Enemy Reinforcements making me CRAZY! [Archive]

jskirwin@yahoo.com

08-20-2001, 23:54

Yo
I'm playing the 1530 campaign, and was in the province with the dual river crossing. Anyway, I route the enemy - all my soldiers are on the enemy's territory edge. Sure enough, his reinforcements come trotting from all directions, cross the bridge and set up along where I had started.

Meanwhile my reinforcements are nowhere to be found - and my exhausted soldiers, when told to withdraw, start marching back to be slaughtered by the enemy...

WTF? As far as I'm concerned, once a general leaves routes off the board, or is dead and the last of the original army routes off then reinforcements should not be allowed. It doesn't make any sense.

------------------
The Buddha is a gyoza. If you find the Buddha, eat him.

Alastair

08-20-2001, 23:55

It's incredibly frustrating, I agree, but it does simulate the fact that 2000+ troops will most definitely kill 1200+. In real life it's just because they have more numbers upfront, in this it's because you get slaughtered from YOUR side of the bridge even though there are no visible crossing points but the bridge.

Swoosh So

08-21-2001, 00:03

1 question i have is why still a 16 unit limit on units controlled by one player, i mean technology has got better since the release of the origonal shogun, most pcs can run 3v3 or 4v4 battles online thats 128 units, yet in single player you will never see more that 3 16 unit arimies. it would also have been nice to see your reinforcement on the field fighting at the same time as you but controlled by the ai? i dont see any reason why this could not have been done

Swoooooooooooooooooosh

HOooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOwWWWwwlllll

Swoosh So

08-21-2001, 00:08

Lol you could even give the ai controlled reinforcement commands like hold or advance on enemy using shortcut keys, OK OK im getting too far ahead of myself BUT would be an absolutely fantastic feature to see in the next totalwar ie crusaders

Swooooooooooooooooooooooooooossh!!!!!!!!

Puzz3D

08-21-2001, 00:21

This is the developer's response to all the criticism of the way reinforcements were handled in STW. They seem to have gone to the opposite extreme. Going by several posts I've seen about this issue, their solution has serious drawbacks.

It looks like EA will allow a patch to WE/MI after the game has been out for some period of time. Everyone gets to be a beta tester. I hope the community can come up with specific suggestions for improving the game, and we can present them to CA/DT in a timely way. I would expect we will only get one shot at this; one patch.

MizuYuuki ~~~
Clan Takiyama ~~~

Nelson

08-21-2001, 00:25

Variable reinforcement entry points can help you or hurt you depending on the circumstances. That sounds like real war to me! I find that I enjoy wondering where they will appear and having to watch my back. Before, knowing with metaphysical certitude where they would come in was bogus.

So I like the new reinforcement entry.

Swoosh So

08-21-2001, 00:56

I think the problem with it is it doesent really simulate what 10000 men versus 2000 would be like, we could go some way to simulate this by adding ai controlled armies on both sides i mean why have a 16 unit restriction on the field for each army at one time it dont make sence, especially since u can have 8 armies in a custom battle.

Swoooooooooooosh

Khan7

08-21-2001, 01:47

Well, if you are trying to deal with the weird reinforcements of the AI, it's not terribly hard-- if you've won the battle, just be sure to keep your army all in one piece and good and cohesive no matter where it has pursued the original enemy army to. Then you can deal with the wacky reinforcements piecemeal and have an easy time of it.

The one place that I'm going to say the reinforcements are bogus is on river crossings-- it makes any defensive strategy that doesn't lead to a quick and precipitous rout of the enemy obsolete. If you just sit there and hang on, a worthy strategy in reality, you'll just get all flanked and your guys will run.

It is bogus to magically figure out how to cross a river at some mysterious alternate point just because you've got extra guys, and until CA refines and clarifies the battle system crossing at alternate points and coming up from the rear is not something that should be included in the game.

The main thing I think that should happen is that there should be more men on the battlefield at one time, which would probably require a more refined and complex command and control model etc. etc. This would be great for a patch or at least for Crusader Total War. The problem is now that reinforcements are of no consequence whatsoever-- if you win the initial bout, you slaughter reinforcements in 9 of 10 cases if you're smart, regardless of new reinforcement rules. This is an especial problem in the Mongol Campaign as the Japs, because no matter how superior your numbers are, if the enemy has at least 16 units it is essentially impossible to attack them (unless you cheat and automatically resovle it, hehehe).

Anyway, allowing for larger battles is the next natural step in the evolution of Total War games. The reinforcement system has always been totally bogus and nearly worthless. It's time for some more strategic and tactical flexibility!!

------------------
Khan7

Khan7

08-21-2001, 01:49

Incidentally, it is for this same reason that I have always scoffed at those who complained of playing the SP camapaign in the West and then going up against "unfairly" huge armies in the east.. if you can manage a troop quality advantage, and muster at least 16 good units for the attack, it doesn't matter if your bloated foe has a 10000-man army, you'll win and slaughter all who dare oppose you.

------------------
Khan7

Puzz3D

08-21-2001, 01:58

The way I'm going to handle this for now in the single player campaign is to fight the battle if there are 16 or less units involved, and auto-resolve the battle if there are more than 16 units in the province.

MizuYuuki

Swoosh So

08-21-2001, 03:02

Yep it is pretty crazy for example you invade a river province with say 34 units u get into the battle mode, withdraw your 3 or 4 weakest units now chances are you will have forces behind the enemy guarding the bride, geez ;-)

Swooooooooooosh

BSM_Skkzarg

08-21-2001, 06:54

From a historical perspective - MANY battles were fought where mere handfulls of men held strategic choke points against thousands of enemy. Not just in the far eastern theatre, but also in Europe and in the Middle East. Such historically heroic stands would never have been possible if enemy units had simply "popped" up on the other side of the choke point....
Thus the reinforcement handling is currently flawed.

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

KumaRatta Yamamoto

08-21-2001, 10:16

In the original STW, re-inforcements we're not a factor in a batle. Once you routed the first 16, you had to wait at the entry point and rout them also.

They tried another approach (that's good, they tried)and that does not cut it also. The re-inforcements are still not a factor in a battle. Now it is much more tedious, not really fun. I use the unrestricted camera option, saves me time. Will they fix-this in a patch? I don't know. Will they try and fix it for the next TW game? My guess is they will try something else out.

For my European friends reading this, i must add that the SP part of the add-on is really fun anyways (mongol campaign) and the best in it's genre on the market (The Add-on for the Sengoku period is worth the price itself for me).

MajorFreak

08-21-2001, 12:34

I don't know about all this "realism" 1337 sp33k, but i do know that holding a river at one point that decides a battle and not expecting the enemy to ford/raft/boat reinforcements to flank your force is sure lunacy.

It's going to make some fine battles worthy of a great haiku! (just bought the new version today. w00t!)

Algesan

08-21-2001, 19:42

Quote Originally posted by MajorFreak:
I don't know about all this "realism" 1337 sp33k, but i do know that holding a river at one point that decides a battle and not expecting the enemy to ford/raft/boat reinforcements to flank your force is sure lunacy.

It's going to make some fine battles worthy of a great haiku! (just bought the new version today. w00t!)[/QUOTE]

Actually, it does _not_ make for great battles. It makes for long battles. Oh yeah, in the Japanese campaigns you get to slaughter like a Mongol in the big battles, we won't even talk about what the Mongols get to do to the Hojo in the Mongol campaign.
It sure is cute to see units come on the map and rout right into my guns.....

As for reinforcements popping up on the defender's side of the bridge, this implies that you are a moron who cannot even remember to take the basic precaution of picketing other crossing points with a few troops, shinobi, peasants, etc.

Yomama

08-21-2001, 23:17

OKAY!! and Thank You all. Sometimes I got the feeling that my original post was taken as a 'gripe'. I was only asking how others were handling the issue!
STW is the best game I have played in many years and is by far my favorite. My wife is even humming the tunes around the house (she still hasn't gotten the 'gongs' right yet, though.
Actually, now that I expect the reinforcements, I can handle it...but it gets t e d i o u s. I vote the 'improvement' OUT only because of it's effect on gameplay. I do understand the argument for 'realism' but I am not convinced about the enemy being to my direct rear if I had (assumedly) just marched in from that direction.

ishikawa2

08-22-2001, 04:38

Yomama: I agree with your summary, and I think we agree on all the main points, particularly the one about it now making the battles tedious. (I was among the first to ask here about these issues, and I remain concerned.)

Surely there could be some "tuning" here...
(hopefully, the developers are listening...)

cheers.

Khan7

08-22-2001, 06:50

And just to finish it up:

In response to those who were referring to the enemy crossing at other points or going across in rafts:

Such factors would all be fine and dandy.. IF
they were simulated in the game. The game as it is has no rafts, and has no way of dealing with alternate crossing points that aren't directly represented on the map. Most importantly the river defender has no way to COUNTER such occurences, therefore making it an overdog-only trump which doesn't have a place in a well-balanced game.

A further note on river battles: the current way of dealing with reinforcements, as well as the much wider bridges of the x-pack, the dominant strategy for defense has now become to take out as many as you can with misslefire, then (as Sun Tzu says) strike when half (approximately) of their force has crossed and slaughter them if u can. In my experience the old strategy of setting a YS or Nagi on hold formation hold position at the mouth of the bridge no longer works due to the width of the bridge, and the lengthy, grinding battle it would lead to if it worked would only allow you to get wiped out by rear reinforcements.

------------------
Khan7

Algesan

08-22-2001, 09:03

Khan7, I disagree, especially if you have some NI. I have changed my force structure in river province I'm defending in. I cut back on a couple of missile units, dropped some YS and added a few shock/cav units. I try to keep SA or two out of the initial missile firing on the bridge. Bottling up the enemy on the bridge still seems the way to go since you get nice slaughter bonuses when they turn to run. The shock (ND/WM) and cav can actively pursue and destroy anything that shows up on your side with support from your reserve SA, while the remaining SA can either support your bridge defenders, assist the search and destroy in your rear or simply slaughter the routing troops as they try to run for the bridge.

Khan7

08-22-2001, 10:24

Another worthy strategy.. but here are the reasons why I developed mine-- basically it was the only way I was able to deal with the Mongol hordes early in the campaign. They will quickly overcome any YS or combination of YS units that try to block the bridge and then cause a severe dominoe rout and you lose before you can counterattack. But by pulling back so that my missle units would pound them as they crossed the bridge, and then the troops keep flooding over, and when the time looks right I countercharge from all directions and rout the heck out of them and chase them back halfway to Mongolia. This is a tactic I used against several hordes that were vastly superior in numbers, and of course being Mongols were vastly superior in quality, with an effectiveness that's hard to get when battling the hordes.

And I'm not sure if you were talking about meeting the enemy ON the bridge, but this has never worked for me (though I can't speak for your experiences). Then you are fighting on even terms. The best strats seem to use inherent advantages of the bridge-- either block them stubbornly at the opening to your side, or surround and counterattack their partially deployed force on your side. The stubborn blocking worked well in the old version with the narrower bridges.. but now the old Sun Tzu maneuver seems to work better (at least to me.. not that I've done enough tests to be sure).

------------------
Khan7

celtiberoijontychi

08-22-2001, 11:19

1st of all I haven't played the Xpac, I one of these unfortunate europeans

But I've read all threads on this issue, including target's one, wich i think is decissive since it explains the mechanics of reinforcements.

Actually, the AI inicially tries to set up reinforcements in the player's side, If there's danger, the AI will calculate the "safest" entry point for them. In most cases, this will be your rear.
This system has some inherent weaknesses:
You can trick the AI out: attack a bridge, route weaker units and attack with reinforcements from the rear. Or you leave one unit on strategic zones of the map, leaving only a few for the enemy to come in...

River battles: there's definitely a problem with this. If you defend a bridge against a Horde of 8,000 you are in a more difficult situation than defending in a normal map!!!
That's ridiculous! River defenses are supposed to be easier than open field battles. This leads me to the next issue:
In a normal battle, after you rout the original 16, you can kill all reinforcements if you stay on the enemys side and rout them. The routing units will run straight into your army! LOL

Result: Attacking ANY province (including provinces with rivers) against larger enemy armies has BECOME easier than defending a bridge. LOL That's insane.

Solutions:
Back to old system: was more coherent than now, but would be the worst solution

Reinforcements come only on player's side: Better than now

*You choose were and in what sequence your reinforcements come (within certain limitations): That'd be great

*Reinforcements coming fom different provinces arrive from certain sides (i.e. north, south, southwest etc.). So you can "surround" the enemy. The strategy map becomes this way truly "strategic".: That'd be great too. I've never understood why, no matter from wich side you attack a rive province, the enemy is always on the other side, even of you attack from several directions. In owari, if you attack from Ise and Mino, you should be able to appear from the enemys rear!

*reinforcements are available from the beginning as AI controlled armies, or even better: you switch between armies. When you control one, the AI controls the other. This would allow for really LARGE battles.

Several combinations of these solutions are possible, either simultaneously or as options. So you would really have to do STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, not just rush the map in a sequence of 1v1 battles. You would have to choose when to attack, from where, with how many armies, and wether you want them to fight simultaneously or come in later.

If you allow me to dream, the ideal thing would be a "reinforcements menu" in the battlemap. You may order crtain units from certain provinces to come in, or may order a whole AI-controlled army to enter the batlefield .... >>sigh - will we ever see this?

Hosakawa Tito

08-22-2001, 11:33

Kahn is dead on.Don't block the attacker at the bridge mouth against either Mongols or Japanese attackers.You subject your blocking forces to enemy range fire unnecessarily.Stay back out of arrow range and form your units to cover the flanks and front with your archers/gunners,backed up by your yari and melee troops.When the enemy units cross the bridge,let them come into the "kill box",pound them with arrows and bullets.Most will rout before reaching your units,the ones that don't you can mop up with your melee units.Don't chase them to the bridge right away,let them rout,reform and come back a few times.When the timing is right,you'll get a feel for it,then chase the routers over the bridge.The entire enemy army will suffer a rout cascade,and it will be very easy to send them all running.Chase them off the map,but not with every unit you have running pell mell,let 2-3 of your fastest units run quickly,have the others follow at a walk to conserve energy.I don't like leaving archers with no arrows alone on my side of the bridge due to the new way reinforcements enter the battlefield,if enemy Cav come from your rear your archers are meat.Move them all across and deal with any reinforcements from your rear as they appear.

------------------
Diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to hell so that they look forward to making the trip.

Khan7

08-22-2001, 11:47

Well, the issue with the no more direct blocking, for ME at least, is the new width of the bridge (and possibly the Mongol's ability to inflict a massive cascade rout if you try it). I've always regarded to exposure of the defensive unit to missle fire as one of the things that comes with the game-- it just means that you want to have your OWN missle units up there engaging the enemy like heck, and very much want to have a reserve YS/NI unit or two in reserve. Any missle casualties that your blocking unit would take was quite worth it in comparison to the effectiveness of the bottleneck, and could be mitigated with good action from your own missle units. But with the new bridge width one is forced to use more creative tactics. *sigh* the good 'ol days..

Celtibero: Kudos on a somewhat complete and very intelligent wish-list for stratego-tactical options. Now we can only hope someone listens..

------------------
Khan7

TakeshidaSo

08-22-2001, 12:30

I have to admit, I dont understand the explanation that reinforcements are making a logical decision to enter in such obviously scattered areas. It sounds like its just random. I havent seen any of this myself, but if reinforcements always appear on the flank and rear of your enemy that could be useful. However, before the battle, you should be able to choose whether your reinforcements attempt to do that, or whether they only come in at your rear edge. One strategic decision, regarding your SAFE or DARING use of your reinforcements. This would allow for the true definition of "Indirect Approach" to be implemented. The real problem with reinforcements is that routing units dont move away from enemy units, but just let themselves be slaughtered by stupidly moving right toward danger. If units can decide, based on enemy location, about where to arrive as a reinforcement, then surely they can decide to rout away from enemy units and THEN move towards their own mapedge. With this improvement a random scattering of reinforcements, or units that arrive as part of a planned "Indirect Approach", wouldnt be in danger of being ridiculously slaughtered for no intelligible reason.

Algesan

08-22-2001, 12:45

Actually I was speaking of meeting them at the end of the bridge. I do not want them getting off the bridge at all usually. I try not to fight on the bridge itself on defense. Of course, sometimes you get caught up in a meatgrinder as one unit routs and the new ones just moving into assault mode don't and you have a unit on the bridge. It sounds like you pull back a bit and let them start deploying to get a threeway slam on them. I have used that, but usually only when I'm out of missiles, the troops are getting tired and the horde is still coming. I'm trying to start chain routs as quickly as possible then. For killing with missile fire, keeping them on the bridge means that all your arrows fall in that small area and with several units crammed on there, you almost cannot miss.

Khan7

08-22-2001, 12:45

First of all: B.H. Lidell Hart, though a very intelligent man and a competent writer on many military matters, is as a big picture military theorist WEAK. I will leave it at that.

Second of all: Even BHL Hart would tell you that you don't need to come from the enemies rear to use an indirect approach in the game as it is. Indirect approach only implies doing the less expected, taking the path that is somewhat offcenter, and really is much more general than even this. I hope u see what I mean, I'm not sure if I said it real well.

Third of all: it's not that easy to manuever behind enemy lines, which is why only small groups of specially trained forces or guerillas living in the enemy's rear operate there. Surrounding an area and coming up from the different directions as Celti suggested works, even having an option of manuevering around pre-engagment to position yourself in such a way works (in theory), but without a full system to deal with this and the ability of your opponent to do the same and have a way of countering it this would not work. Suffice it to say that such a system would be quite complex and have specious gameplay value, and even if it were implemented 9 times out of 10 a competent opponent would prevent you from doing anything too fancy, so it's really a non-issue anyway. And remember too that things are as Clausewitz (and others including Sun Tzu in some form or another) has said: that a significant flanking manuever (i.e. this also includes surrounding etc.) can only be justified by a CLEAR superiority in numbers and/or mobility and/or lines of communication and retreat.

Anyway, there you are.

Edit: hmm, this is odd, Takeshida's initial post here and my post responding to that which his second post is responding to seem to have gone missing.. there should be two Takeshida posts not too far above this one of mine, in stead only one, and one of mine missing.. perhaps just a transient but I dunno.

------------------
Khan7

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 08-22-2001).]

MajorFreak

08-22-2001, 12:59

yeah know what? I couldn't care less about the philosophical debates...I just had an epic game. Truly hats off to the dev team for making this game glorious!! That reinforcement code just made my month! Talk about epic mopping up tasks...wow!

River Attack. Enemy Daimyo. Autumn
http://www.guidestone.com/files/temp/tmp/EpicShogun.gif
(expert level, of course. droool!!!)

TakeshidaSo

08-22-2001, 23:36

Khan, I had only posted once here, must be another night of too little sleep. I was suggesting how reinforcements might play a reasoned part in the game, as they would have in a real campaign, and they dont do now. The "Indirect Approach", one of the seven classical maneuvers of warfare, differs from a tactical envelopement in that secondary forces conduct a strategic envelopment. Obviously many factors are vital if this method is to succeed, and the risks impliciit in the manuever proved daunting to many commanders. My point was that this is the only classical tactical maneuver that cant currently be employed in this game engine, but it could be. Major, what part did Router Behavior play in that battle? I mean what if routing units FIRST tried to get away from the enemy, and THEN tried to get to their own mapedge? I know Bridge maps still have a choke point, but if routers are told to move away from the enemy, they might rally if you try to sit and block them.

Nelson

08-23-2001, 00:33

MajorFreak, your battles would be even more epic with 120 man units. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Quantity has a quality all it own.

Vanya

08-23-2001, 00:40

My only question is: why did you put armor on all your units except that poor lonely monk unit? Don't Buddha's envoys deserve better protection too?!?

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif LOL http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

What map was that, anyway? Nice battle pic...

DragonCat

08-23-2001, 01:46

After reading through this, I am astonished at how many times routing is mentioned. It would seem the morale is alive and well in the new game.

As for the reinforcements, it looks like the developers have the right idea, but a faulty implementation. Players have a way of causing situations the developers never imagined.

This is definitely something they will need to consider long and hard before patching.

------------------
DragonCat
"On the prowl . . . ."

celtiberoijontychi

08-23-2001, 02:25

Hi all

My description of how reinforcments work is a summary of target's explanation. This is how it is SUPPOSED to work. Maybe it doesn't work as designed.

The devs have said they will listen to what we say and eventually reflect our demands in the upcoming MI/WE patch.
So I propose we make suggestions on how reinforcments SHOULD work and try to agree on a solution and post it in the semiofficial "suggestions" thread here.

The_battlefield_geisha

08-23-2001, 02:52

I like the new reinforcements to some degree. My only problem is that they should form up to some degree before they assault you from behind. I can usually handle them (even in mid battle) when they trickle in. It would be nice if enemy armies that appeared on your side of the bridge crossing banded together into some kind of ad hoc formation. At least some of the time.

Also, it seems like the reinforcements should be called off if some large % of the enemy force is destroyed/routed at one time. Its too much like shooting fish in a barrel this way sometimes. The computer loses far more men than he can usually afford to when reinforcements arrive and find they are alone or widely scattered.

Target

08-23-2001, 03:37

Hey lads,

Thought I'd better say some words in my defence before you all find out where I live and lynch me.

The initial entry point where the reinforcements come on is random. They choose a spot on the battlefield and then look at how dangerous it would be to come on. If it's too dangerous, they move away from the spot until they feel comfortable about assembling on the field and then do so. This was to be the first stage of the reinforcement code ( together with the "cycle reinforcements" button - anyone use that? ) - something to test other aspects of the game and iron out bugs. Unfortunately, before I could shovel in more bits to make the mustering armies a bit more organised, I ran out of time and the game had to go.

As far as the armies trickling in is concerned, we wanted to make if feel as if the extra units has just arrived, but also stop them coming on one unit at a time. The reinforcements should frequently come on in packs of units, so they're strong enough to hold their own but not so massive that it feels like a whole other army has arrived.

Still, I'd be the first to admit that there's room for improvement - I'll do my best to fix it when I get the opportunity.

------------------
Quote MagyarKhans Cham:
i even suspect Target is coming here to hype things up.[/QUOTE]

TakeshidaSo

08-23-2001, 04:11

I agree that the old system for reinforcements appears to be better than the new one, with the current routing unit behavior. In WRG miniature rules, you could assign detached units to attempt to come on the map at the Left, Right, or the Rear edge. They came in within a range of turns, with the rear edge units taking longer, and with cavalry arriving sooner than lightly armored infantry, and those troops sooner than heavily armored infantry. This "Indirect Approach" was rarely employed, but was a good option in certain terrain, or weather. You could even have detached troops selected to arrive at your own edge, and even this was a good option under certain circumstances. Implementing these rules would have all detached, or reinforcing, units operating under the same set of options, decided before the battle. This places all units under realistic employment guidelines, instead the current reinforcements approach. Again, the problem with having this wonderful system for strategically employing units into the tactical battlefield, is the fact that, routing units dont behave in a way that really attempts to preserve themselves. The AI makes tactical decisions, reinforcements decide if its safe to arrive, and units are constantly determining range from friends and enemies for a number of factors. Routers already have a set of directional instructions. It's only necessary for routers to; FIRST move away from nearby enemy units, THEN towards their mapedge. This would certainly be a major improvement to the game engine, if both these ideas were implemented.

[This message has been edited by TakeshidaSo (edited 08-22-2001).]

TakeshidaSo

08-23-2001, 04:31

CAT,
I can only find a few referrances to routers in the above posts. One is about a bridge-fighting strategy that plans to slaughter routers. One is a general statement that independent reinforcements rout over the enemy, and die stupidly. One is a question of mine about whether routers played any role in a battle. One is the inferance from the battle log that possibly 2 units routed, because no unit icons are shown, yet a 7 and 8 man unit are listed. One is my statment that routers dont behave accurately, which I just made again. What astonishes me, is that you were astonished into believing that this all prooves; that there is no real evidence that the MI morale system is very different from the STW system. The statements referred to, dont seem to imply any support for that point of view at all. Maybe a more organized, responsible approach to the premise that MI's morale system is changed, for the better, would be more convincing.

[This message has been edited by TakeshidaSo (edited 08-22-2001).]

Vanya

08-23-2001, 04:34

This quote was overheard from a conversation between Mongols about the nature of Japanese soldiers:

"Your mama calls 'em 'Mili'... I call 'em 'picadilly'!"

hach

08-23-2001, 15:10

Yet to see the X-Pac so cannot comment on how good or bad reinforcements appearing at random are'but i have concern over timed games in SP.

You are under a time limit to take the province'but it will be a lot harder i would think to do within the time limit as you are constantly having to mop up these random reinforcements?

Hach

TakeshidaSo

08-23-2001, 23:52

Well, as long as there are enough enemy troops to continually reinforce a province, wouldnt that mean you should have difficulty taking it?

[This message has been edited by TakeshidaSo (edited 08-23-2001).]

Algesan

08-24-2001, 00:19

Takeshido, IMO there is a difference, which I won't yet call a problem, with MI/WE morale compared to STW. Routing can occur and chain routing still exists, but units are tougher early on in a battle. All the original factors appear to exist, some are more important, some are less. The reason the reinforcements are routing so much come from several of these factors: death/rout of Taisho, lack of units in support, lots of dead friendly bodies. I have had a few battles where I killed units so quickly that reinforcements were trickling on from many sides of the map at once. This situation takes a bit more work than just toss a unit at them and send another to slaugher the routers. You have to actually put in an assault with flanking and missile fire to get them started, but they rout real fast so it is not a big deal.

Target, I'm going to guess that you and your partners are not happy with the current state of STW as it was being driven by business decisions. Perhaps as you work on CTW you can keep STW in mind, thereby allowing for relatively easy patching to STW as you build improved features into CTW.

celtiberoijontychi

08-24-2001, 02:30

Did you red the same thing i read inTarget's post?

"cycle reinforcments - ever used it?"

What is this "Cycle reinforcments" button?
Never heard a word about it.

------------------
Long live Celtiberos
Glory and Honour to Clan Celtiberos

TakeshidaSo

08-24-2001, 06:59

I have to guess just like you have to. All we know is that a planned approach to reinforcements was replaced with a random one. I hope that "cycle reinforcements", and his note about continuing to work on it, means that reinforcements, and even detached troops, can be instructed before the battle about where they should appear. That these detached\reinforcing troops can be introduced onto the tactical battlefield thru the use of strategic decisions. This is how they can integrate the strategic part of the game with the tactical part, in a logical way.

celtiberoijontychi

08-25-2001, 01:31

Quote Originally posted by Target:
This was to be the first stage of the reinforcement code ( together with the "cycle reinforcements" button - anyone use that? ) - something to test other aspects of the game and iron out bugs. Unfortunately, before I could shovel in more bits to make the mustering armies a bit more organised, I ran out of time and the game had to go.

[/QUOTE]

This means this Cycle reinforcments - button has alreay been implemented, maybe as an option in the menu that appears when you right-click a unit. Please check and confirm this!

Algesan

08-25-2001, 06:18

No such button exists AFAIK, in fact I just ran a battle and routed 2 units off the map at the beginning. I ended fighting the battle almost to the end short two units, then I accidently did a mass charge and routed the enemy. Couldn't find any sort of spare "button" for reinforcements. Probably it is something Target was working on when it got sent out the door.

TakeshidaSo

08-25-2001, 23:18

But at least the mention of a "cycle reinforcements" option tells us that a planned approach to using reinforcements in some logical way was scrapped in lieu of just a random entry plan. It was also left that work may, or may not be continuing on this feature. Hope isnt something to be wasted. However, with the current behavior of routing units being illogical anyway, theres no real need for a wonderful use of reinforcements to dramatically improve the integration of the strategic map with the tactical one.

henryh

08-26-2001, 03:22

Wow yes, reinforcements have definetely changed, first time it happened my rout chasing cavalry ran out of gas and where routed in turn. Now I tend to work, on the basis of a tactical reserve ( ie leaving a good number of troops idle ) I used this tactic a lot on those hill defences keeping a few reserves with the missle troops for sake of keeping some folks fresh

celtiberoijontychi

08-26-2001, 10:58

Maybe my english is worse than I thought, but when Target says

"cycle-reinforcements button- anyone use it?"

I'm, sure this means there's such a button. Again, have you checked the little menu that appears when u right click a unit?

Maybe this button is activated in the game options?
If there's no such thing, then ask Target if some of you have a way to contact him

TakeshidaSo

08-26-2001, 11:49

I think "cycling reinforcements" already indicates that CA had the plan to use reinforcements in a logical, and strategically controlled way. I support that effort, and I hope they will complete the task, and so do they by the sound of it. I suggested adding the possibility of detaching forces from the main body to the reinforcement plans, and allowing for these "secondary" forces to enter the map within certain areas that were predetermined by the player. Using secondary forces in a planned way allows for a strategic envelopment. This integrates the strategic and tactical parts of the game. The current random approach is just a stopgap measure anyway. If its easier to program secondary units to enter from a map area that is determined before the battle, so much the better. If all units in the army are chosen as main, or secondary, forces before the battle, then control over which units deploy at the start is also allowed. This feature has been requested by many people, but is just a part of this planned reinforcements approach.

Algesan

08-26-2001, 12:26

Quote Originally posted by celtiberoijontychi:
Maybe my english is worse than I thought, but when Target says

"cycle-reinforcements button- anyone use it?"

I'm, sure this means there's such a button. Again, have you checked the little menu that appears when u right click a unit?

Maybe this button is activated in the game options?
If there's no such thing, then ask Target if some of you have a way to contact him[/QUOTE]

Yes, I checked the right click menu. Just finished reading the manual on commanding armies and nothing in there either. I think Target was being sarcastic about how some of the work was not fully finished on the MI/WE.

celtiberoijontychi

08-26-2001, 23:25

thank you.

celtiberoijontychi

08-27-2001, 08:11

I just read this in another thread on reinforcements:

"the 'swap out' feature is the new icon that appears to the right of the 'fire at will' toggle icon once the weather is selected for a battle (on the screen that has the message box telling you to select a formation). It's the only icon available on attack before you select a unit to give it its specific hold/fire at will commands (therefore, the only in color) and it's a black background with two rows of three soldiers with a red arrow curving from one to the other.
I only discovered it when glancing around the screen before a battle...took me delightfully by surprise. One of the many things people wished for and most probably don't even know it exists. "

So it really exists! LOL I think you should do some testing !!

Target plz explain how it works.

------------------
Long live Celtiberos
Glory and Honour to Clan Celtiberos