A few observations about NapoleonTW for discussion

First, let me say that I am enjoying the game immensely--having logged over 165 hour of game play in the last two weeks according to that stats on Steam. (I'm retired, so I can play all day if i wish) This version has both polish and superior immersion when compared to it's predecessor. Empire is fun, but it still crashed a lot after 5 patches, and I'm not sure I can return to a game that forces me to use GPU drivers that are at least a year old. Napoleon has not crashed once since I've had it.

However, here are just a few observations, that while not problems for me, raise interesting points for discussion.

First of all, I have yet to see the B.A.I use a structure in Napoleon.

This was pretty common in Empire although they toned it down a bit in one of the patches. I actually got a kick out of using my arty to take out those structures although I'm glad they reduced the frequency in the patch.

I also don't think I have ever seen the B.A.I. use breastworks in either game---only chevaux-de-frises for the infantry and gabions for the artillery

The biggest thing is that other than fort assaults I don't think I have ever seen the B.A.I. stage a pure defense either. In other words whether I am attacking or defending in a field battle or town assault without a fort, I am basically always defending. The enemy is generally going to head toward my lines regardless of whether they are vastly outnumbered and outgunned.

Other than forts, the one exception to this seems to have been when the enemy had superior or at least equal artillery power to mine in the field. In this case I have actually seen them hold their position as if to defend until I somehow upset that balance. Once I gained artillery superiority, they always attacked. Of course this simulates common sense that they would be foolish to simply set back and let my long range guns cut them to pieces while my army set back in safety. This mechanic may have started in Medieval II when everybody complained about the overly passive B.A.I. which disappeared in one of the early patches.

I'm not particularly complaining about this--just making the observation. I'm not sure I want to go back to those days of Shogun and Medieval 1 when even if I attacked an inferior force that had a great defensive position, I still had to figure out how to assault their static lines without losing half my army in the process---and attacking at a bridge was worst. Bridges have always been great for the defender, but problematic for an attacker. I got to where I almost dreaded them in Shogun if I was attacking.

In Napoleon, river defenses are a so easy that it allows me to defeat forces twice my size. I had one such battle south of Madrid where my French forces of 1289 men held off two Spanish armies totalling 3304 men. The Spanish took 2440 losses to my 123. However, because of the above mentioned game mechanic, I was defending because I had superior artillery including several howitzers. I'd hate the thought of attacking across the river against a B.A.I. that could defend it properly---much less trying it against a human opponent.

Your thoughts?


P.S. I am only referring to the main campaign battles and not any of the scripted battles

bridge battles suck imho. for a few reasons. the map always looks more or less the same with a bridge in one corner and a shallow in the other and an island in the middle. it is always a straight river without any meanders. but besides that it is easy to defend it and the AI barely ever occupies bridges. when defending u just create a bottle neck with some artillery on schrapnel skirmishers and line on the flank. they march in and get ripped to pieces within moments. they almost always attack the shallow and leave the bridge... which is oke because the bridges are ridicilously narrow. no army general would march an army over there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

bridge battles suck imho. for a few reasons. the map always looks more or less the same with a bridge in one corner and a shallow in the other and an island in the middle. it is always a straight river without any meanders. but besides that it is easy to defend it and the AI barely ever occupies bridges. when defending u just create a bottle neck with some artillery on schrapnel skirmishers and line on the flank. they march in and get ripped to pieces within moments. they almost always attack the shallow and leave the bridge... which is oke because the bridges are ridicilously narrow. no army general would march an army over there.

---

We are saying pretty much the same thing and I use the same tactic, but I don't mind that they are easy. I actually kind of enjoy them since I like to see how big a kill score I can ring up versus small losses on my side.

I have actually played one map where there was no bridge--only two shallow crossings, and I have also had a couple of the river defenses where the bulk of the enemy came across the bridge instead of the shallows. The results were an even worse slaughter because one could not see the floor of the bridge for all the bodies piled up.

There are usually also a couple of high river embankments toward the center of both sides of the river that will allow me to park my general, most of my cav, and my howitzers safe from any counter battery fire. Since the howitzers are protected, but are still in the range of the crossings, they help thin out lots of enemy even before they walk into the hail of canister and small arms fire set up just as you describe.

Still, my main point was that if the B.A.I actually knew how to defend one of these river crossings like it did in Shogun, it could be a heck of a challenge.

About the BAI not wanting to defend. It's a little complicated.

First, it seems like if the AI is on defense, it will still attack you IF it has the advantage in the "balance bar" thingy. If your blue bar is over 50%, then it will stay put. This is a bit too predictable and I hope it's tweaked a bit in a patch or mod, but I can't say I totally object to this. It will, however, readjust its line to match yours if you move off to the side or something.

Second, even if it stays put, it will still start to move once you get close enough to it's army, which I definitely approve of. The BAI seems to strongly favor flanking maneuvers and whatnot over just sitting in one spot and 100% defending, and I personally like it.

I sometimes wish the BAI would be slightly more passive on defense . . . that said, the worst thing you can do in a multiplayer battle, is just sit there and let the other player run around and attack at will . . . I suspect the AI has been set up to be aware of this basic fact.

I agree with your observations regarding the B.A.I. it seems very strange that it would be set up that way. I actually would rather be on defense than offense but for game realism in the main campaign it should not be this way. And I'm sure many agree the river crossing that were defended in Shogun were brutal and not much fun. I don't think I'm enjoying NTW as much as yourself and some other players mainly because of issues with special units not available just because a person didn't pre order the game, it's just not right. I also had hoped that the TW series would continue to improve but it hasn't in my opinion in terms of strategy. It's the same old thing, ya have to wait until you've almost won to gain the better units and at that point they really don't matter all that much. Example Old Guard units, you get one if you play Napoleon in the Europe campaign and have to wait for a long time to get just 3 more. As I've said in other posts. Napoleon had thousands of troops and NTW just doesn't really represent this. Lets face it having 20 units and say a max of 160 per unit really doesn't give a player in my opinion much strategy options. Most commanders keept a reserve force behind the lines in this era. In 1805 Napoleon fought the Battle of Austerlitz and had thousands of troops. I know the program can not give players command of 160,000 troops that would be ridiculous and not practical. However they could increase the size of Armies to say 30 or 40 units and give a player controll of a reinforcement group the same size. Anyway I play the game and enjoy it somewhat. I'm just hoping the TW series gets better, maybe a remake of Shogun where you could defend a castle like in RTW that would be great.

The AI will occupy buildings. It does so carefully and usually gets out before the building falls to cannon fire.

The biggest deciding factor I have seen, as to if the AI attacks or defends is its artillery. If it has equal or better artillery it is happy to pound you with it.

If you take out a couple of their guns they attack.

On defense they are always redeploying to avoid being flanked.

It does the best it can, being only dumb AI and only reacts to what the player does.

yeah i've noticed that about artillery too