artillery

[AJ]

Hook, that's OK.  I think that your post about priorities for artillery may have revealed the answer to our problem.  I believe JMM can solve many of our behavior bugs with mods to the Doctrine editor (see my posts "Support" and "Scouting" in Evolution).

Now that I think about it, a lot of the time artillery is cut down by cavalry, is when it is firing on it's primary target and totally ignores a developing cavalry charge, which decimates it.  If we had an artillery option in the Doctrine Editor, that said something like "Always switch fire to developing threat", it may solve the problem.  That way artillery would switch from it's primary target to the attacking cavalry.  What say you?

[Hook]

I think they probably already automatically switch fire to a developing threat, but I can't be certain.  The problem is that cavalry is smart enough to try to stay out of the arc of fire so the guns can't hit them.

Hook

[Gunner24]

I have a PBEM going where I had artillery firing over a river into the French flank, I had placed the Corps on a defensive line and the cannons went ahead right to the river bank and were firing away as I wanted - maybe got a bit lucky there.

I think they probably already automatically switch fire to a developing threat, but I can't be certain

That would be the best option for artillery, I'd be more than happy to see that as standard - why would they be firing on something 800 yards away when Cavalry are charing in from 400 yeards away ?.

[GrosPaul]

That would be the best option for artillery, I'd be more than happy to see that as standard - why would they be firing on something 800 yards away when Cavalry are charing in from 400 yeards away ?.

Firstly, Hook, I will not be understood as depreciating your outstanding work as well as your other moderators-mates.
No one can know all the intrications about a so huge complex game programmed except JMM (well ... I hope so  ).

Secondly, I hope nobody forget this a beta-version. Personnaly I can't forget after having claiming we have to see what we had bought.

Consequently, may I suggest that we, as recognized beta-testers, could test deeply what happen. I mean, for example, elementary tests as cavalry vs artillery, cavalry+infantry vs artillery, units crossing bridges or trying to cross rivers and so on.

On this way we could hope the doubts and "I think" could be eradicated. Is that possible at our level? Through doctrine creation, perhaps?

You may have guess, I am reluctant to "I believe ... , I think ... , and so on" probably the reason I think I am ... agnostic or ...  atheist, ... thank God.

GP.

[Hook]

Consequently, may I suggest that we, as recognized beta-testers, could test deeply what happen. I mean, for example, elementary tests as cavalry vs artillery, cavalry+infantry vs artillery, units crossing bridges or trying to cross rivers and so on.

On this way we could hope the doubts and "I think" could be eradicated. Is that possible at our level? Through doctrine creation, perhaps?

So go for it.  You could have had 3 answers already by the time you'd finished writing this post!

Hook

[AJ]

Gunner24, the difference is that your artillery were deployed in defense and, forgive me if I'm wrong, A1 ordered them to stay put and fire across the river.  In my case I ordered them to attack across the river.

[GrosPaul]

You could have had 3 answers already by the time you'd finished writing this post! Hook

I know for sure you are bantering me, the poor french speaker, and that make me smiling.

Did you know, I took time to investigate into my dictionaries hoping to catch the right words? The superb space of english words is so rich!
Also I admit this time I took time to eat something before the beginning and the end of my "literature".

I ignored you can spy the time I spend to write a message. Touché! You are discovered "James Bond" 

Friendly yours (anyway),
GP.

NB: no relevant answer yet 

[AJ]

My dear GrosPaul, ignore Hooks stiff upper lip, this Englishman enjoys effort. (I think he does too, tee hee)

[Count von Csollich]

My dear GrosPaul, ignore Hooks stiff upper lip, this Englishman enjoys effort. (I think he does too, tee hee)

^
keep in mind...that he is from the States...

CvC

[GrosPaul]

Oh! Don't be confused, all you English/USA/Australian/... how I like english language since I read "three men in a boat" from Jerome K jerome. Well that could be 55 years from now. I am 70 now.
And after that the gems from G.B Shaw, Oscar Wild, Churchill, amongst others.

Could I have more been gifted for foreign languages!

Hey men! I stop. I am not in a confessional stall 

GP.

[Gunner24]

Gunner24, the difference is that your artillery were deployed in defense and, forgive me if I'm wrong, A1 ordered them to stay put and fire across the river.  In my case I ordered them to attack across the river.

You are correct, in my case they were in the defensive line.  I have now attempted to move them over the river and may have the same problem you had !.

But thinking about this since I did that, the best option would be to leave them there, they are in a good position, pretty safe from attack themselves, why risk moving them over the river into an area controlled by the enemy.  Maybe attack with Inf and Cav, leaving the arty safe in support the other side of the rive, then move them over when it's safer.

[lodi57]

I think they probably already automatically switch fire to a developing threat, but I can't be certain. 

Regiment AI always takes care of the safety of a unit and directs it against the most dangerous threat whatever the doctrine is.