to be weak on a wing, for instance, and sending huge reserves after the ennemy is engaged - may be less risky.

One complaint I keep hearing about the Montebello battle is that there are too many forces on a map that's too small.  I find that the concentration of forces is just right.  You can't make a wide sweeping flanking movement, but at some point the enemy will advance beyond one of my corps who can attack the enemy's flank as they pass, or some of my forces will advance beyond the enemy's main lines and can flank his forces from there.

This will be very interesting in multiplayer against a human opponent.  I will be adjusting my tactics as necessary.  But if my opponent prefers to wait for a cavalry recon before he orders an advance while my corps starts moving immediately, with or without recon, I have at least stolen an hour's march on him and given myself more room to maneuver the rest of my forces.  That initial corps isn't there to do recon, he's there to fight.  The fact that he's also gathering intelligence is a bonus.  If I find myself surprised too often, you may assume I'll be changing my tactics.

I agree, we are forced to order frontal attacks in the demo... Changing tactics implies you accomodate well to various situations, I'm eager to meet you on a battlefield, never mind the side. Multiplayer will be the real challenge, in my opinion : real opponents, real nasty sneaky human beings.

[War Depot David]

Very interesting thread. 

One the one hand I think they are okay as they are representing 40 odd guns assigned as Corps artillery, Divisional artillery and maybe even some Brigade artillery thrown in.  So a unit of 8 guns in the game I assumed to be actually 40 tubes.  So a single regiment of cav charging 40 tubes will have trouble.  If this is wrong, then where are all my Divisional batteries?

On the other side, they can be too strong.  At Waterloo the Union and Household cav charged straight up and into the French Grand Battery some of which was Old Guard Heavies and survived long enough to be taken out by French Cavalry sent to deal with them.  Napoleon would not have sent the Lancers in if he thought the gunners could fend for themselves.  And later when the French Cav charged the squares, most of the artillery fired and retired or tried (very unsuccessfully to defend their guns).

Just a couple of observations I have.

Also, I have not yet seen gunners retire to infantry formations if close enough yet.  Very common occurence from my own research.

I have seen my artillery go off into the wilderness but mostly that was for what was mentioned earlier with cav scouting ahead.  Other times I think it was because they were close enough to engage, so they did.

=> Gunfreak, why am I not surprised to see you on here?  Good to see.